three
esyim
problem_of_evil.pptProblem of Evil
Hans Memling
1430-1494
“Hell”
- Originally spelled “Yfel” in Old English (Anglo-Saxon)
- Used in works like The Canterbury Tales, and The Holie Bible of 1609 (trans. from Latin Vulgate)
- Also spelled Ubils (Gothic), Ubil (Old High German), Evel (Old Frisian), and Ifel (Middle English)
- The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
- That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: e.g., a leader's power to do both good and evil.
- An evil force, power, or personification.
- Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: e.g., the social evils of poverty and injustice.
- Christianity: A Lack of Good (privitio boni, Augustine)
- Islam: Sin and Unbelief (kifr, “forgetting the truth”; Iblis)
- Judaism: Disobedience and Forsaking God (tabula rasa)
- Buddhism: Ignorance and the cycle of samsara
- Hinduism: “Maya” or “Illusion.” “Good and evil of this world of duality are unreal, are spoken of by words, and exist only in the mind” (Bhagavatam 11, ch 22)
- Jainism: Intentions and Actions that lead to “karmic bondage” (Irrationality, non-restraint, carelessness, negative passions, and activities of the mind)
- Zoroastrianism: Angra Mainyu (“Evil spirit”), Druj (“The Lie”), and Bad Daena (“Thoughts, words, and deeds)
- Manichaeism (A dualistic religious system with Christian, Gnostic, and pagan elements, founded in Persia in the 3rd century by Manes): Ontological Dualism, Matter, and even Life are evil (“And if a man walks on the ground, he damages the earth. And whoever moves his hand causes damage to the air,” Iain Gardner, pg 185)
- LeVeyan Satanism: Evil is Good (Evil is “Live” backwards). Indulgence, selfishness, and egoism are good.
- Christian Science: Matter is evil and is an illusion. “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet)
- Gnosticism: Matter is evil because it is a creation of the demiurge
Religious Definitions
| Ontological | Psychological |
| Metaphysical | Biochemical |
| Supernatural | Mental |
| Real | Unreal |
| Mind-Independent | Mind-Dependent |
| Part of Reality | Projected from mind |
| More than a word | Just a word |
Tertium quid refers to an unidentified third element that is in combination with two known ones.
The phrase is associated with alchemy. It is Latin for "third thing", a translation of the Greek tríton ti .
The Greek phrase was used by Plato (360 BC), and by Irenaeus (c. AD 196).
The earliest Latin example is by Tertullian (c. 220), who used the phrase to describe a mixed substance with composite properties such as electrum, a somewhat different sense than the modern meaning.
- Process philosophy thinks of evil as “real” but not “supernatural.”
- The reality of Evil is not independent from the mind (insofar as God has “mind”)
- Evil is a byproduct of freedom, is located in human acts, and is destructive
- Alfred North Whitehead: "destruction as a dominant fact in the experience" is the correct definition of evil” (Adventures in Ideas, 333)
Process Thought: A Tirtium Quid?
“Yet, even for process thought, God bears a certain responsibility for evil. It is because of God's grace that human beings are free. Much of the evil of the Holocaust expresses the misuse of human freedom. There could be no misuse if there were no freedom to misuse. God has taken a great risk in bringing into being creatures with the amount of freedom human beings have” (John B. Cobb)
John B. Cobb and David Ray Griffin founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought
“God is responsible for there being creatures with the high degree of creative power that we have. In this sense, and only in this sense, is God responsible for the sin and suffering in the world. Without creatures with the power of conscious self-determination, there could be no sin.”
(“Intrinsic Powers and The Problem of Evil”)
Natural and moral
Moral evil: evil which results from a moral agent misusing his or her freewill such that the agent is blameworthy for it. It includes human actions as well as character traits.
Natural evil: evil which results from natural phenomena and is not brought about by the free will of a moral agent. It includes natural disasters and certain human illnesses.
Gratuitous and Horrendous
Gratuitous evil: evil in the form of suffering that is preventable and pointless.
Examples: a woman diagnosed with cancer; a daughter killed by her mother’s automobile; a fawn trapped in a fire.
Horrendous evil: evil which, when experienced by someone, gives that person reason to doubt that their life, as experienced, could be taken to be a great good for them on the whole.
Example: a woman who is raped, dismembered, starved, and forced to choose which of her children will die at the hands of terrorists.
- They assert the claim that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time:
God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
An all powerful being cannot be limited.
God is omniscient (all-knowing)
An all knowing being would know how to prevent evil.
God is omnibenevolent (all-good)
A all good being would not want evil.
Evil exists
- Any two or three of them might be true at the same time; but, it is impossible for all to be true.
- (1) through (4) are logically inconsistent claims
- What does it mean when it is stated that claims are logically inconsistent?
Claims are logically inconsistent if
two or more claims are contradictory
p & not-p
a direct contradiction might be deduced from that set of claims.
Two (or more) statements that do not have even one line on their respective truth tables where the main operators are true (but they can be false) at the same time.
(Baronett’s Logic)
1. If God exists, then God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good.
2. An all-powerful being would have the power to eliminate evil.
3. An all-knowing being would have the knowledge to eliminate evil.
4. A wholly-good being would have the desire to eliminate evil.
5. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly-good being would eliminate evil.
6. Evil exists.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.
1. If God exists, then God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good.
2. An all-powerful being would have the power to eliminate evil (?).
3. An all-knowing being would have the knowledge to eliminate evil (?).
4. A wholly-good being would have the desire to eliminate evil (?).
5. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly-good being would eliminate evil (?).
6. Evil (?) exists.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.
Evaluation of the Form
&
Verification of the Premises
If God exists (G), then God is all-powerful (X), all-knowing (Y), and wholly good (Z)
If G, then G is X, Y, Z
G
Therefore, G is X, Y, Z
| 1. Conjectural Statements | |
| An all-powerful being (X) would have the power [so as] to eliminate evil (E) | X would have the power and would eliminate evil |
| An all-knowing being (Y) would have the knowledge [so as] to eliminate evil (E) | Y would have the knowledge and would eliminate evil |
| A wholly-good being (Z) would have the desire [so as] to eliminate evil (E) | Z would have the desire and would eliminate evil |
| 2. Conjectural Claim: An [all-powerful (X), all-knowing (Y), and wholly-good being (Z)] would eliminate evil (E) | |
| 3. Argument | |
| If God is X, Y & Z, then ~E | |
| ~(~E) = E | |
| ~(God is X, Y & Z) | [This claim should be interpreted as indicating only that the XYZ would not eliminate evil since evil does exist. The non-existence or non-ontical status of God is not established on the basis of the non-elimination of evil.] |
When we compare the claim that God does not exist and the claim that God is not all-powerful (X), all-knowing (Y) and a wholly-good being (Z), we see that there is a contradiction. Here is that contradiction:
God exists (G) [but is not X,Y and Z] and God does not exist (~G).
(G) and (~G) or [G & -G]
| Evil exists (E) | ~(~E) = E |
| Therefore, God does not exist (~G) | ~(God is X, Y & Z) |
Evil exists (E)
Therefore, God does not exist (~G)
That is not an argument; so, let’s construct the parts into an argument.
If E, then ~G
E
Therefore, ~G
| Evil exists (E) | ~(~E) = E |
| Therefore, God does not exist (~G) | ~(God is X, Y & Z) |
If E, then ~G
E
Therefore, ~G
In order for the synthesis E and ~G, it is necessary to present this disjunctive syllogism:
Either evil does not exist (~E) or God does not exist (~G)
It is not the case that Evil does not exist (~E).
Therefore, it is the case that God does not exist (~G).
Either ~E or ~G
~(~E) = E
Therefore, ~G
- What is the reason why the disjunction is necessary?
- Why are there only two alternatives?
- Why is it not possible for both?
- According to the synthetic premise, the existence of evil is the condition for the non-existence of God.
- Thus, it is necessary to establish the claim that it is impossible for both evil and God to be existent simultaneously.
- How would we know that the co-existence of both is impossible?
Draper’s objection: establishing that the existence of a particular evil and the existence of God are incompatible cannot be accomplished
Plantinga’s free will defense: it is possible that God would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures
Shortened form:
If an all-knowing, all-powerful, and wholly-good God exists, then such a God could and would create the best of all possible worlds
Due to the existence of evil in the world, it is improbable that this is the best of all possible worlds
Thus, it is improbable that God exists
Leibniz’s lapse:
if a person has a libertarian “free will” then there are certain worlds that even an all powerful Being could not create
Argument
Objections
Large amounts of evil exist which God, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being, would have prevented without losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil
God would have prevented the evils which exist, unless God might not do so without losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil
Therefore, God does not exist
1. We cannot make moral judgments about God
2. God can use evil and suffering for our “greater good”
3. Open theism and gratuitous evil are compatible
Problem
The existential feel of certain kinds of evil sometimes leads to disbelief in God or religious belief in general
Reply
The problem is not an argument
Theodicy is an attempt to justify ways of God since there is evil in this world which was created by God:
Augustine’s Free Will Theodicy
Hick’s Irenaean (soul-making) Theodicy
Process Theodicy
Based on an understanding of The Fall – Genesis 3
Borrowing St Paul’s interpretation of The Fall in Romans 5:12-20
Augustine argues that sin and death entered into the world through the disobedience of our first parents
This brought about a disorder in our nature and a disorder in Creation
The fault was not God’s but those persons
It became a ‘happy’ fault in the end because it caused the bringing about of a great redeemer, Jesus Christ
From the original disorder caused by man’s sin God brings about a new order made possible by the grace of Jesus Christ
This is the view that evil is the result of man’s misuse of his free will beginning with Adam and continuing ever since
Evil is traceable to man, not to God
However, the ultimate origin of evil can be traced to the misuse of free will by Satan, an angel who rebelled against God in heaven
This act of disobedience and pride led to the infection of Creation with all sorts of evil
God could have prevented this evil by creating human beings and angels without free will
That also would mean that they would not be free to choose to love Him and be in a relationship with Him
No choice = No real relationship
It becomes nothing but a relationship of a puppet maker and his puppets who can only ‘live’ when he moves the strings
God did not want to do this and risks the potential of evil due to free will
He tries to ‘redeem’ the situation by offering a rescue package and by bringing good out of evil in His own mysterious way
Critique:
This has given rise to a debate about whether free will necessarily involved its misuse
JL Mackie have tried to argue that God could have created beings whose natures were such that they would always freely choose good
This raises the obvious question that if people are programmed always to choose good, how can they be genuinely free?
John Hick and Richard Swinburne:
Evil and suffering are necessary elements of the world for people to develop the higher virtues of courage, self-giving (the giving of the self and not giving to the self), love and compassion
Seems to fit in more with the Irenaean Theodicy but
Offers a second perspective on the Free Will Defence
In this view the genuine freedom to choose between good and evil is a requirement for the development of moral virtue and therefore forms a justifiable ‘defence’ of the existence of evil
Weakness of the Free Will Defence
It ignores these claims:
So much evil is often unjustifiably caused to others through one person’s misuse of free will
The misuse of free will by our first parents, or rebellious angels, in the absense of a ‘sinful nature’ cannot easily be explained
If God is omniscient He can hardly be excused responsibility from knowing the consequences of how His creatures would act
Huw Parri Owen (Christian Theism, 1984)- Free will defence is unable to offer much comfort to the people who are most involved in the problem of evil, those who suffer
Does Augustine’s theodicy work?
Appears to be noticeably impersonal
Emphasis is on justice, the restoration of a balance
Evil = something which man deservedly brings on himself and can therefore be seen as punishment by God
Leaves a number of big questions unanswered
Why is there an imbalance of evil?
Why do some have to bear a larger share than others for no apparent reason?
It fails to account for the origin of evil at the beginning of man’s life in the world
Does Augustine’s theodicy work?
Evolutionary history says that evil precedes man therefore the Fall is not a satisfactory explanation
If God created man perfect at the beginning of his history and then falls from perfection, why in the redeeming work of Christ didn’t God restore man to perfection to eliminate evil and suffering this side of heaven?
Perfect redemption would mean the now and not just that which is to come
Revived by John Hick in ‘Evil and the God of Love’, 1966
The world is the way it is to achieve God’s plan and purpose
i.e. to test man so that he develops the qualities necessary to be a noble soul
The world is therefore seen as ‘a veil of soul-making where physical and moral evil play their part in enabling man to grow into the sort of creature fit for his salvation’
Irenaeus said that man was first made in God’s image- Genesis 1:26, but it was God’s plan to make him grow into God’s likeness- Genesis 1:26
For this to happen man had to be tested
This life provides the ideal conditions for this to happen
Man is given evil and suffering to enable him to develop the character qualities that will enoble him: courage, generosity, kindness, and love
Part of this test is the ‘epistemic’ distance that evil creates between man and God
This means that man lives in a kind of fog which makes God’s presence difficult to see and therefore makes faith more virtuous
The story of the Fall is a mythological account of man’s testing
Its outcome made it necessary for Christ to come
In order to set an example that man to follow
To show him how to find his true salvation with the help of grace
Does Irenaeus’ Theodicy work?
Has the advantage that it works better than the Augustinian theodicy with the facts of evolution
It allows for the idea of growth and development to achieve moral virtue
But it does not easily explain why Adam and Eve failed when they were not at an epistemic distance from God
Why they were held fully responsible by God even though they were supposedly at an immature stage of moral development and might therefore be excused for their fall
Another problem is that it’s not only saying that suffering is ‘good for you’ ! ! ! ! !
But without suffering great virtue cannot be achieved
This is often put forward to justify physical evil- earthquakes, famine, disease, and so on
Richard Swinburne in ‘The Existence of God’, 1979, argues that the world needs to have evil in it for man to develop morally
This overlooks three awkward facts:
That many people can claim to have lived moral lives without having suffered
Many who have suffered have been dehumanised by it
The view that suffering is good is difficult to square with Jesus’ attitude towards suffering (in Luke 4:18f shows Jesus trying to eliminate suffering as a fulfilment of one of the signs of the messianic age.
Critique:
The seemingly senseless and random occurrence of evil causes a real difficulty with a theist definition of God
For many, neither of these theodicies on their own have much practical value in helping a person to cope with evil
For believers, much of the theodicies are blended together to help answer the mystery of evil and suffering
Distinctive religious world view developed by A.N. Whitehead (1861-1947)
David Griffin developed the Process Theodicy from this world view
Different to the others
Accepts David Hume’s view that evil is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, all loving God
It starts from the assumption that God is NOT omnipotent
Since God is not omnipotent, He did not create the universe
The universe is an ‘uncreated process which includes the deity’
i.e. God is part of the world and bound by natural laws
God’s role in creation was limited to starting off the evolutionary process
This process has led to the development of humans to exert their own influence on the world
God no longer has total control since humans are free to ignore God
They have very limited knowledge of God’s will since He did not fashion them after His own likeness
God suffers when evil is committed
Follows naturally from the fact that God is part of the world, affected by it, yet unable to control it
Whitehead describes God as ‘fellow sufferer who understands’
Although God is not powerful enough to stop evil He must bear some responsibility for it since it was God who started off the process of evolution that He knew He would be unable to control
The theodicy needs to explain why God took such a risk
Does this by arguing that the universe has produced enough quantity and quality of good to outweigh evil
i.e. given a choice between the universe we live in and no universe at all the former is preferable
This, it is argued, justifies God’s work
Does Process Theodicy work?
For those who like this theodicy it has several advantages
It removes the stumbling block of why an all loving and omnipotent God doesn’t stop suffering by saying that He can’t
For many the fact that God suffers may be encouraging because it means that God can personally experience what they’re going through
Within the process scheme there is no certainty that God will triumph in the end. It may encourage others then to join in the fight against evil and secure victory. To do nothing would result in disaster for all
There are also severe critiques:
This is not a theodicy at all
Theodicy = a justification of God in the face of evil
Since PT takes away the concept of omnipotence it does not justify Him at all
It denies the God of classical theism
This conclusion is simply unacceptable to many on religious and philosophical grounds
Would a being with such limited power be worthy of worship?
While for some the uncertainty of the future could encourage a fight to overcome evil, for others it may simply fill them with despair
If God cannot guarantee anything, what is the point of human effort?
Conclusion:
No universally accepted solution to the problem of evil
Two sharply contrasting responses to the problem of evil and suffering: theism and atheism
For some, evil and suffering is a denial of the existence of God, compels the rejection of a God who they cannot exonerate for allowing some evils to happen
For others, they have managed to retain their faith and even found their faith strengthened through theodicies and an acceptance of an element of mystery. ‘Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love Him.’ -St Paul
Which of the theoretical problems of evil do you find most compelling? Are the solutions offered satisfactory? Explain.
Is evil a problem for the atheist? Why or why not?
Explore the way a particular non-theistic worldview accounts for evil and suffering. What are some similarities with this way of understanding evil and suffering and theistic descriptions? What are some differences?
