The Problem of Evil
Types of Evil
The Response to the Probelm of Evil
Moral Evil-refer to acts committed by human beings, such as murder theft,rape,etc. It can refer also to evil that comes from human inaction E.g., where someone does not act to help another person who is in danger, trouble,etc
Solution 3-Denying that evil exists-This was proposed by St Augustine of Hippo-who argued that Evil is a “Privation bone”-a privation or lack of good. This means evil does not exist in its own right, but is a lack of any kind of Good. For example darkness is an a science of light.
Natrual evil is what the world does to us through things such as disease starvation,storm,flood,earthquake and tsunami. Where moral evil is done by other people’s intentions, natrual evil is generally seen as being produced by the chance operation of the laws of nature, a flood,does not intend to drown you, but if you are in the path of flood water, that is a likely consequence.
Suffering is the mental or physical pain\hardship/distress brought about by both moral and natural evil. Both moral and natrual evil lead to mental suffering, such as misery, heartache, terror, panic and hopelessness
Natrual Evil defined is what the world does to us, this can include drought,death,disease,earthquakes,famine,flood,Forrest fire, and volcanoes. A modern example of a Natrual evil was the Sichuan earthquake which killed around 70,000 people and left around 5 million homeless. Natrual disasters are often the most difficult form of evil for religious people to accept. Whereas moral evil can always be put down to human fee, Natrual evil cannot.
The obvious seat of blame is Goc, because it should be easy for an omnipotent God to control the forces of nature, particularly since most Christians believe that God created the laws of nature in the first place. Moreover in the Bible God uses Natrual evils as a form of a punishment. For example the plagues were intended to pursuade the Egyptian Pharoah to let the Hebrew slaves go free. In the new-Testement this is slightly different as Jesusninstead preforms miracles over over the world of nature, he heals people from disease such as Blindness and leprosy, he also miraculously multiplies bread,fish and wine, and he calms the forces of wind and sea on Lake Galilee in order to save the disciples from drowning. The point therefore stands that if Gid controls Natrual evils 2,000 years ago, why does he not control them now.
click to edit
Human beings are regarded as moral agents. The word agent in this phrase refers to any being capable of acting in accordance with what is right and wrong. Moral evil refers to any action where the moral agent uses their will to bring about morally bad consequences. Moral evils include rape,torture,bullying,cruelty,arson, or on a collective level Genocide which has been brought about by a group of people. This was shown in the 1994 Rwandese Genocide,which killed 85% of the Rwanden Tutsi tribe.
The logical problem of Evil,
The problem of Evil is expressed in three statements
1-God is omnipotent
2-God is omnibenevolent
3-Evil exists
These three statements are known as the “inconsistent triad”-that is three statements that contain an inconsistency-that they cannot all be true. This arises from the fact that an all-powerful God would obviously be able to remove evil, and all-loving God would presumably wish to remove evil,yet evil exists.
Solution 2-Denying God’s omnibenevolence-For most Christians this solution is unthinkable. The belief that God is both good and loving supports those who experience evil, and that is the basis for the future hope of heaven. It is the basis of the final great expression of hope, for those who suffer in the Bible, that
Solutions 1-Denying God’s omnipotence- If God is not omnipotent, then the solution is simple. He is not able to control evil, and so cannot be blamed for its continued existence. This is in fact the preferred solution of Process Theology, which holds that evil is a process within matter that is beyond God’s direct control.
Solutions which argue that there is a sufficient reason why God allows evil to exits
John Hick’s eschatological solution-Eschtology is the theology of what will happen at the end of the Universe. According to Hick god has all the time he wants to bring people to God, so in the end everybody wil reach God’s kingdom. In this case, evil is a necessary part of the process by which we become fit for heaven
1-The “Free will”defence-this argues that God has to allow evil in order to preserve free-will. The good has to be freely choose. In order to preserve free will. In order to bring about the goods in life such as love and compassion, we have to be free to choose the posing vices of hatred and heartlessness. If God contoured evil, there would be no freedom. Humans are therefore morally responsible for moral evil and God is not.
There are mainly of evil which supply such evidence against God. Firstly there is the fact that Evil is overwhelming in quantity and quality. Second there is the piping that evil is pointless because it serves no useless purpose.
Further arguments for the evidential problem of Evil
Russian writer Dostoevsky presented further arguments in the case of the evidential problem of Evil in the example of extreme brutality towards a weeping horse,and of children.
Free Will Defense
The Free Will Defense is a theodicy that states that God has given up control over human actions in order to bring about a greater good. By giving up control of what humans do. God has given them free will, so humans can make their own decisions and are responsible for their own actions. As a result, they can develop qualities that are valuable in themselves. In this Defense pain is the stimulus for this development, however the possibility of developing positive qualities is matched with the possibility of developing negative ones. The problem with all of this is obvious, free will comes at en enormous price, because genuine free will necessarily includes the permission to do evil, the ability to do evil and the opportunity to do evil. Take any of these three away and free will in relation to God is only an ilsuion.
Free wil as presented on the accounts of John Mackie
John Mackie was an atheist who wrote his criticism of the Free Will Defense in his satirically names book, “Miracle of Theism”. One of Mckies’s main reasons for believing that God does not exist is the Problem of Evil. Mackie presents this by constructing his own version of the free-will-Defense,and then rejecting it.
Mackie’s) account of free will defense
1-We can refer to happiness and pleasure as first order good, for example someone who is experiencing the pleasure of reading a good book or eating a delicious meal is in a state of first-order -good.
3-First order evils include headaches,or breakups, or even the feeling of being offended. If anyone is experiencing these feeling we would say that they are in the state of a first order evil.
4-And if we come across someone who is experiencing a first order evil, we can either reduce or enhance their misery. By being kind, or we can enhance their misery by being mean. This is the same with someone who is experiencing a first order good, they can be enhanced or reduced through our reaction. Link Title
2-corresponding to first order goods, unhappiness , unhappiness,pain and misery are know as first order evils,l.
5-Sympathy, understanding,kindness,compassion,love, and generosity are all therefore higher order goods than-the first order goods then the first order goods of happiness and pleasure. In effect they are known as second order goods.
6-In the same way, spite, meanness, envy, jealousy, greed, and selfishness are second order evils. Therefore we might say that second order evil exist to maximise first order evil and to minimise first order goods.
Equally second order evil exists to maximise the first order evil and to minimise first order good.
We have a free choice, therefore to maximise or minimise first-and second order good or evil in the world. Moreover, without the evils of pain and suffering, we could never have the even greater joys and Benifits of being able to show courage,sympathy,,love-and all things that are best in humanity. But the price for this is that many will reject these goods and will become hateful, envious,jealous and malicious towards others.
So freedom is a third order good, that is it is a higher-order good because it allows us to choose between putting in place first-and second order goods,man’s evils, and eventually it teaches us to love the Good.
Finally God is therefore justified in allowing evil in the universe, because it permits the freedom to choose or reject the good. It teaches us to be morally responsible.
In conclusion it is logically possible for a person to make free, good choices, all of the time. God could have created humans so that they would only make free good choices. However God did not so. Therefore either God lacks the power to do so, or God is mot loving enough to do so. Either way the free will Defense fails. And Mackie obvious conclusion is that god does not exist.
Alvin Plantingas Defense of the free will Defense
click to edit
click to edit
Plantinga claims that God allows for evil to exist for two morally sufficient reasons,the first being MSR 1-which explains the logical problem of evil, MSR2, explains the Natrual evil
MSR1-the logical problem of evil
1-God’s creation is very important. And because of this God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will, who would go out and do good deeds, aswell as love him.
2-according to plantinga libertain free will is morally sufficient. Which means people have the chance to put into practice Mackie’s second order goods of symphathy, love, compassion, and so on. This king of freedom is the most important, because it means that people are morally responsible for their decisions. Moreover they can be praised and rewarded if they do what is right, or blamed and punished if they do wrong. Plantungas argumnet aims to show that there is not logical possibility where God could have created beings who would always make free,good choices.
Pantinga draws three worlds to choose from they God could have created
click to edit
The first world PW1-God creates people with morally significant free will-God does not casually determine people in every situation to choose what is right and what is wrong. And there is evil and suffering.
The second world PW2- God creates a person with morally significant Fred will. Gid causally determines people in every situation to chose what is right and avoid what is wrong. There is no evil or suffering in PW2
PW3-the final world god creates a person with morally significant free will. Gid casually determines people in every situation to choose what is right and avoid what is wrong. Finally there is no evil or suffering in PW3
As you can see the final world is logically impossible, as to have morally significant free will, people must be able to do morally bad things whenever they want to, but they cannot as they are casually determined. Therefore Plantiga defeats Mackie’s claim that the free will defense is logically impossible.
MSR 2 and the problem of Natrual evil
Plantinga must also provide some sort of explanation of Natrual evil,since It is not caused by human free will.
Plantinga introduces this as MSR 2-(Morally significant reason)
1-Plantinga MSR2 is that “God allowed Natrual evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve’s punishment for their sin in the garden of Eden”
2-In the view of nearly all of the philosophers who comment on this MSR 2 is ludicrous, as it is unscientific and relies on the mythological narrative of Adam and Eve.
3-And as Plantinga only has to provide a logical refutal of Mackie, he has therefore successfully refuted his claim that the Free Will Defense is useless. Finally Plantinga is also aided by the fact that Nature must be free to follow the laws by which it works.
Strengths of the Free Will defense
2-Plantinga is right to insist against Mackie that it would have been logically impossible for God to have created a world in which people had free will but never made morally bad choices. Even an omnipotent being could not do the logically impossible
3It is often argued that the Free Will Defense cannot explain Natrual evil, since Natrual evil is not caused by human free will. Nevertheless there is no doubt that Natrual evil do indeed bring about second-order moral goods such as love, sympathy and compassion, and that such goods are to be valued above simple happiness and pleausre
4-The Free Will Defense does establish one crucial pienciple , that a world with free creatures is more valuable than a world without them. Real happiness is only possible through the permission of free will
1-Plantinga’s account of the Free Will Defense shows that both his MSR1 and MSR2 are logically possible, so Plantinga refutes Mackie
It is an also true as we suggested previously, that huamsn value the risk of pain. There are many activities where the risk of injury or even deathmczn increase people’s enjoyment.For some, where there is no risk there can be no enjoyment.
Weaknesses of the Free Will Defense
2-The Free Will Defense relies on a libertarian account of free will. Libertarian account of free will hold that humans are to some extent pre-determined by their biology and chemistry, and by the laws of physics. The humans minds are nevertheless in some way free to make mental decisions,and choices, including moral choices. The libertarian account of free will cannot be proved, however it can only be assumed.
Free Will Defense also still has no convincing response to the evidential problem of Evil. Earlier we pointed out that it is very difficult reconcile God’s omniscience with the sheer extent of evil in the world. The essence of Dosoyvskys response to this problem was simple. Freedom is not worth its price tag. At the point of creation, God must have known the full extent of human evil, so why did he bother to create such as universe.
1-In plantingas case, even though his MSR1 and MSR2, are logical, they do not show that they are true
John Hick’s soul-making theodicy
For Hick the world is a place of Soul making. He compares his theodicy to of humans and God, to children and parents. And as parents no father can force his children to live him. As children learn to love their parents through free response to the environment. However there is one major difference how children respond to their parents and how the human race responds to God. This is that whereas children will never learn to respond to their parents, eventually the human race as a wile will respond freely to God. All will be saved and enter heaven. As God is infintley pursuasive, and every individual will be brought into a moral and spiritual relationship with God. This can happen at different times for different individuals.
Hick extends this by saying that god decided to create the human race in the image of God. Hick called this Bios, meaning the biological life of human beings. So therefore just as human parents create the human race through biology and allows it to develop itself until every human being achievs the likeness of Christ.
Weaknesses of Hicks Soul making theodicy
Strenghts of Hick’s soul making theodicy
Hick’s theodicy does not match with Christian teachings. As if all humans are saved then what is the point of Jesus’s sacrifice.
Hick’s theodicy incorporates evolution as being part of the first stage of human development, so his theodicy fits generally with scentfifc evidence about the origins of the human race
Hick’s argues that if docterine of hell is true, then that alone would allow the worst part of the problem of evil. If hell exists, then the kind of God who might send you there might be just, but he would not be loving.
Hick/s argumnet that evil is justified because it is necessary for soul making is also powerful. Individual people, and humanity as a whole, cannot develop without challenge, and suffering develops character. It would be unrealistic to suppose that we can experience great goodness without also being exposed to great evils
The most powerful part of Hick’s argument is his view that we are created at an epistemic distance from God. Hick can use this to Justify any form of evil, including animal suffering and pointless suffering, because his thesis is that the end justifies the means
2-The ends do not justify the mean in Hick’s theodicy. This means that the sum total of human and animal pain and suffering is not justified by the promise of heaven. The promise of heaven is not a contract offered to humans for their acceptable or refusal of Christ. So is God really justified in allowing suffering without their constant. This leads many to believe that the suffering is not worth the promise of Heaven.
1-Hick’s comments concerning animal pain are strange. He admits that we have no good explanation for the degree of animal suffering, but then suggests that if there were no inexplicable animal suffering then our epistemically distance with god would be breached. Moreover the appeal to the epistemically distance to justify animal suffering fails, since there appears to be no benefit to animals themselves. Further the theory of evolution, which Hick adepts, classifies man as an animal, so what is it that separates humans from other animals.m
Finally in Hick theodicy which holds the idea of universal salvation that everybody will reach heaven, what them is the point of pilgramages, and religious journeys. Moreover by having eternal life gifted to them, many may not become spiritually mature Christians who sufferd the pain of the real journey.
Process Theology as presented by Griffin
Process theology and thought originates from English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead,but was then developed by American theologian David Ray Griffin.
Griffins main point from which he starts his theodicy is that of creationex nihilom (creation out of nothing)-which most Christian’s assume is the way that god created the world in Genesis
Griffin believe that this is based on a mistranslation of the text
The original text reads “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was open the face of the deep, and the Spirt of God was moving over the face of the waters” This translation of the Hebrew shows that God’s first creative act is to create the universe, and it heavily implies that God called the universe into existence from nothing simply by using the words of creative power.
However a more likely translation of the Hebrew would be “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth, the earth being without form and void, and darkness being upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moving over the face of the waters, God said, let there be light”-Whe. Compared the second text gives a radically different view of the passage. This is because of the phrase “The earth being without form and void”-assumes the that the universe a,ready existed before God. And according to Griffin then the universe is uncreated and eternal, and God is inextricably bound with it. God’s creative role was therefore to devolop what was already there, by pursuading it into a state of greater order and complexity.
Griffin therefore rejects the idea of God’s omnipotence and the idea of creation out of nothing actually supports the idea that God is omnipotent, because a God who can literally bring the universe into existence from nothing would truly have unlimited power. Therefore following on from the idea of creation from chaos, the chaotic matter will probably have had some power of their own by which God’s will could be opposed.
Griffin believes that it is wrong to think of God as being transcendent, instead he believes God exists is a panentheistic relationship, which means that the Universe is in God. God is therefore not transcendent and cannot eliminate Evil.
Griffin believed that God wishes to pursuance matter towards complexity as increasing complexity in life gives a rise to increased richness of experience and thereby brininging out the increased possibility of enjoyment. Living cells are probably the lowest level at which enjoyment begins, so it is at this selves that we can begin to talk of value. From living cells there is a huge leap to the animal level, especially animals with a central nervous system, they can experience an increased number of different types of value.
Finally then Griffin believes that Evil arose because increased complexity has two faces, one that it brings increased enjoyment, and the other that it also can howeve bring about increased suffering. Subsequently then Griffin agrees that responsibility of the problem of evil must then lie with God. However, Griffin believes that we cannot blame God for this as God’s idea was to produce good, and to avoid suffering. As humans therefore we should be able to understand that humans parents have children despite the suffering this might cause both parent and child. By analogy God could have avoided bringing forth creatures who could go wrong, but then there would have been no world with any significant value in it. Moreover Griffin argues that God suffers pain with us, just as we share the pains of our bodily parts. And finally with regard to the Natrual evils in the world, Griffin argues that they are caused by low levels electrons, and molecules, so it is therefore very difficult for god to affect change, apart from over long periods of time. Therefore there is no way God can stop a tsunami from drowning, or rocks of en earthquake killing pedestrians, or even a speeding car hitting you.
Weaknesses of Process theology
Strenghts of process theology
2-In the same way, the discovery through quantum mechanics that at the sub-atomic level, reality is a chaotic process of flux and change, gives some support to Griffin’s argumnet that God’s creation of the universe was not creation from nothing but instead was the gradual ordering of pre-existing chaotic material. Griffin is also correct in his Hebrew translations, which is strongly supported by biblical accounts reflecting the Babylonian mythologies.
The fact that God suffers because he contains the entire sensory experience of the universe, means that believers who suffer know that God understands their pain. I
1-From Griffins conclusions it is evident that he has a sense of realism about what God can and cannot do. His conclusion that God is not omnipotent can be seen as a realistic answer to the problem of evil. As God does not have the power to control it.
The problem of evil is also seen as a huge probelam. If the the Process God is not omnipotent, at the point when he saw his persuasion of the universe into greater and greater levels of evolutionary complexity was equally bringing about greater amounts of evil, why then did God start a process he could not control.
The suggestion that God cannot control evil is often seen to be a huge nail in the coffin for process theology, because even though God may do his best, there still can be no guarantee that God will succeed in overcoming evil.Process theology therefore admits that there is an element of risk in God’s strategy, because if advanced entities like human sufficient powers to reject God’s pursusaion towards the good, then human existence will probably end in nuclear, biological and chemical obliteration of all species. And if the element of risk is so great, and victory against evil is not Guateeed, then what incentive is there to join or even continue the fight against evil.
God’s lack of omnipotence in Process Theology can be see. As a major weakness. And although the Processs God is powerful, for many his lack of omnipotence makes his worthy of worship.