Outline The Problem Of Evil
Studies in the Philosophy of Religion
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
"God is the omnipotent and wholly good creator of all things"
"There is evil in the world"
a) EXPLAIN THESE TWO STATEMENTS AND SHOW WHY THEY ARE SAID TO BE CONTRADICTORY (20)
The problem of evil is usually seen as the problem of how the existence of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world. It's regarded as a logical problem, because it is based on the apparent contradiction involved in holding onto three incompatible beliefs. This being that God is omnipotent, that God is wholly good and that evil exists in the world. The fact that evil exists in the world constitutes the most common objection to the belief in the existence of the omnipotent (all powerful), …show more content…
omniscient (all knowing) and all loving God of Classical Theism. Classical Theism is the traditional understanding of God as worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims. This definition is initially criticised, for being culture-bound, as other religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism don't believe in one God so can't be applied to their respective religions. Therefore the problem of evil is only a problem for followers of a theistic religion. God is described as an infinite, self-existent, incorporeal (without body), eternal, immutable (doesn't change), impassable (incapable of suffering), simple (one entity), perfect (God is seen as a morally perfect being i.e. wholly good), omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) being.
Omnipotence means being able to bring about anything which it is logically possible to bring about. However not being able to bring about that which is logically impossible is not a restriction on omnipotence since the logically impossible is not a characterisation of anything. It is a non-thing. Evil is said to come from the free actions of human beings. God can't do what's logically impossible and it's said to be logically impossible for God to create humans who are free but always choose to do what's right. This therefore takes the responsibility of evil from God.
Omniscience means knowing everything that it is logically possible to know. If God knows everything it is not possible for him to think of something he does not know. This raises the question of whether God knows every little fact; does he know what you're thinking or what you're going to do? If so then if he's omnipotent shouldn't he be able to stop people doing bad things, as this isn't logically impossible? An argument in response of this is that if God intervened it would result in the individual not being free, something human beings are supposed to be.
God is said to be wholly good; a morally perfect being. This is difficult to define briefly as there are differing accounts of what morality and goodness are. It's easier to pick up a general negative requirement of moral goodness. A being that is morally good shouldn't inflict unnecessary suffering or allow others to inflict unnecessary suffering which the agent had the power to prevent. According to this criterion is God good? Stories in the Bible suggest not, for example the great flood. God is supposed to have killed all human beings except a select few and all but two of each animal on the planet. This can't be the action of a morally perfect being. If he was all-powerful, which he supposedly demonstrated through this great flood, couldn't he have stopped the bad things happening? Wouldn't it be kinder to take away the human race's free will, and prevent further problems then killing them all? Other stories such as that of Abraham follow a similar line. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his baby son as a test to determine Abraham's loyalty to God. Would a morally perfect being choose to test a person in such a way? It's wrong to show your authority in such a way and why would God, a supposedly perfect moral being, want his creation to love him more then they love their own? Doesn't he want what's best for them? Creating such anguish and torment can't be good for somebody. However if God were the all knowing being of classical theism wouldn't he know anyway?
In the Bible God is referred to as the creator i.e. the creator of the world. A creationist is a person who believes that God made the world exactly as described in the Bible.
There's undisputable evidence that evil exists in the world. For example war, the war in Afghanistan as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the war between Pakistan and India, the war between Israelis and Palestinians in Israel and the on-going violence between the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Another evil is disease afflicting innocent beings such as Cancer, HIV and Aids, Multiple Sclerosis and disfigurement. Evil people also exist or have existed in the world such as Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Slobodam Milosovich and murderers such as Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper. Writers such as Gaskin have attempted to classify evil. Two particular classifications have been suggested Moral Evil and Natural Evil.
Moral Evil is unnecessary suffering caused by the free actions of rational men and women. Examples that fall into this classification include theft, murder and war. However with all of these examples there are problems, the thief could be being forced into it, they may be repressed and be stealing because they're staving or their family is starving or they could even be a kleptomaniac. War can be classed as a moral evil as it's generated by certain individual and causes unnecessary suffering. Even such diseases as cancer can be described as moral evil, for example passive smoking can cause others to get cancer.
Natural Evil is suffering imposed on sentient beings by the processes of the natural world independently of free actions of any human agent. These include such examples as earthquakes and the weather.
The contradiction is that the world contains a very great deal of suffering which one would expect a perfectly good moral agent armed with omnipotence and omniscience to do away with or rather, as creator, never to have put there in the first place.
b) EXPLAIN HICK'S SOUL-MAKING THEODICY AND DISCUSS TO WHAT EXTENT IT REMOVES THE CONTRADICTION (30)
John Hick has interpreted the ideas of Irenaeus. Irenaeus was born in 130 CE and died in 202 CE. He was the Bishop of Lions.
Irenean tradition develops a theodicy that accepts God's partial responsibility for evil's existence in the world. Irenaeus attempted to show good reason which made the existence of evil inevitable. He claims human beings were created as imperfect creatures that had to be brought to perfection by development and growth. Evil was means to this end. The world with its mingled good and evil is, for Irenaeus, part of God's plan and purpose. He gives little place to the idea of a fall from perfection as Augustine does and explains evil by looking forward to what is achieved as a result of it's presence in the universe. Humans have responsibility for evil but are not solely responsible.
Irenaeus believed it is through the experience of suffering and evil that we learn how to respond to certain things.
For example doctors, if people didn't get ill then doctors wouldn't learn how to respond to and deal with the illness. However this presents problems as if God had made the world wouldn't he have made a world in which things didn't go wrong, if God is all knowing and all powerful why couldn't he have made a "perfect world" in which nothing went wrong? The answer to this of course is that there can't be such a thing as a perfect world, it's logically impossible and as we have already established God can't do what is logically impossible. The concept of a perfect world is logically impossible because of the perfect island argument as proposed in criticism to Anselm's Ontological argument. It's proposed that you can't always imagine something more perfect so therefore it can't be. Also if the world were a paradise from which all possibility of pain and suffering were excluded the consequences would be quite inconceivable. For example, no one could ever injure anyone else, "the murderers knife would turn to paper or the bullets to thin air". The bank safe would miraculously be refilled once robbed and such evils, as fraud, deceit and conspiracy would leave society undamaged. People couldn't be injured through accidents; the falling child would simply float unharmed to the ground. People wouldn't become ill because of disease or suffer upset. To make …show more content…
this possible all laws of nature would have to change, we would no longer need to learn to respect danger, as it wouldn't exist. Laws of nature would have to be flexible, for example gravity would sometimes operate and sometimes not, sometimes a material like concrete would be hard and other times soft. Science couldn't exist because there would be no stable organization of elements to investigate. By getting rid of the hardships of the world life would become like a dream where we could drift delightfully but aimlessly. This links with the ideas of Freud who believed we all wished to return to the peace of the womb and dreamful ease.
If we lived in a perfect world then we wouldn't learn through evil and suffering. From Irenaeus' viewpoint the world is a "place of soul-making" in which free beings struggling with the challenges of their existence in a common environment may become "children of God". Irenaeus distinguished between the image and likeness of God in human beings. Image is our human nature as created by God, with its capacity of moral and spiritual development and Likeness is the transformation, which is brought about through an individual's free response to God. Soul making refers to this process. There is an emphasis on growth and development in Irenaeus' ideas.
Irenaeus places great importance on freedom. He believed human goodness is only valuable if it is the result of a individuals free and responsible choices. Therefore if God had made humans morally perfect there would be no value in their moral choices. If you couldn't help but be good then they'd be no value in being good.
This leads on to the idea of freedom. Irenaeus stated that for humans to be free they must be created at an epistemic distance from God. Epistemic means knowledge. An epistemic distance is a gap in knowledge. Irenaeus believed that human beings couldn't be created with the full knowledge of God. It's not obvious whether there is a God or not, this means you can choose whether to believe in him or not. If it was blindingly obvious that there was a God you wouldn't have a choice whether to believe in him or not, you'd have no moral freedom. If God's existence was overwhelmingly obvious human beings would have no freedom in relation to that God, they wouldn't b able to have faith in him because they'd be no question of his existence. Irenaeus thought freedom was important, he also believed human freedom gave rise to evil and suffering which ultimately leads to growth and development.
Natural evil has to been seen in the context that the world is not an environment designed specifically to maximise pleasure. We're here to learn through suffering even if we can't always see how God's purpose is being advanced.
Irenaeus' approach seems to imply some kind of individual survival after death i.e. heaven. If people are developing throughout their lives they may not have fully developed before they die. Therefore some form of bodily survival after death is necessary for full growth into the likeness of God. This implies some form of continuing development after death. Some followers of Irenaeus have suggested the process of development could continue after death in a state of purgatory, preparation for heaven. Irenaeus' followers also reject the idea of Hell, as Hell is the denial of any kind of development.
STRENGTHS OF IRENAEUS' APPROACH.
· Irenaeus recognises that the world is religiously ambiguous and realises that it's not evident if there is or is not a God, they can therefore make the choice whether to believe in him or not. Relating to this is the fact that Irenaeus doesn't take bible stories, such as that of Adam and Eve, literally.
· He emphasises the importance of freedom and learning through individual experience.
· He recognises that human imperfection gives rise to moral evil.
· Irenaeus makes a realistic assessment of human life. He recognises that human life is a mixture of pleasure and pain. And recognises we all have individual responses to suffering.
WEAKNESSES OF IRENAEUS' APPROACH.
· Irenaeus doesn't attempt to explain to what extent God is responsible for evil in the world. He doesn't consider ways that God could have done it differently.
· Can any future good be sufficient to justify evil and suffering that takes place? For example the Holocaust. How can anything take away the pain of what happened, nothing good could match the magnitude of disaster and make it better. It's hard to imagine how human beings could develop and turn it around to promote good.
· Sometimes people do grow and develop through suffering but other times people are crushed because of it and can't grow and develop further.
· Implies that there is life after death but doesn't provide any supporting evidence
· Irenaeus seems to justify evil by looking at good consequences (for example doctors learning techniques to treat disease by having first hand experience of them) but does the consequences always justify the actions? Because humans and God are different can human actions and God's actions be justified in the same way? Humans have to use means to reach ends but God isn't so limited as to have to operate in such a way. God can achieve ends directly so doesn't have to use means.
"What are we to say of the child dying of cancer? If this has been done to anyone it is bad enough but to be done for a purpose that is the deepest evil. If God is this kind of agent he can't justify his actions and his evil nature is revealed" D.Z Philips
Here Irenaeus is being criticised after looking at the consequences of an event. It's suggested that finding good consequences in bad things is a horrible idea.
DOES IRENAEUS' APPROACH SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF EVIL?
There are many instances of good being brought out of evil through a person's reaction to it, however there are many other cases where the opposite has occurred.
Sometimes obstacles result in ones character being strengthened but other times they can be crushing leading to ones character being diminished and left incompetent so unable to grow and develop further. So it would seem any soul making is subject to an individual's temperament and particular way of dealing with a problem. Therefore this doesn't remove the contradiction, because there's evidence of people suffering and not getting better after it. This produces more problems as shows God to be selecting people who he should know would suffer immensely because of this evil. Irenaeus approach takes the blame off God for human suffering. This is what is needed to solve the problem of evil. He places the blame on human free will therefore avoiding questions of God's nature so in essence removing the contradiction. People accept that suffering is there for a reason and it's part of God's plan for soul
making.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
"God is the omnipotent and wholly good creator of all things"
"There is evil in the world"
a) EXPLAIN THESE TWO STATEMENTS AND SHOW WHY THEY ARE SAID TO BE CONTRADICTORY (20)
The problem of evil is usually seen as the problem of how the existence of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world. It's regarded as a logical problem, because it is based on the apparent contradiction involved in holding onto three incompatible beliefs. This being that God is omnipotent, that God is wholly good and that evil exists in the world. The fact that evil exists in the world constitutes the most common objection to the belief in the existence of the omnipotent (all powerful), …show more content…
omniscient (all knowing) and all loving God of Classical Theism. Classical Theism is the traditional understanding of God as worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims. This definition is initially criticised, for being culture-bound, as other religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism don't believe in one God so can't be applied to their respective religions. Therefore the problem of evil is only a problem for followers of a theistic religion. God is described as an infinite, self-existent, incorporeal (without body), eternal, immutable (doesn't change), impassable (incapable of suffering), simple (one entity), perfect (God is seen as a morally perfect being i.e. wholly good), omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) being.
Omnipotence means being able to bring about anything which it is logically possible to bring about. However not being able to bring about that which is logically impossible is not a restriction on omnipotence since the logically impossible is not a characterisation of anything. It is a non-thing. Evil is said to come from the free actions of human beings. God can't do what's logically impossible and it's said to be logically impossible for God to create humans who are free but always choose to do what's right. This therefore takes the responsibility of evil from God.
Omniscience means knowing everything that it is logically possible to know. If God knows everything it is not possible for him to think of something he does not know. This raises the question of whether God knows every little fact; does he know what you're thinking or what you're going to do? If so then if he's omnipotent shouldn't he be able to stop people doing bad things, as this isn't logically impossible? An argument in response of this is that if God intervened it would result in the individual not being free, something human beings are supposed to be.
God is said to be wholly good; a morally perfect being. This is difficult to define briefly as there are differing accounts of what morality and goodness are. It's easier to pick up a general negative requirement of moral goodness. A being that is morally good shouldn't inflict unnecessary suffering or allow others to inflict unnecessary suffering which the agent had the power to prevent. According to this criterion is God good? Stories in the Bible suggest not, for example the great flood. God is supposed to have killed all human beings except a select few and all but two of each animal on the planet. This can't be the action of a morally perfect being. If he was all-powerful, which he supposedly demonstrated through this great flood, couldn't he have stopped the bad things happening? Wouldn't it be kinder to take away the human race's free will, and prevent further problems then killing them all? Other stories such as that of Abraham follow a similar line. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his baby son as a test to determine Abraham's loyalty to God. Would a morally perfect being choose to test a person in such a way? It's wrong to show your authority in such a way and why would God, a supposedly perfect moral being, want his creation to love him more then they love their own? Doesn't he want what's best for them? Creating such anguish and torment can't be good for somebody. However if God were the all knowing being of classical theism wouldn't he know anyway?
In the Bible God is referred to as the creator i.e. the creator of the world. A creationist is a person who believes that God made the world exactly as described in the Bible.
There's undisputable evidence that evil exists in the world. For example war, the war in Afghanistan as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the war between Pakistan and India, the war between Israelis and Palestinians in Israel and the on-going violence between the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Another evil is disease afflicting innocent beings such as Cancer, HIV and Aids, Multiple Sclerosis and disfigurement. Evil people also exist or have existed in the world such as Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Slobodam Milosovich and murderers such as Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper. Writers such as Gaskin have attempted to classify evil. Two particular classifications have been suggested Moral Evil and Natural Evil.
Moral Evil is unnecessary suffering caused by the free actions of rational men and women. Examples that fall into this classification include theft, murder and war. However with all of these examples there are problems, the thief could be being forced into it, they may be repressed and be stealing because they're staving or their family is starving or they could even be a kleptomaniac. War can be classed as a moral evil as it's generated by certain individual and causes unnecessary suffering. Even such diseases as cancer can be described as moral evil, for example passive smoking can cause others to get cancer.
Natural Evil is suffering imposed on sentient beings by the processes of the natural world independently of free actions of any human agent. These include such examples as earthquakes and the weather.
The contradiction is that the world contains a very great deal of suffering which one would expect a perfectly good moral agent armed with omnipotence and omniscience to do away with or rather, as creator, never to have put there in the first place.
b) EXPLAIN HICK'S SOUL-MAKING THEODICY AND DISCUSS TO WHAT EXTENT IT REMOVES THE CONTRADICTION (30)
John Hick has interpreted the ideas of Irenaeus. Irenaeus was born in 130 CE and died in 202 CE. He was the Bishop of Lions.
Irenean tradition develops a theodicy that accepts God's partial responsibility for evil's existence in the world. Irenaeus attempted to show good reason which made the existence of evil inevitable. He claims human beings were created as imperfect creatures that had to be brought to perfection by development and growth. Evil was means to this end. The world with its mingled good and evil is, for Irenaeus, part of God's plan and purpose. He gives little place to the idea of a fall from perfection as Augustine does and explains evil by looking forward to what is achieved as a result of it's presence in the universe. Humans have responsibility for evil but are not solely responsible.
Irenaeus believed it is through the experience of suffering and evil that we learn how to respond to certain things.
For example doctors, if people didn't get ill then doctors wouldn't learn how to respond to and deal with the illness. However this presents problems as if God had made the world wouldn't he have made a world in which things didn't go wrong, if God is all knowing and all powerful why couldn't he have made a "perfect world" in which nothing went wrong? The answer to this of course is that there can't be such a thing as a perfect world, it's logically impossible and as we have already established God can't do what is logically impossible. The concept of a perfect world is logically impossible because of the perfect island argument as proposed in criticism to Anselm's Ontological argument. It's proposed that you can't always imagine something more perfect so therefore it can't be. Also if the world were a paradise from which all possibility of pain and suffering were excluded the consequences would be quite inconceivable. For example, no one could ever injure anyone else, "the murderers knife would turn to paper or the bullets to thin air". The bank safe would miraculously be refilled once robbed and such evils, as fraud, deceit and conspiracy would leave society undamaged. People couldn't be injured through accidents; the falling child would simply float unharmed to the ground. People wouldn't become ill because of disease or suffer upset. To make …show more content…
this possible all laws of nature would have to change, we would no longer need to learn to respect danger, as it wouldn't exist. Laws of nature would have to be flexible, for example gravity would sometimes operate and sometimes not, sometimes a material like concrete would be hard and other times soft. Science couldn't exist because there would be no stable organization of elements to investigate. By getting rid of the hardships of the world life would become like a dream where we could drift delightfully but aimlessly. This links with the ideas of Freud who believed we all wished to return to the peace of the womb and dreamful ease.
If we lived in a perfect world then we wouldn't learn through evil and suffering. From Irenaeus' viewpoint the world is a "place of soul-making" in which free beings struggling with the challenges of their existence in a common environment may become "children of God". Irenaeus distinguished between the image and likeness of God in human beings. Image is our human nature as created by God, with its capacity of moral and spiritual development and Likeness is the transformation, which is brought about through an individual's free response to God. Soul making refers to this process. There is an emphasis on growth and development in Irenaeus' ideas.
Irenaeus places great importance on freedom. He believed human goodness is only valuable if it is the result of a individuals free and responsible choices. Therefore if God had made humans morally perfect there would be no value in their moral choices. If you couldn't help but be good then they'd be no value in being good.
This leads on to the idea of freedom. Irenaeus stated that for humans to be free they must be created at an epistemic distance from God. Epistemic means knowledge. An epistemic distance is a gap in knowledge. Irenaeus believed that human beings couldn't be created with the full knowledge of God. It's not obvious whether there is a God or not, this means you can choose whether to believe in him or not. If it was blindingly obvious that there was a God you wouldn't have a choice whether to believe in him or not, you'd have no moral freedom. If God's existence was overwhelmingly obvious human beings would have no freedom in relation to that God, they wouldn't b able to have faith in him because they'd be no question of his existence. Irenaeus thought freedom was important, he also believed human freedom gave rise to evil and suffering which ultimately leads to growth and development.
Natural evil has to been seen in the context that the world is not an environment designed specifically to maximise pleasure. We're here to learn through suffering even if we can't always see how God's purpose is being advanced.
Irenaeus' approach seems to imply some kind of individual survival after death i.e. heaven. If people are developing throughout their lives they may not have fully developed before they die. Therefore some form of bodily survival after death is necessary for full growth into the likeness of God. This implies some form of continuing development after death. Some followers of Irenaeus have suggested the process of development could continue after death in a state of purgatory, preparation for heaven. Irenaeus' followers also reject the idea of Hell, as Hell is the denial of any kind of development.
STRENGTHS OF IRENAEUS' APPROACH.
· Irenaeus recognises that the world is religiously ambiguous and realises that it's not evident if there is or is not a God, they can therefore make the choice whether to believe in him or not. Relating to this is the fact that Irenaeus doesn't take bible stories, such as that of Adam and Eve, literally.
· He emphasises the importance of freedom and learning through individual experience.
· He recognises that human imperfection gives rise to moral evil.
· Irenaeus makes a realistic assessment of human life. He recognises that human life is a mixture of pleasure and pain. And recognises we all have individual responses to suffering.
WEAKNESSES OF IRENAEUS' APPROACH.
· Irenaeus doesn't attempt to explain to what extent God is responsible for evil in the world. He doesn't consider ways that God could have done it differently.
· Can any future good be sufficient to justify evil and suffering that takes place? For example the Holocaust. How can anything take away the pain of what happened, nothing good could match the magnitude of disaster and make it better. It's hard to imagine how human beings could develop and turn it around to promote good.
· Sometimes people do grow and develop through suffering but other times people are crushed because of it and can't grow and develop further.
· Implies that there is life after death but doesn't provide any supporting evidence
· Irenaeus seems to justify evil by looking at good consequences (for example doctors learning techniques to treat disease by having first hand experience of them) but does the consequences always justify the actions? Because humans and God are different can human actions and God's actions be justified in the same way? Humans have to use means to reach ends but God isn't so limited as to have to operate in such a way. God can achieve ends directly so doesn't have to use means.
"What are we to say of the child dying of cancer? If this has been done to anyone it is bad enough but to be done for a purpose that is the deepest evil. If God is this kind of agent he can't justify his actions and his evil nature is revealed" D.Z Philips
Here Irenaeus is being criticised after looking at the consequences of an event. It's suggested that finding good consequences in bad things is a horrible idea.
DOES IRENAEUS' APPROACH SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF EVIL?
There are many instances of good being brought out of evil through a person's reaction to it, however there are many other cases where the opposite has occurred.
Sometimes obstacles result in ones character being strengthened but other times they can be crushing leading to ones character being diminished and left incompetent so unable to grow and develop further. So it would seem any soul making is subject to an individual's temperament and particular way of dealing with a problem. Therefore this doesn't remove the contradiction, because there's evidence of people suffering and not getting better after it. This produces more problems as shows God to be selecting people who he should know would suffer immensely because of this evil. Irenaeus approach takes the blame off God for human suffering. This is what is needed to solve the problem of evil. He places the blame on human free will therefore avoiding questions of God's nature so in essence removing the contradiction. People accept that suffering is there for a reason and it's part of God's plan for soul
making.