Summary Of God And The Problem Of Evil
God and the Problem of Evil by B.C. Johnson discusses what is called the problem of evil in philosophy. He specifically talks about the evidential problem of evil. The evidential problem of evil is the argument that if God is an all-powerful and all-knowing being than he cannot be all-good or omnibenevolent. How can an all-good God exist and allow evil things to happen to humankind? God supposedly has the power to stop evil from occurring, yet he does not. In the article by B.C. Johnson ponders this and forms the thesis that God cannot be omnibenevolent if he allows evil to take place. For the most part I agree with Johnson’s thesis, but I do not believe he sufficiently discredits the counterargument of the existence of free-will. One of
the counter arguments that Johnson discredits is that the argument that God allows tragedy to take place for the greater good. Johnson believes this is not an adequate justification. Such horrifying tragedies do not benefit anyone. He reasons that it is our place to question God’s judgement similarly to the way a child questions their parent's judgement. He holds the belief that even if God has reasons unknown for us for allowing calamity to take place that is not proof of his inherent goodness. Johnson argues that if God is justified in not saving an infant from a burning building for the greater good than humans would be justified to do the same. Would we consider a human being who stands by and allows an infant to die in a burning building to be good? If the answer is no then why do some still consider God to be omnibenevolent when he allows these tragedies to take place? Another argument made by theists is that if there was no evil, then how would we appreciate the good in the world. They argue that suffering allows for the creation of empathy and compassion. However, Johnson counters this by stating that there can be suffering on a smaller scale to allow for empathy and compassion. He believes that the death of innocents is not necessary for this. Johnson’s argument is made stronger through the use of deductive reasoning. In Johnson’s eyes, God has no right to be a bystander if he is all-powerful. If he is not all-powerful than he is not God. Johnson comes to the conclusion that if God is all-powerful yet he allows evil to take place and tragedies to occur than he is not all-good. One counterargument to the evidential problem of evil is the existence of free-will.
the counter arguments that Johnson discredits is that the argument that God allows tragedy to take place for the greater good. Johnson believes this is not an adequate justification. Such horrifying tragedies do not benefit anyone. He reasons that it is our place to question God’s judgement similarly to the way a child questions their parent's judgement. He holds the belief that even if God has reasons unknown for us for allowing calamity to take place that is not proof of his inherent goodness. Johnson argues that if God is justified in not saving an infant from a burning building for the greater good than humans would be justified to do the same. Would we consider a human being who stands by and allows an infant to die in a burning building to be good? If the answer is no then why do some still consider God to be omnibenevolent when he allows these tragedies to take place? Another argument made by theists is that if there was no evil, then how would we appreciate the good in the world. They argue that suffering allows for the creation of empathy and compassion. However, Johnson counters this by stating that there can be suffering on a smaller scale to allow for empathy and compassion. He believes that the death of innocents is not necessary for this. Johnson’s argument is made stronger through the use of deductive reasoning. In Johnson’s eyes, God has no right to be a bystander if he is all-powerful. If he is not all-powerful than he is not God. Johnson comes to the conclusion that if God is all-powerful yet he allows evil to take place and tragedies to occur than he is not all-good. One counterargument to the evidential problem of evil is the existence of free-will.