Problem of evil
23:19 Edit This 1 Comment »
The existence of evil and suffering from it in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering. These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the theistic claim that there exists a perfectly good God. The challenged posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil.
The earliest formulation of the problem of evil was presented by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270BCE). Nevertheless, Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) advanced and cited “Epicurus’ old riddle”, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Hence, then is evil?” After the all possibilities that Hume tried he concluded that God does not exist.
After Ericurus and Hume a lot of philosophers tried to justify God's actions. It created two main theodicies: Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies. But what is the theodicy? Theodicy is a justification of the God's actions in the world.
First of all, we should mention who is an Augustine. St. Augustine is a 4th century philosopher and theologian; he was a father of a Latin church. Augustine of Hippo based his theory on his reading of key Biblical passages. Augustinian theodicy includes two parts: first - The fall of Adam and the second - The privation of good. In the first part of the theodicy st.Augustine made an accent on the Adam's fall in the Garden of Eden. The main sense is that that choice was made using the free will that God gave to Adam. The second part is about privation of good. The main sense of this part is that evil is just our imagination, nothing more than a picture in our mind.
Firstly, we should mention that everything that Augustine took into account was taken from the Bible, so, theoretically there cannot be any contradictions and in this case, there is no. This is one of the strengths of his theodicy. Secondly, originally God created perfect world without any evil. Hence, evil is not a part of God's creative work. This point again justifies God's actions. Thirdly, we have point that evil was introduced into the world after man's (Adam's) choice. It connects us to the question about free will. As we know philosophers mention two different types of evil: natural and moral. Moral evil is an evil which caused by people’s actions, while natural is caused by natural disasters, diseases, etc. St.Augustine using first part of his theodicy concluded that all suffering is a consequence of abuse of free will. In detail, natural evil is caused by the imbalance in nature brought by the Fall of Adam and moral evil is caused because the world has become estranged from God and immorality has been able to thrive. From this point we can consider that it was not God's kind of fault, but it was a fault of a man and as a punishment he achieved the existence of evil. Therefore, God is not responsible for man's evil choices. From the second part of the theodicy we also can take some points in favour. Main point is that evil is just a man's imagination, that there is no evil, just illusion of the evil. St.Augustine made a point that perhaps evil contributes to a greater good. This point was supported by another philosopher, Richard Swinburne, who said that all evil exists for the education of mankind. Moral evil is produced by the ignorance; natural evil is intended to teach us responsibility. From this point of view, evil gains another view. In this case, evil seems created for the good purposes, for something great. So, above we can see a good list of the strengths of this theodicy.
On the other hand, this theodicy has a lot of weaknesses. The first weakness is that primordial God created PERFECT world. To the evil appearance there had to be some kind of accident from which the perfect world gone wrong. It means that it should go wrong by itself from nothing, but it is logically impossible. Second weakness is that God created such a perfect world where man did not know what is good and what is evil. Thus how could there have been the freedom to obey or disobey God? Adam’s initial capacity to choose evil must still be attributed to God. Another disadvantage of this theodicy is that Hell appears to be built into the design of the universe in Augustine’s theodicy. It would seem, therefore, that God was expecting things to go wrong, and chose to do nothing about it. From this points we think How can we believe in God’s justice when some have been granted His grace and others not, on an apparently arbitrary basis? And why would a benevolent God have wished any of his creatures to suffer eternal torment in hell? These contradictions make us think about the justification of God's actions more carefully.
Irenaeus, 2nd century philosopher, father of the church, tried to justify God's actions as well. But his work left unfinished and in future John Hick finished it.
The main strength of this theodicy is that this it avoids the problem of Augustine’s ‘spontaneous’ appearance of evil. He thought that God brings in suffering for the benefit of humanity. Throughout our suffering lives we change from the being human animals to "children of God". Another point in favour is that his theodicy does not rely on the Genesis or on the Fall of Adam. Moreover, his theodicy allows for the modern concept of evolution. His theodicy support that evil can also help people in character-building. Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally. If we were programmed to "do the right thing" there would be no moral value to our actions. As I already mentioned, John Hick, Irenaean follower, also had some points on this theodicy. His points are great examples of the strengths of this theory. Mainly, he justified God's actions, i.e. the creation of evil, by this explanation: In order to allow for this development, humans have been created imperfect. So, it is again proved the fact that God basically created imperfect man with the good purposes.
Nevertheless, there are some problems with this theodicy as well. First of all, creation of the imperfect man suggests that God's work was imperfect, what theoretically cannot be, because God is a perfect and everything that he creates has to be perfect. Secondly, people's free choices not always lead to the some new knowledge, growth in power or any kind of development. This is another weakness of this theory. Thirdly, we can accept perhaps that some evil and suffering are necessary for God’s purpose but what about the innocent victims, i.e. children or babies? Another weakness is that Irenaeus argued that everyone goes to the heaven. This would appear unjust, in that evil goes unpunished. Morality becomes pointless. And the last weakness is that how God can be all-loving if he accepts the suffering of the people?
As a conclusion, I want briefly compare these two theodicies. Firstly, we should mark the similarities between two theodicies. They both trace the problem of evil back to human free will. It means that they think that a cause of the evil is people's actions, their choices. Secondly, in both theodicies we can see the fact that on the one hand people have free will, but on the other hand, if people use this free will they cause suffering. Both of them also consider that sometimes evil can be used for something good, to the achievement of something better.
By contrast, there are also differences in these theodicies. The most obvious is that the both theodicies did not have the same starting point, The Fall of Adam. Also Augustine thought that God created perfect world, while Irenaeus did not. For Augustine God is remote from man, having been distanced by his sin. For Irenaeus, as we make this progress we grow closer to God, reducing the epistemic distance between us and God. And the last point that I want to mention is that Augustinian theodicy is a soul-deciding theodicy, whereas Irenaean theodicy is soul-making. It means that the Augustinian theodicy concerned with judgement. Irenaeus is more concerned with the development of humanity.
So, in the end we can say that all theodicies have their strengths and weaknesses as well as similarities and differences. But which of them each person will choose it is a question. Question on which we will never find answer.
The earliest formulation of the problem of evil was presented by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270BCE). Nevertheless, Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) advanced and cited “Epicurus’ old riddle”, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Hence, then is evil?” After the all possibilities that Hume tried he concluded that God does not exist.
After Ericurus and Hume a lot of philosophers tried to justify God's actions. It created two main theodicies: Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies. But what is the theodicy? Theodicy is a justification of the God's actions in the world.
First of all, we should mention who is an Augustine. St. Augustine is a 4th century philosopher and theologian; he was a father of a Latin church. Augustine of Hippo based his theory on his reading of key Biblical passages. Augustinian theodicy includes two parts: first - The fall of Adam and the second - The privation of good. In the first part of the theodicy st.Augustine made an accent on the Adam's fall in the Garden of Eden. The main sense is that that choice was made using the free will that God gave to Adam. The second part is about privation of good. The main sense of this part is that evil is just our imagination, nothing more than a picture in our mind.
Firstly, we should mention that everything that Augustine took into account was taken from the Bible, so, theoretically there cannot be any contradictions and in this case, there is no. This is one of the strengths of his theodicy. Secondly, originally God created perfect world without any evil. Hence, evil is not a part of God's creative work. This point again justifies God's actions. Thirdly, we have point that evil was introduced into the world after man's (Adam's) choice. It connects us to the question about free will. As we know philosophers mention two different types of evil: natural and moral. Moral evil is an evil which caused by people’s actions, while natural is caused by natural disasters, diseases, etc. St.Augustine using first part of his theodicy concluded that all suffering is a consequence of abuse of free will. In detail, natural evil is caused by the imbalance in nature brought by the Fall of Adam and moral evil is caused because the world has become estranged from God and immorality has been able to thrive. From this point we can consider that it was not God's kind of fault, but it was a fault of a man and as a punishment he achieved the existence of evil. Therefore, God is not responsible for man's evil choices. From the second part of the theodicy we also can take some points in favour. Main point is that evil is just a man's imagination, that there is no evil, just illusion of the evil. St.Augustine made a point that perhaps evil contributes to a greater good. This point was supported by another philosopher, Richard Swinburne, who said that all evil exists for the education of mankind. Moral evil is produced by the ignorance; natural evil is intended to teach us responsibility. From this point of view, evil gains another view. In this case, evil seems created for the good purposes, for something great. So, above we can see a good list of the strengths of this theodicy.
On the other hand, this theodicy has a lot of weaknesses. The first weakness is that primordial God created PERFECT world. To the evil appearance there had to be some kind of accident from which the perfect world gone wrong. It means that it should go wrong by itself from nothing, but it is logically impossible. Second weakness is that God created such a perfect world where man did not know what is good and what is evil. Thus how could there have been the freedom to obey or disobey God? Adam’s initial capacity to choose evil must still be attributed to God. Another disadvantage of this theodicy is that Hell appears to be built into the design of the universe in Augustine’s theodicy. It would seem, therefore, that God was expecting things to go wrong, and chose to do nothing about it. From this points we think How can we believe in God’s justice when some have been granted His grace and others not, on an apparently arbitrary basis? And why would a benevolent God have wished any of his creatures to suffer eternal torment in hell? These contradictions make us think about the justification of God's actions more carefully.
Irenaeus, 2nd century philosopher, father of the church, tried to justify God's actions as well. But his work left unfinished and in future John Hick finished it.
The main strength of this theodicy is that this it avoids the problem of Augustine’s ‘spontaneous’ appearance of evil. He thought that God brings in suffering for the benefit of humanity. Throughout our suffering lives we change from the being human animals to "children of God". Another point in favour is that his theodicy does not rely on the Genesis or on the Fall of Adam. Moreover, his theodicy allows for the modern concept of evolution. His theodicy support that evil can also help people in character-building. Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally. If we were programmed to "do the right thing" there would be no moral value to our actions. As I already mentioned, John Hick, Irenaean follower, also had some points on this theodicy. His points are great examples of the strengths of this theory. Mainly, he justified God's actions, i.e. the creation of evil, by this explanation: In order to allow for this development, humans have been created imperfect. So, it is again proved the fact that God basically created imperfect man with the good purposes.
Nevertheless, there are some problems with this theodicy as well. First of all, creation of the imperfect man suggests that God's work was imperfect, what theoretically cannot be, because God is a perfect and everything that he creates has to be perfect. Secondly, people's free choices not always lead to the some new knowledge, growth in power or any kind of development. This is another weakness of this theory. Thirdly, we can accept perhaps that some evil and suffering are necessary for God’s purpose but what about the innocent victims, i.e. children or babies? Another weakness is that Irenaeus argued that everyone goes to the heaven. This would appear unjust, in that evil goes unpunished. Morality becomes pointless. And the last weakness is that how God can be all-loving if he accepts the suffering of the people?
As a conclusion, I want briefly compare these two theodicies. Firstly, we should mark the similarities between two theodicies. They both trace the problem of evil back to human free will. It means that they think that a cause of the evil is people's actions, their choices. Secondly, in both theodicies we can see the fact that on the one hand people have free will, but on the other hand, if people use this free will they cause suffering. Both of them also consider that sometimes evil can be used for something good, to the achievement of something better.
By contrast, there are also differences in these theodicies. The most obvious is that the both theodicies did not have the same starting point, The Fall of Adam. Also Augustine thought that God created perfect world, while Irenaeus did not. For Augustine God is remote from man, having been distanced by his sin. For Irenaeus, as we make this progress we grow closer to God, reducing the epistemic distance between us and God. And the last point that I want to mention is that Augustinian theodicy is a soul-deciding theodicy, whereas Irenaean theodicy is soul-making. It means that the Augustinian theodicy concerned with judgement. Irenaeus is more concerned with the development of humanity.
So, in the end we can say that all theodicies have their strengths and weaknesses as well as similarities and differences. But which of them each person will choose it is a question. Question on which we will never find answer.
1 comments:
I have really looked hard and I just cannot see this in the syllabus.
At the Philosophy gatherings you might go to - is anyone giving you strange things to eat...mushrooms?
Post a Comment