(Originally written March 13, 2007 in Book 25)
Part 4: God & Evil
14: The nature of the problem of Evil
Nearly every religion attempts to deal with the reality and causes of evil in the world.
The problem of evil arises out of the nature of theism.
There are a number of dimensions to the problem of evil: metaphysical, physical and moral
An inconsistency differs from a contradiction. In a contradiction there are two statements in which one is true and one is false. In an inconsistency one or both statements could be false, but on the surface both cannot be true.
The inconsistency version of the problem of Evil
1) God is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent Being, in accordance with His nature He would abolish all evil
2) Evil exists
Either 1 or 2 could be false, both could be false but both cannot be true.
A way to solve an inconsistency is to show that it is a paradox. Thus, the inconsistency of 1 & 2 can be made into a paradox like this:
1) God is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being, in accordance with His nature He would abolish all evil
2) Evil exists
3) God expressed his omnipotent and omnibenevolent nature by creating free beings who are solely responsible for evil.
But this solution may not satisfy men. Someone might still want to know why God created free beings. This way of dealing with the problem of evil is the problem of theodicy (the justification of God).
Non theistic solutions to the Problem of Evil
Illusionism's Answer to Evil
A theist cannot deny the reality of evil. A pantheist can claim that nothing is really evil, but only appears evil, but a theist may not.
Evil is everything that frustrates human aspirations and expectations.
Many people influenced by Eastern thought deny the reality of evil.
Frederic Spiegelburg follows the Indian sage Aurobindo in claiming that pain is not a matter of fact, but a perspective. Once one comes to the truth there is no longer a problem of evil because there is no evil.
Alan Watts accuses Westerners of being unwilling to recognize individual finitude and subsequently looking for a solution in the acts of free individual. He sees good and evil as relative distinctions that do not obtain with ultimate reality.
Problems with illusionism
1) Illusionism does not account for the origin of the illusion
2) It does not explain the apparent reality of the illusion
3) Denying the reality of evil does not remove the presence of reality
4) Illusionism is a theory that is ruined by a brutal gang of facts
"It is more likely that the illusionist is being deceived about evil than that all persons are being deceived by evil" (298).
Sadism's answer to evil
Elie Wiesel postulated that God is sadistic and created the world to watch suffering.
Harold S. Kushner in "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" states we ought to forgive God for not making a better world.
Objections to Sadism
1) God is all-good in theism
2) God as a term seems inappropriate for a sadistic being
3) The universe cannot be ultimately evil because evil presupposes good
4) It seems absurd that there is a being responsible for creating and destroying what he creates (Charles Hartshorne)
Finitism's Answer to Evil
David Hume and subsequent thinkers have proposed that God is finite in power or love (or both).
Finitism is represented by process thinkers today. Charles Hartshorne believes that the worst falsehood known is the traditional concept of omnipotence.
Others claim that God is not essentially limited, but instead limits Himself.
Bruce R. Reichenbach claims that God is sovereign in authority and power, but willingly limits Himself.
Objections to Finitism
1) Only an infinite cause explains the existence of things. A finite God could not be the cause of all existence
2) A finite God is not worthy of worship
3) A finite God cannot guarantee an outcome in the struggle of good and evil.
"A finite god is metaphysically impossible, religiously unworthy and ethically demoralizing for people in their struggle against evil" (300).
If there is no infinite God there can be no final solution to the problem of evil.
Determinism's answer to evil
God was forced to create the world as it is.
This view is normally pantheistic, but some theists who hold creation flows necessarily, not willingly from God also hold it.
Benedict Spinoza believed that the world as we have it is the necessary and most perfect product possible of the necessary and most perfect Being possible.
Objection to Determinism:
1) Creation flows from God's will freely, not necessarily (Revelation 4:11, Ephesians 1:11) That is, He was free not to create
2) God has no need to create
3) The necessary Being does not necessarily need to do anything other than exist
4) Even if God had to create it does not follow he had to create an imperfect world
Finitude does not necessitate evil, it only makes it possible
Impossibilism's Answer to evil
It may be impossible for even an infinite God to foreknow future free events. God could have created free beings not knowing they would bring evil into the world with their freedom.
God cannot control free beings without negating their freedom. Even an infinite God cannot do what is contradictory.
Objection to impossibilism
1) A Calvinist might draw a different conclusion that God foreknows and beings are still free
2) There can be no such thing as truly free (unforeseeable) acts by human beings because that limits God
3) Foreknowledge does not imply fore-determination
4) God is timeless, he does not foresee anything. He sees everything eternally now.
5) Just because an event is determined does not mean that it cannot be freely chosen
6) It makes no sense to speak of something in the future being true
7) God knows the choices and the eventually chosen act
Solutions to the Problem of Evil open to Theism
There are two sets of alternatives to the solution of the problem of evil open to theists:
1) Hypothetical
2) Actual
The hypothetical alternatives for theism
1) God could have decided not to create anything at all
- A God who knew that creation would become corrupt should not have created at all
- No solution to the problem of evil will be satisfactory without addressing this possibility that was open to God
2) God could have created only beings who are not free
- Could God have made an amoral world?
- The nature of God only necessitates that if he does, he must do it best, not that he do
3) God could have created beings who are free to sin, but do not actually sin
- Many have argued that freedom without sin is a contradiction
Objections to this:
1) There is no logical connection between freedom and sin
2) Freedom without sin is not a contradiction in Heaven
4) God could have created beings who are free but must sin
- God pronounces that sin is inevitable, but each sin is not
- Forced freedom though is completely incoherent
5) God could have created beings who were free and who would sin
- This alternative is what theists claim God chose to create
The Actual Alternatives for Theism
Theists must defend the way God chose to create (That he chose to create beings who were free not to sin but inevitably would choose to do so)
1) A theist need not prove three things to answer the problem of evil
He does not have to show that this is the best of all possible worlds, but only that there could be no better world or non-world
He does not have to show how God can achieve the highest perfection out of a world with evil in it.
He does not need to definitively prove that this world is the best of all possible solutions.
2) A theistic solution to evil must meet three conditions:
1) It must be at least possible
2) Offer evidence that it is capable of achievement
3) Present a way that is verifiable/falsifiable
The apparent dilemma facing theism
It seems that the proportions: What God does must be his best and the world is not best eliminates any theistic solution to the problem of evil
God must do his best. It is axiomatic that anything less than doing his best would be evil for GOd.
The theist must show that what God produces is the best possible.
Heaven is actually an argument against this world being the best of all possible worlds.
The way out of this dilemma is to claim that this is not the best of all possible worlds, but the best possible way to get to the best of all possible worlds (heaven)
Only an infinitely wise and good God can guarantee heaven as an outcome
The Dimensions of the Problem of Evil
Three aspects to the problem of evil:
1) Metaphysical
2) Moral
3) Physical
The Metaphysical Aspect of Evil
1) God is the author of everything in the world
2) Evil is something in the world
3) Therefore, God is the author of evil
Theists would not want to reject either of the premises. Denying the first would lead to dualism. Denying the second just seems contrary to experience
Theistic reply:
1) God is the author of everything
2) Evil is not a thing (substance)
3) Therefore, God is not necessarily the author of evil
To deny evil is not a real entity is not to deny the reality of evil. Evil is real. It is a real privation in things.
The Moral Aspect of the Problem of Evil
Pierre Bayle postulated the moral problem of evil in the 17th century.
1) Evil exists
2) An omnipotent God could destroy evil
3) A benevolent God would destroy evil
4) Therefore, since evil is not destroyed either:
a) God is omnipotent and malevolent
b) God is benevolent and impotent
c) God is both malevolent and impotent
d) There is no God
Another way of stating it:
1) God is responsible for making everyone, including human freedom
2) Human freedom brought about moral evil
3) Therefore, God is responsible for what brought about moral evil
The Physical Aspect of the Problem of Evil
Not all evil is clearly a result of human freedom
Albert Camus offered the physical problem of evil
1) Either one must join the doc and fight the plague or else join the priest and not fight the plague
2) Not to fight the plague is anti-humanitarian
3) To fight the plague is to fight against God who sent it
4) Therefore if humanitarianism is right, theism is wrong
Theists would deny premise 3
No comments:
Post a Comment