Physical & Moral Evil

(Originally written March 26, 2007 in Book 25)

The Question of Freedom

Plantinga holds that man cannot be caused to have his actions come out in anyway by God's direct or indirect influence.

Plantinga's argument hinges on the belief that humans are significantly free creatures.

The Structure of This Theodicy

Theism acknowledges that God could have chose not to create, that God could have chosen to create a moral world and that God could have created a moral world with free creatures who never chose to sin.

A world with evil is a morally necessary prerequisite to the most perfect world possible.

Theistic Answers to the Problem of Moral Evil

The Theist must prove three things to answer the problem of moral evil:
1) This world is the best way to obtain the best world possible
2) No other possibility is more probable
3) Sufficient reason to believe the best possible world is achievable

The Possibility of a Theistic answer to Evil

If it can be demonstrated that this present world is not the best of al possible ways to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds than this answer to the problem of evil is refuted.

The evil of this world is part of a greater good. If the evil of this world were an end not a means than theism would have a problem.

Disproofs of God from evil are self-defeating because they assume an ultimate (divine) perspective in order to disprove such a perspective

There is no logical contradiction in stating this evil world is a condition for achieving a better one.

The theistic solution to the moral problem of evil is at least possible

The probability of a theistic answer to evil

The probability of the theistic solution to evil (this world is the best way to achieve the best of all possible moral worlds) can be established three ways:

1) Inference from the nature of God as the best Being coupled with the fact that this is not the best possible world leads us to infer that this world must be the best way to achieve the best world
2) By comparing the available alternatives to the theistic God it can be concluded that the morally best world is better than a morally good world or no moral world at all
3) By examining human history one can see the evidence of the probability of this best world to come

The Argument from the Nature of God and this world

1) God is an absolutely perfect Being
2) Producing less than a best possible world would be an evil for God
3) God cannot produce evil
4) God produced this world
5) This world as is, is not the best possible world
6) Therefore, there must be a perfect world to come

The Argument from the alternatives open to God

God had four possibilities in creating a moral world:

1) Not to create a world at all
2) Create an amoral world
3) Create a moral world with free beings who would not choose evil
4) Create a moral world with free beings who would choose evil.

Not to create a world at all cannot be better than choice 4 (the way God created) because nothing cannot be assumed to be better than something

No world could not be metaphysically better than some world because no world would have no metaphysical status

No world could not be morally better than some world because no world is not a moral world at all

There is no way of comparing an amoral world to a moral world. An amoral world is spoken about meaninglessly

The problems for an anti-theist in arguing that a morally perfect world is better than a morally good or morally bad world is that in order to make this judgment the anti-theist must assume a moral objective standard which can only be had by a God

The anti-theist really can only insist that theism is not internally consistent

The theist can reply in two ways:

1) A world with the greater number of virtues is morally better than a world with less virtues and moral viruses like courage, fortitude, mercy and forgiveness are only possible in a sinful/evil world

2) A world with a higher attainment of moral virtues is morally better than a world with a lower attainment and virtues like love and kindness are heightened by the presence of evil

1) God must produce the morally best world he can produce
2) A world where evil serves as a condition for the attainment of higher virtues is a better tone than where less than the highest virtues are attained
3) This world is a world wherein evil serves as such a condition
4) Therefore, this world is better than a world where evil never occurred

A non-evil world versus an evil world

Theists can argue agains this in two ways

1) A world with fully free creatures who chose never to sin may be logically possible, but not actually so
2) Even if such a world occurred it would not be morally better than this one

1) God would not produce a world where free beings will always do evil if it were possible to produce one where they will never more do evil
2) This is a world where free beings do evil
3) Therefore, the world is not God's final production

1) It is morally better for God to create the morally best world possible
2) A world with higher moral virtues is a morally better world
3) A world where humans are permitted to sin as a precondition to a better world is better than one where they are not
4) This present world is one where humans are free and do sin
5) Therefore, this present world is better than a world where humans never sin

God cannot do the impossible and to create a morally perfect world without creating the preconditions for such a world is impossible.

1) God cannot do what is impossible
2) It is impossible to create conditional virtues directly
3) A world with the highest moral virtues is conditioned on the presence of evil
4) Therefore, God cannot create directly a world with the highest moral virtues in it

A world of good and evil is a necessary condition for choosing either good or evil.

It is impossible for God to create directly a world with achieved moral values of the highest nature.

Eschatological verification of this theodicy

A skeptic may challenge this theodicy in claiming that something that is only verifiable in the future is of no assistance to us here and now in deciding what is true

There are two types of obtainable evidence for this theodicy:

1) Human experience is witness to the fact that free beings achieve higher moral perfection through suffering
2) Divine intervention is an evidence that something has ben done to reverse the course of world events for the better

The Attainability of a Theistic Answer to Evil

Is it possible that evil will eventually be totally overcome?

How is it logistically possible to achieve the maximum moral good out of the abuse of moral freedom?

How can we account for the moral evil that never brought about a greater good?

What explanation is offer able for the evils that do not result from an abuse of moral freedom?

How God brings good out of evil is not a serious problem for theism.

William James put it well when he wrote, "The word is all the richer for having a devil in it, so long as we keep our feet upon his neck" (357).

Only an all powerful being is capable of eradicating evil completely. Only an omniscient Being can utilize good and evil for the greatest good. Only an all-loving God would grant creatures the freedom to reject Him.

1) It is logically possible for evil to turn out for a greater good.
2) An all powerful God has the ability to bring the greatest good out of evil.
3) An all-loving God has the desire to bring the greatest good out of evil.
4) An all-knowing God possesses the wisdom to bring out the greatest good from evil
5) Therefore, the greatest good will be brought out of evil.

All moral evil is a necessary condition to achieving a greater good.

But, why does God permit unnecessary suffering or unnecessary moral evil?

Theism is the only solution to the moral problem of evil and the success of it hinges on the guarantee of an infinite God.

A world capable of optimal moral perfection implies a world of optimal moral freedom. The highest moral perfection depends on the presence of evil obstacles. Thus, there must be a permanent heaven (when evil will nevermore be done) and a permanent hell (where evil will evermore be done, but can never spread).

"Demanding that a man consent to love God against his will would be divine rape. It is better that each person be given the free choice to love or not love God" (362).

An optimally perfect moral world should contain four components:
1. The process leading to the final achievement of a world where humans are free but never will do any evil.
2. A world wherein is permitted the full and final uncorked exercise of moral freedom
3. A world in which there is permitted the presence of enough evil to provide both the condition for the achievement of higher moral virtues and a comprehensive lesson of the wrongness of evil for creatures.
4. A world where free creatures learn for themselves why evil is wrong.

The Physical Problem of Evil

The Problem of Physical Evil for Theism

It appears that not all evil results directly or indirectly from the abuse of human freedom.

Posing the problem of physical evil

Albert Camus' Plague is the most widely used problem of physical evil.

1) Either one must join the Doctor and fight the plague or else he must 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
5) Humanitarianism is right
6) Therefore, theism is wrong

The dilemma for the theist is this: if suffering is a condition of the greater good than we ought not to eliminate suffering so as to indirectly work against the greatest good.

Proposed Theistic Solutions to Physical Evil

1. Evil is a necessary contrast to Good
- without pain one cannot fully appreciate pleasure
- problems: it only explains pain, less pain would accomplish the same thing, even if evil depends on good, experience show that one can know the good without participating in evil

2. Evil is a necessary byproduct of laws that bring good results
problems: -only explains some kinds of evil, an omnipotent God could have created a world without evil byproducts. an omnipotent God could intervene and stop evil byproducts

3. Evil is necessary to punish the wicked
problems: - Job suffered innocently, Jesus said sin si not the cause of all suffering (Luke 13:4), babies are born with deformities

4. Evil is a necessary example to others
problems: - accounts for only a tiny portion of suffering

5. Evil is necessary to warn the wicked
problems: physical disasters often turn people away from God, not to God, Natural disasters are inconsistent with a benevolent God

6. Evil is a necessary part of the best possible world
problems: - an all powerful God could make a world without evil, the unjust distribution of evil could be distributed justly

7. Evil is necessary for ultimate harmony
problems: it makes evil only prima facie and eliminates reform, it makes evil illusionary because it is not evil in God's eyes, it gives God a double standard

8. Evil is a necessary condition for achieving the best world
Problems: - it does not explain first order evil, the price for long run goods is too high, some long run consequences are evil, immortal bliss does not justify suffering

9. Evil is a necessary conflict among natural systems
problems: God could have created a world without conflicting systems

10. Evil is necessary to build character
Problems: character building does not apply to all evil, the price is too high to make character building worthwhile

A Theistic Solution to the Problem of Physical Evil

Many of the anti-theistic criticism gain weight only by assuming false pretexts
- an all powerful God is capable of creating the best possible world without suffering
- the greater good does not result from suffering
- evil cannot be explained as necessary to human freedom
- the best world possible is not worth the high price to achieve it

Unnecessary evil of any kind is inconsistent with an absolutely perfect God. Thus, all evil is somehow necessary

One major criticism of the theistic solution to physical evil is that theists try to use a combination of all these tactics. They cannot achieve success because each is like a leaky bucket and no matter how many leaky buckets are used to catch water, water will still seep through. But, in reality each of these is like a bucket that has no leaks, but can only hold so much water. All the buckets together can hold all the water and all the solutions can explain all the evil.

Some physical evils are necessary conditions for moral perfections. There are second order goods that are unachievable without first order evils.

Some physical evils are a necessary consequence of human free choice.

The elimination of pain would eliminate all pleasure. One cannot have a painful experience without knowing the meaning of non-pain and one cannot have a pleasurable experience without knowing a non-pleasurable experience (i.e. pain).

Some physical evil is a necessary consequence of the free choice of demons.

Why doesn't God eliminate demonic powers? The best way to defeat evil is to let it expires itself because it is ultimately self-defeating.

Some physical evil is  a necessary moral warning.

C.S. Lewis held that 'God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is his megaphone to rouse the deaf world" (376)

While it is true that not all persons respond positively to pain, it still remains an opportunity to respond positively.

God would be morally accountable if he did not warn us with pain as a doctor would be morally accountable not to warn sexually actively clients of the danger of AIDS.

Some physical evils are necessary components of a physical world. The pain of lower life forms is a necessary condition for the sustaining of higher life forms.

Objections to the Theistic solution to Physical evil

1) This theodicy implies that the ends justify the means.

Response: God has utilitarian goals, but does not use utilitarian means. That is, He allows evil to happen and uses it to create the ultimate good but does not use evil (commit it) to achieve such an end.

2) The theodicy does not account for the vastness of evil or the unequal distribution of it.

Respones:
1) No finite mind can really press this point
2) This theodicy need not measure evil quantitatively

3) This theodicy entails a double standard

Response: God does not commit the evil acts, only permits them. There is only one standard and that is God Himself. God cannot break that standard because he cannot contradict himself

4) This theodicy implies it is wrong to alleviate human suffering

Respones: when man is working against evil he is not frustrating God's effort, but fulfilling them. God does not send human suffering. Man's free choice causes suffering.

5) This theodicy exalts human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty

Response: Moral acts are self-determined. Human self-determination enhances God's sovereignty and human dignity.

Finished!! Done! Praise God!

My thoughts on Evil:

1) Evil is a privation
2) Evil is only existent in the absence of good
3) God is good
4) The world contains evil.
5) The world is not wholly evil
6) Therefore, God is neither wholly present nor wholly absent from the world

Physical evil and moral evil are subcategories of metaphysical evils

All evil regardless of it being physical or moral is a result of human choice.

Moral evil is a direct result of human choice. But who the vil befalls may not be the direct choice maker, i.e. the Nazis chose to kill the Jews. The Jews suffered a moral evil because of a direct choice of the Nazis. But the Nazis eventually suffered for their choices.

Physical Evil is an indirect result of human choice. The flood (the first natural disaster) was a direct result of human choice to be wicked. Subsequent disasters are a result of the ecosystem being traumatized by the flood. Thus while no wicked acts may be directly responsible for Katrina or the Tsunami of 2004, they are nonetheless a recurring punitive measure for human wickedness.

All evil is inherited. We are all relatives in that we are all descendent of Adam and Eve. Their moral sin had physical and spiritual consequences. We inherit the physical consequences (death) in our DNA, but we also inherit the spiritual consequences (fallenness) via our inherited spiritual DNA.

Yes, I am advocating that souls, like physical bodies are created via reproduction. This is a very plausible explanation of how all men have fallen short of the glory of God and for the sins of the father. Souls are created from father and mother history. The sins of all ancestors are passed down to each generation. This also explains why Jesus Christ did not inherit a sin nature or fallenness because
because he was not born of a man. Thus, he did not inherit the sins of the Father because his father is God and thus, sinless.