Download The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Inquiry into God's Existence and Nature and more Lecture notes Theory of Evolution in PDF only on Docsity!
The problem of evil and suffering is considered to be one of the most powerful arguments against the existence of God.
If God is all-loving and all-powerful, then why is there evil and suffering?
Some believe that God allows evil and suffering to happen as tests in humanity’s growth.
Others say it is the result of humanity’s disobedience of God.
Some believe that God has given humanity free will in order to choose right from wrong.
CHALLENGES TO RELIGIOUS BELIEF
THE PROBLEM OF
EVIL & SUFFERING
QUICK OVERVIEW
‘Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not: if he
cannot then He is not all-powerful, if he will not, then
he is not all good’ St. Augustine
There are two types of evil – natural evil which stems from the natural world, for example, diseases, earthquakes, and famines, and moral evil, which is the result of human actions, such as murder, war and serious harm. The problem of evil challenges those who believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God.
If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), then he can do anything. This means he could create a world that is free from evil and suffering and he could stop all evil and suffering.
If God is omniscient and knows everything in the universe, then he must know how to stop evil and suffering.
If God is omnibenevolent (all-loving), then he would wish to end all evil and suffering. No all-loving God would wish his creation to suffer for no reason..
Yet evil and suffering do exist, so either God is not omnipotent or omnibenevolent or he does not exist.
FOR DISCUSSION:
Are these views completely right or can you think of other possibilities?
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
THE DILEMMA IS:
MODERN DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
J L MACKIE – EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE
Mackie focussed on the logical problem of evil. The logical problem arises because theists maintain that there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. However, Mackie claims that the only solution to the logical problem is to deny this and that all so called ‘solutions’ or ‘theodicies’ actually limit God’s power but misleadingly keep the term ‘omnipotence’. He argues that in the various theodicies:
- God is bound by logical necessities. Hence not omnipotent since he cannot do what is logically impossible
- God is subject to causal laws which he made. Hence not omnipotent because he has to introduce evil as a means to good.
- God makes things that he cannot control. Hence not omnipotent because he has created human wills that he cannot control.
Therefore, Mackie argues that the theodicies do not give a solution to the problem of evil since they have changed the premise (i.e. that God is omnipotent).
ROWE – INTENSITY OF HUMAN AND ANIMAL SUFFERING
William Rowe in his work: ‘ The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism ’ (1979) argued that, whilst it seemed reasonable for God to allow some limited suffering to enable humans to grow and develop, he could not accept God allowing what he called ’intense’ suffering’ Animal suffering also seemed pointless. Rowe used the example of a fawn caught in a forest fire as an example of pointless animal suffering. He argues:
- An omnipotent and omniscient being would know when intense suffering was about to take place.
- Such a being could prevent the suffering from happening.
- An all-loving being would probably prevent all evil and suffering that had no purpose and was pointless and avoidable.
- Such evil and suffering does happen.
- Therefore, probably God does not exist.
GREGORY S PAUL – PREMATURE DEATHS
Gregory Paul argues that the death of so many innocent children challenges the existence of God. He estimates that over 50 billion children have died naturally and some 300 billion human beings have died naturally but prenatally. He argues:
- Millions of innocent children suffer and die every year, from both natural and evil causes.
- These children are too young to be able to make choices about God – they have no freewill.
- No all-loving, all-powerful being would permit such suffering.
- Therefore God does not exist.
RELIGIOUS RESPONSES TO THE PROBLEM
God’s goodness is a very different concept from human goodness and many religious believers say that God allows evil to exist as part of his greater plan of love. Such an approach has led to the development of theodicies to justify the existence of a loving God in the face of evil.
- Augustine (354-430 CE) argued that the Bible shows that God is wholly good and that, according to Genesis 1, created out of nothing (ex nihilo) a world perfectly good and free from defect, evil, and suffering: ‘God saw all that he had made, and it was very good’. (Genesis 1:31).
- Evil itself is not a physical thing and therefore God did not create it. Evil is really the going wrong of something that is good (evil as a privation).
- Augustine said that evil came not from God, but from those entities which had free will – angels and human beings who turned their backs on God.
- So, the state of perfection was ruined by human sin.
- Natural evil came about through the loss of order in nature
- Moral evil came from the knowledge of good and evil which human beings had discovered through their disobedience
THE AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY
- Irenaeus made a distinction between the ‘image’ and the ‘likeness’ of God (Genesis 1:26).
- Adam had the form of God but not the content of God.
- Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden because they were immature and needed to develop into the likeness (content) of God
- Goodness and perfection had to be developed by human beings themselves, through willing co-operation with God.
- God had to give them free will and such freedom requires the possibility of choosing evil instead of good.
- Our world of mingled good and evil is a divinely appointed environment for the development of human beings towards perfection
(I) IRENAEAN TYPE THEODICY
Irenaeus (130-202CE) wrote about the idea that human beings are developing towards perfection:
More recently, John Hick took these ideas and developed them into a full theodicy:
- If God had made humanity perfectly, then they would have had the goodness of robots, which would automatically love God without thought or question.
- Such love would be valueless.
- God wanted human beings to be genuinely loving
- To achieve this, God had to create human beings at an epistemic distance from him - a distance in dimension or knowledge, by which God is not so close that humans would be overwhelmed by him and so have no choice but to believe and obey. By keeping a distance, God allows human beings to freely choose.
- If there was no evil and suffering, then human beings would not be free to choose, since there would only be good.
- Without the existence of evil and suffering, human beings would not be able to develop the positive qualities of love, honour, courage and so on, and would lose the opportunity to develop into God’s likeness.
- Hick is suggesting that the world is a place of soul making, that is, a place where human beings have to meet challenges in order to gain perfection
- This process is justified because of the eventual outcome. If the process is not completed in this life, then Hick argued we go to another life in another realm until the process is complete. The emphasis in the theodicy is soul-making.
CRITICISM
IRENAEAN TYPE THEODICY HAS MANY CRITICISMS:
- Hick suggested that everyone goes to heaven. This does not seem fair and just;
it contradicts religious texts of many faiths and suggests that there is ultimately no reason to be good.
- The challenges of the world do not always result in genuine human development,
and often seem to produce nothing but great misery and suffering.
- D.Z. Phillips argued that love could never be expressed by allowing suffering to
happen: What are we to say of the child dying from cancer? If this has been done to anyone that is bad enough, but to be done for a purpose planned from eternity
- that is the deepest evil. If God is this kind of agent, He cannot justify His actions and His evil nature is revealed.
- As a Christian theodicy, the death of Jesus and forgiveness seem irrelevant
- There is no evidence for other lives after death
- How can the end be guaranteed? Surely people could choose evil for eternity
and so never reach perfection.
The main difference between Augustine and Irenaeas is that the former believed that humanity was created perfectly and turned against God, leading to evil and suffering coming into the world. Irenaeas, on the other hand, believed that humanity was deliberately created imperfectly so that, though suffering, humanity could develop into goodness.
Can he prevent evil?
Can he intervene and work miracles?
‘A generous God will seek to give us great
responsibility for ourselves, each other, and
the world, and thus a share in his own creative
activity of determining what sort of world it is to
be. And he will seek to make our lives valuable,
of great use to ourselves and to each other. The
problem is that God cannot give us these goods
in full measure without allowing much evil on the
way’.
CONCLUSION
THE PROBLEM CHALLENGES THE POWER OF GOD
There are no easy answers and the issue is well summed
up by Swinburne:
NATURAL EVIL events caused by nature that cause suffering but over whichhuman beings have little or no control e.g. earthquakes.
MORAL EVIL events in which responsible actions by human beings causesuffering or harm e.g. war.
THEODICY a evil.^ justification^ of^ the^ righteousness^ of^ God^ given^ the^ existence^ of
OMNIPOTENCE the characteristic of being all-powerful. Some philosophers exclude thepower to do the logically impossible.
FREE WILL the ability to make choices that are not determined by prior causesor by divine intervention.
OMNISCIENCE the characteristic of being all-knowing of all things actual and possible.
EX NIHILO a Latin phrase meaning ‘out of nothing’. Refers to the belief thatGod did not use any previously existing material when he created.
SOUL-DECIDING the Augustinian-type theodicy in which people’s response to eviland God’s rescue plan decides their destiny.
SOUL-MAKING the Irenaean-type theodicy in which the presence of evil is deliberateand helps people to grow and develop.
EPISTEMIC
DISTANCE
a distance of knowledge of God. God is hidden and so allows human beings to choose freely.
SECOND-ORDER GOODS moral goods that result from a response to evil.
CLASSICAL THEISM
the belief in a personal deity, creator of everything that exists, who is distinct from that creation and is sustainer and preserver of the universe.
PRIVATION the absence or lack of something that ought to be there. In relationto evil as a privation, then evil is seen as an absence of good.
ESCHATOLOGICAL
JUSTIFICATION evil^ and^ suffering^ are^ justified^ because^ of^ the^ eventual^ outcome.
KEYWORDS
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
ANSWERS
1 I. Moral evils are events in which responsible actions cause suffering whilst natural evils are events in nature which cause suffering but human beings have little or no control. II. Omnipotent means all powerful whilst omnibenevolent means all good III. First order goods are goods achieved directly from an action whilst second order goods are goods that result from a response to evil
2 The logical problem of evil identifies an apparent contradiction in logic between the existence of God and the existence of evil. The problem of suffering is about the experience of suffering and whether God can be trusted given the occurrence of suffering.
3 Called soul-deciding because the response to evil ultimately decides peoples destiny.
4 Called soul-making as the presence of evil helps people to grow and develop.
5 Mackie argues that all theodicies in some way or another limit the power of God.Hence no theodicy really accepts a God that is all powerful.
6 I. The Fall in the Bible is not to be taken literally but represents each person’s rebellion against God. OR The fall is correct and evolution is in error. II. People must be free to choose and their choices have consequences OR there is annihilation rather than hell OR hell is an empty threat and in fact all are saved. III. It is not possible to create free beings and make them always to choose right.
7 I. Jesus’ death is an inspiring example II. But ultimately all will achieve the goal of perfection III. There is evidence –eg remembered lives, spiritualism
The basis of the Irenaean type theodicy is that human beings are developing towards perfection. The emphasis is to understand the world as a “vale of soul- making”. God deliberately created a world in which it is not immediately and overwhelmingly evident that there is a God. This allows human beings to have freedom to come to God and to make free and responsible moral choices. Evil and suffering are justified since they are the means by which all human beings will eventually succeed in becoming morally perfect. Indeed, some moral goods are responses to evils and hence cannot exist without them – for example, compassion.
In the 21st century this approach to the problem of evil has some attractions. It is compatible with a scientific view of evolution and therefore is more successful than the Augustinian type theodicy. However, if the Biblical accounts are regarded as depicting historical events then the Irenaean type theodicy would not be persuasive. Indeed, for a Christian theodicy, it would seem to be wanting as the atoning work of Christ and his redemptive power of salvation through death on the Cross seems to be irrelevant. There seems no place for the forgiveness of sins. Also, surely an all powerful benevolent God could find a more compassionate mechanism for his creation to grow and develop towards God? Indeed, evil often ruins and destroys people rather than making them perfect.
IRENAEAN TYPE THEODICIES HAVE NEVER BEEN SUCCESSFUL
IN RESPONDING TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
THE SKILL OF EVALUATION
EVALUATE THIS REVIEW
QUESTION 1
Discuss in a group to what extent you think this answer has fully addressed the question set
QUESTION 2
Identify effective aspects of the answer in terms of its style.
QUESTION 3
How does this answer differ from the style of evaluative answer that lists arguments in favour and then lists arguments against?
QUESTION 4
Discuss any ways that the answer could have been improved upon?
COMMENTARY 4
Look back at the comments to question 1 and think ways in which you could incorporate those into the answer.
QUESTION 5
Underline any words in the answer that show it is evaluative
QUESTION 6
Now attempt to write your own answer to the question set.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
