The Problem of Evil

-

There are two types of evil and suffering:

1. Moral evil: brought about by human actions.
2. Natural evil: natural events beyond human control.

Logical Problem

The logical problem is as ancient as the Greek philosopher Epicurus who pointed out that a God who was all powerful and all loving could, and would want to, eradicate evil and suffering. Since suffering exists then God would be either ‘not able’ to do this (not omnipotent) or ‘able but not willing’ (not omnibenevolent).

John L. Mackie called this as an ‘inconsistent triad’; evil and suffering are incompatible with the notions of omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Mackie also pointed out that any theodicy depends upon re-interpreting the idea of omnipotence and so is not successful. Either God is omnipotent in its fullest sense or God is not omnipotent. There is no in between.

Mackie used the ‘Paradox of Omnipotence’ to demonstrate this problem at its very basic level: ‘Can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control’ or, ‘make rules which bind himself?’ To answer either yes or no would compromise omnipotence. Indeed, for Mackie, the notion of omnipotence seemed illogical in our world.

Evidential Problem

William Rowe and Gregory S. Paul have presented empirical versions of the problem of evil, sometimes called the evidential problem of evil.

Rowe’s argument is that if there are instances of intense suffering that God could do something about without impacting the greater good then it is logical to assume that God could, by definition, prevent this.

However, there are instances of unnecessary intense suffering, for example a fawn that is ‘trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering.’ God, by definition, could and should prevent this (because it would not interfere with free will) but does not. Therefore, there are rational ground for rejecting an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly-good being.

Gregory S. Paul used statistics to demonstrate the extent and indiscriminate nature of human suffering through natural evil. For example, demographic statistics that detail the full extent of the early death of immature humans through natural evil: ‘the estimated total prematurity loss of conceived humans is in the area of 350 billion.’

Paul’s main point is that there is a complete denial of free will to new-born, and premature, human beings. This does not work with any theodicy based in the God of classical theism.

QUOTE BANK!!

Epicurus: “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.” 

Mackie: “Quite apart from the problem of evil, the Paradox of Omnipotence has shown that God’s omnipotence must in any case be restricted in one way or another.” 

Paul: “It is said that God is in the details, and that the nature of creation reveals the nature of the creator. This is a valid point, but the implications are not necessarily what Christians wish for them to be.” 

Rowe: “Intense human or animal suffering is in itself bad, an evil, even though it may sometimes be justified by virtue of being a part of, or leading to, some good which is unobtainable without it.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Situation Ethics: Fletcher and Agape

-
Fletcher, influenced by earlier moral theologians, advocated a ‘new’ approach to Christian ethics between the two extremes of legalism and antinomianism. His solution was that we should always use the principle of love or agape (selfless love) applied to each unique situation, meaning that ‘right’ decision in one circumstance cannot be a blueprint for all circumstances. Fletcher considered his teachings as firmly grounded in ‘classical’ Christianity, a key text being Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", indicating for Fletcher that the practical application of Christian love (agape) involved a more flexible approach to rules. For Fletcher, ‘absolute’ principles of right and good are not realistic; they became problematic if applied blindly without considering specific situations. He quotes Henry Miller's reference to legalism as ‘the immorality of morality’.  Fletcher argued that the Church’s legalistic approach that used ‘prefabricated rule...
Read more

Utilitarianism: Application

-
The use of animals for medical research Often, the principle of utility (or the ‘greatest happiness principle) is used to argue that human happiness in the long-term outweighs the suffering of animal experimentation. However, such philosophers as Peter Singer says we should have a rule against causing harm or suffering to any sentient being. However, the purpose of animal experiment should be considered; medical research after all, is more noble than cosmetic safety tests. The sheer numbers benefitting from successful treatments or controlling epidemics over against the amount of pain caused for animals is justification enough. Whether one uses Bentham or Mill is another variant. The above arguments would certainly support Mill; however, Jeremy Bentham argued famously, ‘the question is not, can they reason? Not, can they talk? But can they suffer?’ and indeed was an active campaigner for animal rights. Another point to consider is that any conclusion reached on for this area is difficu...
Read more

Irenaean type Theodicies

-
Irenaeus, like Augustine, did not have a systematic theodicy; unlike Augustine, Irenaeus presents God as responsible for the possibility of the existence of evil. This was deliberate because God wanted human beings to develop the qualities that would make them spiritually perfect. Crucial for Irenaean type theodicies is the first part of Genesis 1:26: ‘Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.”’ For Irenaeus, human beings were created with partial maturity, but the potential to develop and grow into the image and likeness of God. Thus, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden not because they were perfect and then sinned, but because they were immature. Hick Medieval theologians, and in last century the theologian John Hick, made an analogical distinction between ‘image’ (possessing the potential qualities of God’s spiritual perfection) and ‘likeness’ (actualising those qualities). John Hick disliked a literal reading of Genesis; instead h...
Read more