The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Inquiry into God's Existence and Nature, Lecture notes of Theory of Evolution

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 1. ‘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 ? 2. THE DILEMMA IS: 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 5. THE AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY 6. CRITICISM God is right not to put a stop to suffering, since the punishment is justice for human sin and God is a just God. However, Augustine notes that God, in his infinite love and grace, sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to die so that those who believed and accepted him could be saved. The emphasis of the theodicy is soul-deciding. Our response to evil and God’s rescue plan of salvation determines what happens to us when we die. • Either the world was not perfect to start with, or God made it go wrong. If so, then it is God, and not humanity, who is to blame. • Augustine’s view that the world was made perfect and damaged by human beings is contrary to the theory of evolution, which asserts that the universe began as chaos and has been developing continually. • If God created perfect human beings who sinned, then they must have been created with a flaw. • Suffering is essential to survival – things must die in order that others might eat and live – God must bear the responsibility for this. • The existence of Hell as a place of eternal punishment seems a contradiction for an all-loving God. • If Hell was part of the design of the universe, then did God know that the world would go wrong anyway, and still allowed it to happen? 7. • 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. 10. 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 which human beings have little or no control e.g. earthquakes. MORAL EVIL events in which responsible actions by human beings cause suffering or harm e.g. war. THEODICY a justification of the righteousness of God given the existence of evil. OMNIPOTENCE the characteristic of being all-powerful. Some philosophers exclude the power to do the logically impossible. FREE WILL the ability to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or 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 that God did not use any previously existing material when he created. SOUL-DECIDING the Augustinian-type theodicy in which people’s response to evil and God’s rescue plan decides their destiny. SOUL-MAKING the Irenaean-type theodicy in which the presence of evil is deliberate and 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 relation to 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. 11. KEYWORDS THE PROBLEM OF EVIL QUESTIONS 1 Explain the difference between: I. moral evil and natural evil II. omnipotent and omnibenevolent III. first order goods and second order goods. 2 What is the difference between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil? 3 Why is the Augustinian type theodicy referred to as “soul-deciding? Omnipotence –the characteristic of being all-powerful. Some philosophers exclude the power to do the logically impossible. 4 Why is the Irenaean type theodicy referred to as “soul-making”? 5 Explain Mackie’s criticism that applies to all of the theodicies. 6 What response could be made to the following criticisms of the Augustinian type theodicy: I. The Fall depicted in Genesis contradicts evolutionary development. II. The existence of hell is not consistent with a loving God. III. If God created perfect human beings who sinned, then they must have been created with a flaw. 7 What response could be made to the following criticisms of the Irenaean type theodicy: I. The death of Jesus seems irrelevant. II. Evil tends to destroy people rather than making them perfect. III. There is no evidence that people have a series of lives until they reach perfection 12. (continued) However, such criticisms may not be sufficient to reject the theodicy. It does have strengths that may outweigh its apparent weaknesses. For instance, it seems reasonable that some goods do require the existence of evil (eg compassion) and the end does justify the means since all ultimately experience the ultimate joy and that joy lasts eternally. There is clearly purpose in the experience of evil. The theodicy also involves genuine human responsibility and so respects genuine human free will. Furthermore, it is true that it removes the problem of hell since all achieve perfection, ie the end result is guaranteed since that is the justification for the existence of evil – it achieves its end. But if the end result of perfection is guaranteed then what is the point of going through all the pain and suffering? In addition surely we could use our free will to rebel eternally and so never reach perfection? The arguments show that it can offer a solution to the problem of evil but not without some serious difficulties remaining. However, it could be argued that the alternative theodicies raise even greater problems and so many may feel that the Irenaean type theodicy is not totally unsuccessful. After all it does provide a solution but the extent it is persuasive will be up to the individual to weigh up and decide. In particular, the problem of the lack of the need for the death of Jesus may be for many, a deciding factor in rejecting the theodicy. 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. 10. REVIEW QUESTIONS