One of the most vexing problems in philosophy of religion is the problem of evil. In the Western religious and philosophical context, the "problem of evil" has a specific and technical meaning: it refers to the seeming contradiction between the existence of a benevolent, all-knowing, omnipotent God and the presence of evil in the world. Defining "evil" is of course a challenge in itself, but within traditional Christian theology (e.g., according to Augustine), it had a rather broad application. It simply designated "malum," or the "bad." So anything that caused hindrances, impediments, annoyance, or suffering was considered under this definition (so this could refer equally to the common cold or fast-moving cancer). Any of these occurrences still raised the question: why would a God who intends good, knows everything that's going on, and is able to do anything let these things happen. This said, it is of course the most egregious cases of grand, seemingly unwarranted suffering that most dramatize the problem, and in the modern era in particular, it has led some to return their ticket to God's show (to appropriate Dostoevksy's metaphor).
But I wonder whether "the problem of evil" actually should be thought to refer to more universal question, one that is also active in traditions that are not monotheistic, and even among non-theists or secularists. In this sense, the broader problem of evil perhaps refers to the attempt to account for seemingly unwarranted suffering, to respond to things that have happened when every instinct tells us that they should not have. In this sense, the problem of evil is addressed in all major religious and philosophical traditions: it is a manifestation of the persistent difference between the way the world is, and the way it ought to be.
This problem of evil has been troubling me since last June. I have given up in my attempts to logically show how God can exist despite the presence of unwarranted sufferings in the world. Building on Prof. Herling's appropriation of Dostoevsky's metaphor, Ivan returns the ticket to God because grown-ups have "eaten the apple and know good and evil, and they have become 'like gods.' They go on eating it still. But the children haven't eaten anything, and are so far innocent". Ivan goes on to tell the story of the poor child of five being subjected to every possible torture by her cultivated parents, and the story of the eight-year-old boy who was torn by a whole pack of hounds. The free will defence obviously does not suffice when we are being confronted with such chilling cruelty.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am compelled by Kant's suggestion that we need to postulate the existence of God; and by Augustine's constant reassertion that evil is merely a privation of good. It is dangerous for us to think of evil as a positive substance. We need to postulate the existence of God because we need to believe that justice is unerring in the afterlife, that we need to do good regardless of how horrible the world seems to be. This postulation of God is not merely theodicy but also ethics. It allows us not to eliminate evil, but perhaps to find redemption in our firm conviction that goodness and humanity will ultimately prevail?
Maybe?
Karen
ReplyDeleteHick’s soul-making theodicy was really interesting to consider and would be terribly controversial for hardcore Christians to believe. Hick is ultimately getting rid of the concept of original sin and the “fall from righteousness.” Unlike Augustine who denies the existence of evil as a separate entity from good, Hick doesn’t deny it but claims it’s part of the process of growing towards God. He states that the humanity should get rid of the notion that there was a period before the fall when we were the ideal state, but rather live “with perfection lying in the future rather than in the past.” With people evolving towards being perfect and good, evil can rationally exist because we are imperfect and immature when we are born with the free will to make choices.
Taking away one of the precepts of Christianity is just as controversial as taking away one of the omni’s from God. If the idea of the fall can be tossed aside so simply and one of the omnis can be detracted from God’s character, the belief that religion is solely a manmade creation is really prevalent. What would be the purpose of believing in God or Christianity if their rudimentary features are so unfixed?
Philip
ReplyDeleteI like Augustine's approach to the problem of evil. It is a privation of good and it is the product of our misuse of freewill. I think that pretty much reconciles the coexistence of God and evil.
Philip
ReplyDeleteDoes it bother anybody else that Clifford never defines "sufficient evidence". He seems to have no problem believing in morality but a big problem believing in God. What sufficient evidence could he have that morality exists. It couldn't be any better than the evidence the ship owner has that Providence exists.
Philip
ReplyDeleteI understand how the problem of evil can get us to question the omnis of the western monotheistic God but how do you get from that, to God doesn't exist at all? I don't see the link. Could someone explain it to me?
Philip
ReplyDeleteKant's reason to posit God on a moral basis, I think is a good one. I wonder if he would see a link between that idea and the idea that we need suffering in order to see the good in life. I like his thoughts on maxims, but in terms of finding morality based on consistency alone is a stretch.
Philip
ReplyDeleteHumes idea that nothing is analogous with God is a great one. I like that he thinks we should save room for faith. Ultimately, there are many things we simply can't know. Philosophy can never replace faith completely. I think it's funny that we even try to subject God to our own sense of good and evil or reasoning. By doing so we are making ourselves analogous with God which clearly is ridiculous.
Nadine
ReplyDeleteWeek 10
The problem of evil is a serious issue for Western monotheism. The crux of the problem is if god is all knowing, all-powerful, and all good, how can we explain the immense amount of suffering that takes place. I am not sure where I stand on this issue of evil. I was certainly taken with Augustine and Leibniz’s justifications for the existence of god. It is not uncommon for religious individuals to say that suffering happens for a reason, and it is simply out of our control and for a greater good. Initially, I liked this idea that we may not be able to understand reasons for such suffering, and in fact that such suffering can in fact be character building. However, there is some suffering that is so horrific-genocide, ethnic cleansings, etc- that there is simply not a greater good being served. Thus, in situations like these, I believe we must ethically question what is going on. I certainly think to say gods actions serve a greater good that is beyond us is a decent argument, however, in certain situations it becomes essential to question how such actions could possibly be beneficial to anyone.
Nadine
ReplyDeleteWeek 11
In the cross-cultural section of The Problem of Evil, I was most interested in Kimberly Patton’s “Can Evil Be Redeemed? Unorthodox Tensions in Eastern Orthodox Theology.” Patton presents an idea that says when the end comes-i.e. The apocalypse, everyone will be saved and go to heaven. Though she tries not to show sides, she certainly indicates that she is a believer of this idea. This idea, is a major problem for Christianity. Though much of Christianity is based upon the notion of love- so one could say that it makes rational sense for everyone to end up going to heaven- the other major part of Christianity is about living a good life so you can be saved and go to heaven. If Patton’s presentation is correct, salvation is something that happens to everyone, regardless of how they live their lives. Under this premise, a murdered would share the same destiny for the afterlife as a figure like Mother Theresa, hence a major problem for Christianity! I found Patton’s argument to be a very intriguing one-though I didn’t like the Lord of the Rings comparison- that calls Christianity into question.
I am compelled by the Patton's article as well (admittedly I have only started reading it this morning) -- I have always wondered how can an all-good God allow for eternal damnation. If no one can be perfect (in that everyone sins and needs justification by grace through faith in Christ's righteousness) then why is it that some people go to heaven and others go to hell? The Christian message does not reach every single corner of the world, and if a non-believer (in a, say, rural part of China) is not able to go to heaven simply because he/she has never heard of the Christian message, then how can God be fair and good?
ReplyDeleteIf the Manichean duality of good and evil should not stand (which is what most Christian theologians argue), then perhaps what we should be aiming for is the collapse of all dualisms at the end of the day as well. I understand that this eschatology might potentially lead to a disintegration of social fabrication (ethically), but perhaps universal salvation *has* to be the only way for God to be truly good and merciful. Interestingly I see striking similarities in Origen and Isaac's theology with the bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism. Hell might exist, but eternal damnation is impossible. The existence of hell is for pedagogical (as opposed to retributive) purposes -- it is a place where "evil-doers" go to "work off" their sins (the theory of karma and samsara). But the ultimate goal should still be universal salvation.
It seems to me only two out of the three Western Religions have to wrestle with this "problem" of evil. The two religions to which I am referring are Judaism and most importantly Christianity. These two religions, especially Christianity, view the co-existence of seemingly wanton suffering and an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Supreme Being as especially problematic. Although, I would assume people of the Jewish faith would have less of a problem with this relationship due to the fact God's behavior in the Old Testament can at best be described as erratic. He is sometimes characterized as a bully (loss of omnibenevolence) or inept in his omniscience. So I suppose that it would be safe to assume that the people of the Jewish faith are heavy on the "mystery" bit. But the third, and until now unmentioned Western religion, Islam, seemingly adopts a natural attitude towards evil. People who are of the Islamic faith would claim that people are made up of a composite of parts and one of those parts is lower being (or in Freudian terms, an id)
ReplyDeleteThis lower being, according some people of the Islamic faith, is the source of our desires and will. This part viewed objectively is neither good nor bad, it just helps explain that as human beings we have the capacity for good and evil acts. Compound this id (or lower self) with the existence of a nefarious deceiver who tempts and tricks human beings into performing evil acts and the existence of evil almost seems natural or at least unproblematic.
ReplyDeleteDimitria
ReplyDeleteFor some reason the line "I loved the self-destruction, I loved my fall, not the object for which I have fallen but my fall itself" in Augustine's "The Fallen Self" is so incredibly powerful. For me, it puts into perspective that as human beings we are not chasing after these evil objects or entities but instead allowing ourselves to be transformed because of them and in their name. The objects are not evil in and of themselves; they are just objects freely existing. Drugs are not evil or corrupt but the abuse that humans put on themselves by accessing drugs, alcohol, etc is where the true evil lies. We are all afraid of being caught or afraid of losing, but the drama and adrenaline we experience during such encounters is what fuels us to continue and is where the true evil lies.
I am re-thinking the Augustinian notion of evil as being a privation of good. I used to whole-heartedly agree with Augustine, but now I'm wondering if it's all word games. Millions of Jews still perished during the Holocaust, genocides still go on in this world. We can call what occurred in the Nazi death camps anything we choose to (evil, a privation of good, etc.), but choosing not to call it evil does not diminish the magnitude of Auschwitz. To explain away the problem of evil by first giving it another name (i.e., the "privation of good") and then concluding that it does not exist seems to be begging the very question itself...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Angela and her charge against the Augustine and his conception of evil. It often does seem as if Augustine is just engaging in word games. The crowd favorite example of evil, the holocaust, would be concieved as just a gross privation of good in Augustine's eyes. But does this attentuate the suffering of the victims in the least bit? I could just as easily play word games and just substitute the "problem of evil" with the "problem of gross privations of good". Another issue I took with the Augustinian conception of evil was that even abject evil has some utility within it. It would make me truly doubt Augustine's character if this was a serious proposition.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of utility could possible come from wanton human or even animal suffering? One could make the claim that the people in the camps of Aushwitz came out stronger people at the end of the ordeal but is that intense suffering requisite for character building? I would certainly hope Augustine would not even make such an outrageous claim in order to remain loyal to his concept of evil. Although, I am in somewhat agreement with Augustine that less intense privations of good (or evil, no matter how you word it is still going to be unpleasant) do have some inherent utility because without these lesser privations of good, appreciation of the good in general may be difficult to find,
ReplyDeleteDorian
ReplyDeleteIf we are to be concerned with extreme cases where evil is a possibility, I believe we must also consider extreme cases of goodness, where poor people win 200 million in the lottery. I do not know how I feel about omnibenevolent God because the ways its been implied so far do not agree with extreme suffering. The only thing that I can see in extreme goodness and extreme suffering is that there is always territory that is very unpredictable in our world. The only thing this eludes to to me right now is that we should not take things for granted, convention included. But im not sure how I would reasonably connect that back to God's goodness or theodicy...?
Karen
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting how the problem of evil is such a huge thing to wrestle with for Christianity, but for other religions, such as Buddhism, it’s not an issue at all. Whereas Christians rely on an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God as the main source of everything; Buddhists rely on themselves. They acknowledge the fact that all is suffering, yet are not pessimistic about it as Kalupahana points out, but rather allows an individual to be enlightened and unattached to fleeting feelings.
Buddhists “recognize both happiness and suffering existing as substances.” Unlike Augustine who denies the existence of evil and suffering, and perceives it as simply lesser degrees of good; which is difficult to grasp viewing some of the horrible things that happen in the world, Buddhists acknowledge that suffering exists, but it is necessary to be unattached to it. Kalupahana states: “when that feeling is perceived as happiness, it contributes to enlightenment, through its enjoyment. When it is perceived as suffering, it leads to release by being non-attached to it.” Buddhists aren’t pessimistic people at all, but seem to take a relatively positive outlook on how to cope with what goes on with the world, including evil, something Christians still have difficulties doing in the face of God.
Courtney
ReplyDeleteI believe that the problem of evil is only a problem for a.) religious people and b.) more specifically western religious people who believe in a God of the omnis. There does not seem to be any logical or evidentiary problem of evil unless you believe in a God that would know enough, love enough, and be strong enough to will it to not exist
Courtney
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed Rowe's article, especially in contrast with Hick's "Soul Making Theodicy." I definitely think there is merit to the statement that "suffering builds character." I'm not sure life would have any real beauty or feeling or importance or what have you (much like Augustine stipulated) without some bad to compare it to. I also think I have grown most in my life from trying experiences and I like who I am more today for having gone through it. I wholeheartedly believe, though, that there is much more suffering in the world than needs to exist in order for this character development to occur. There is no excuse for about half of the horrific things that happen in the world. I absolutely believe that we DO NOT live in the best of all possible worlds.
Courtney
ReplyDeleteAlso, have been thinking a lot about fideism lately and I'm starting to think it's pretty absurd. If you believe there is no room for rationality in something you should get rid of that "something" not the notion of rationality. While I think proofs are problematic and never going to win out, I think I've decided that I have respect for them and that religion is not diminished by them.
Dorian
ReplyDeleteok so ive been thinking about this problem of evil and I think that yes, there does exist a problem of evil in monotheistic religions like Christianity however, although it may not be the same problem, I do believe there may exist a "problem" of evil in other religions, (even if it may be of a different sort) For example, in some polytheistic religions, followers go to great lengths not only to seek help from the good gods, but make sure to make sacrifices to more "evil" gods in order to be spared. They seem to be constantly be aware of the potential impacts of this evil and go out of their to show respect to these gods out of fear. I am curious about the impact of the existence of evil on their conception of the goodness of the world
-how are some gods propensity to do evil overidden by goodness
Dorian
ReplyDeleteI am curious about the differences and similarities between what a buddhist conception of evil would be (lets supplement this here for suffering) in relation to the Augustian perspective on the problem of evil. Their most evident similarity is that they agree that the human will plays a significant role in suffering,(in buddhism desire causes suffering). Also, St. Augustines explanation of evil the privation of good seems to somewhat resemble the absence of good to the extent that it perceives all as suffering. However, I am a bit clueless about what the buddhist interpretation would be of Augustines claim about the aesthetic balance of good and bad in our world if i have properly conceived of this claim.
Philip
ReplyDeleteMoral evil is the product of our freewill which is a good thing. The idea that God doesn't exist because of moral evil is ridiculous. If you argue that you'd prefer to have a less freewill that wouldn't allow you to misuse it, think about the fact that you're using you're freewill to make that judgement. Imagine if you're capacity to make you're mind up about something was compromised because you weren't free enough to do exactly that.
Philip
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a natural disaster is evil is crazy. People losing their life in a natural disaster is evil. The natural disaster in and of itself isn't evil. Also, not all natural disasters kill people. Natural disasters also are a product of the elements which allow us to sustain. The elements might cause someone's demise, but they also allow us to live so I don't see how they could be seen as being completely evil.
Philip-I can't get on board with the buddhist notion that all is suffering. Did Buddha never have a good day?
ReplyDeletePhilip
ReplyDeleteTo everyone in class who doesn't think we're better off now than we were a hundred years ago, you're all crazy. If you're a woman and think that you were better off a hundred years ago, you obviously aren't enjoying your right to vote. If you're a man and think that you were better off a hundred years ago, you haven't seen enough internet pornography.
i personally don't hold to the omnis; particularly the omnibenevolence. it a bit of an anthropomorphic trait, especially since the christian view tries to argue against that, particularly Hume in his essay "dialogues concerning natural religion". Hicks, although i do like his theodicy, does seem to fall under a similar bus as Leibniz.
ReplyDeletealso to speak of "progress" that has been mentioned above; it's a bit trickier to define than one would think. society and culture has to be taken into respect as people have varying opinions, a lot of which often contradict one another; the world is not a utopia, that i think the class can agree on. to say that things are better than they have been is a bit of a blanket statement since the aforementioned "progress" can be a bit subjective.
'tis K. byrnes from above, just to let you all know...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete