|
|
|
|
Problem of evil
|
| |
|
| |
In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God. The problem follows with the belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent whilst at the same time evil exists. God either cannot stop evil or he will not. If he cannot then he is argued to not be omnipotent. If he will not then he is argued to not be omnibenevolent.
Responses include the arguments that evil is necessary for the existence of greater goods such as free will or spiritual growth, that we cannot understand God, that evil is merely the absence of good, or that it is an appropriate punishment.
example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is presented by Epicurus and may be schematized as follows (this form of the argument is called 'the inconsistent triad'):
- If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
- There is evil in the world.
- Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens (denying the consequent).
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Problem of evil' Start a new discussion about 'Problem of evil' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God. The problem follows with the belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent whilst at the same time evil exists. God either cannot stop evil or he will not. If he cannot then he is argued to not be omnipotent. If he will not then he is argued to not be omnibenevolent.
Responses include the arguments that evil is necessary for the existence of greater goods such as free will or spiritual growth, that we cannot understand God, that evil is merely the absence of good, or that it is an appropriate punishment.
Detailed arguments
One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is presented by Epicurus and may be schematized as follows (this form of the argument is called 'the inconsistent triad'):
- If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
- There is evil in the world.
- Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens (denying the consequent). In this case, P is "God exists" and Q is "there is no evil in the world". Other logical forms of arguments articulating the problem follow. Most philosophical debate has focused on the first premise, questioning the statement that God is unable to coexist with evil.
Logical problem of evil
- God exists. (premise)
- God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word "God")
- God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
- All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
- All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
- God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
- God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
- Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
- God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
- God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
- God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
- Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
- Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and all-benevolent, or all-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will not necessarily do so immediately when they become aware of it.
Evidential problem of evil
As argued by Paul Draper in a seminal article in Noûs (1989), the evidential problem of evil goes as follows:
- Gratuitous evils exist.
- The hypothesis of indifference (HI), i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
- Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.
Argument from evil natural laws and processes
- A god is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent.
- If a god exists, then there exist no instances of ultimately evil natural laws or processes.
- The laws of predation are ultimately evil.
- There are instances of the laws of predation.
- Therefore, no god exists.
Inductive argument from evil
- All evil in the kinds of created entities are the result of the fallibility of one or more of its creators. (Premise)
- The universe is a created entity. (Premise)
- The universe contains evil. (Premise)
- Evil is the result of the actions of a fallible creator(s) or is not the result of any creator(s). (From 1, 2 and 3 by predictive inference)
- If god created the universe, then he is fallible. (From 4)
- Therefore, god did not create the universe, is imperfect, or does not exist. (From 5)
Argument from the biological role of pain and pleasure
- Consider the following observations:
- Moral agents experiencing pain or pleasure we know to be biologically useful.
- Sentient beings that are not moral agents experiencing pain or pleasure that we know to be biologically useful.
- Sentient beings experiencing pain or pleasure that we do not know to be biologically useful.
- The observations in 1 are more probably the result of natural law than a god.
- Therefore, probably no god exists.
Defenses and theodicies
Responses to the problem of evil have sometimes been classified as defenses or theodicies. However, authors disagree on the exact definitions. Generally, a defense attempts to show that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. An example of a defense might be to state that the existence of evil is necessary for the existence of some unspecified greater good. However, even if there exists such a logical possibility, this does not mean that this is a plausible or probable explanation for the presence of evil. A defense attempts to answer the logical problem of evil.
A theodicy (from Greek ?e?? (theós, "god") and d??? (díke, "justice")), on the other hand, is a more ambitious attempt to provide such a plausible and often more detailed justification for the existence of evil. A theodicy attempts to answer the evidential problem of evil. Richard Swinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are greater goods, unless we know what they are, i.e., we have a successful theodicy.
These arguments are often combined. An example is arguing that the original sin was due to free will.
Free will
The free will argument is as follows. God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will and who can make moral choices.
Natural evils such as earthquakes and many diseases are sometimes seen as a problem for a free will argument since they seem to not be caused by free will decisions. Possible reasons for natural evils using a free will argument include that they are caused by the free will of supernatural beings such as demons, are caused by the original sin which in turn is caused by free will, are caused by natural laws that are argued must exist in this form for free will to exist, or allow through observation and copying humans to perform greater evils which makes moral decisions more significant.
For many evils such as murder, rape, or theft it appears that the free will and choice of the victim is diminished by the free will decisions of the offender. In some cases such as murdered very young children it appears that they never had any free will choices to make at all. A possible response is that a world with some free will is better than a world with no free will at all.
Another possible objection is that free will could exist without the degree of evil seen in this world. God could have created a world where nothing extremely painful ever happens and no one has the power to inflict great pain on others. This could be accomplished by making humans inclined to make more or always make good moral decisions by making these feel more pleasurable, or if harmful choices were made God would for some or all of them prevent the harmful consequences from actually happening, or if harmful consequences occurred God would often or always immediately punish such acts which would presumably diminish their frequency. A reply is that such a "toy world" would mean that free will has less or no real value.
The debate depends on the definitions of free will and determinism, which are deeply disputed concepts themselves, as well as their relation to one another. See also compatibilism and incompatibilism and predestination.
While not affecting the validity of the defense itself this reasoning creates problems for other common religious beliefs. The defense implies that there can be no Heaven unless its inhabitants have no free will and thus lose its tremendous value. If a heavenly existence is still more valuable than an earthly existence the earthly one seems unnecessary. Another problem is that God does not seem to have the tremendous value associated with free will since he can only do the most good thing.
Plantinga's free will defense
Soul-making
St Irenaeus and more recently John Hick has argued that evil and suffering is necessary for spiritual growth. This is often combined with the free will argument by arguing that such spiritual growth requires free will decisions. A problem with this is that many evils do not seem to promote this. Examples include painful deaths of very young, innocent children and animals. Others enjoy lives of ease and luxury where there is virtually nothing that challenges them to undergo moral growth.
Heaven and hell
One possible argument is that an eternity of bliss in heaven will more than compensate for any earthly sufferance. However, this does not answer why any evil at all is necessary. If there is also a belief in hell then there is also the problem of hell which is a variant of problem of evil.
Skeptical theism
Skeptical theism, which is based on the position that humans cannot expect to understand God or God's ultimate plan, is perhaps the most popular response to the problem of evil among contemporary philosophers of religion.
Lacking omnipotence or omnibenevolence
The problem of evil does not apply if God is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In Gnosticism the creator of the material world the Demiurge lacks one or both of these attributes. In polytheism the individual deities are usually not omnipotent or omnibenevolent. Misotheism refers to a hatred of god(s).
Ditheistic belief systems (a kind of dualism) resolved the problem of evil by positing that there are two rival great gods, that work in polar opposition to each other. Examples of such belief systems include Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism and in a way those currents of Christianity and Islam comprising the Devil, although the latter tend to define some kind of asymmetry between the two deities' capabilities (especially Islam, which totally denies any actual power of the Devil besides to form temptations). While the concept of omnipotence is difficult to hold in ditheistic belief systems, "asymmetrically ditheistic" belief systems as described above can't logically adhere to the omnipotence of one of the opposing forces as the omnipotent one then could simply rid itself of the other. Thus generally, ditheistic belief systems are technically not subject to the problem of evil because its source is evident.
Process theology is another position that limits God's omnipotence.
Definition of "evil" as an absence of good
The fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo maintained that evil was only privatio boni, or an absence of good, much like darkness is an absence of light. An evil thing can only be referred to as a negative form of a good thing, such as discord, injustice, and loss of life or of liberty. These are all defined in terms of a spectrum with its lowest absolute being zero good (injustice being the absolute lack of just decision or action). This is commonly called the Contrast Theodicy — that evil only exists as a "contrast" with good.
However, the Contrast Theodicy doesn't completely solve the problem of evil, as even if the apparent existence of suffering and evil in the world are illusory, the question remains why God neglected to create those goods that are found to be lacking in the world. There are similar ideas in Neoplatonism and Jewish Kabbalah (see Tzimtzum) which see the world as consisting of several layers. Each layer is increasingly more removed from God and less perfect.
The mathematical logician and member of the Baha'i Faith William Hatcher has made a similar argument using relational logic.
Evil is relative to good
Evil is relative to good; neither good nor evil could exist without both existing simultaneously. However, this implies that God cannot be completely good.
Evil is an illusion
One possible argument is that evil and suffering is merely an illusion. But this does not explain why such an illusion is allowed to exist.
Evil is a test
Evil is sometimes seen as a test or trial for humans. However, this by itself does not explain why such a test exists. Also, an omnipotent God could always make human abilities or the test so that the test is always failed or passed. An omniscient God would know the results in advance.
"Evil" suggests an ethical law
Another response to this paradox argues that asserting "evil exists" would imply an ethical standard against which to define good and evil. See Argument from morality.
Punishment
The problem of evil is often phrased "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Some religions answer that good people simply do not exist. For example, some forms of Christianity teach that all people are inherently sinful due to the fall of man and the original sin. A counterargument is that an omniscient God when he created the world would have predicted this and an omnipotent God could have prevented it. If arguing that the fall was due to free will then this becomes another example of the free will argument.
There are also beliefs that when people experience evils it is always because evils they themselves have done (see just-world phenomenon) or their ancestors have done (see Karma or again the original sin). However, such beliefs do not answer why God allowed such evils and suffering in the first place.
General criticisms of all defenses and theodicies
Steven M. Cahn has argued that there exists a "problem of good" (or "Cacodaemony") which is a mirror image of the problem of evil. The problem is the same except for that omnibenevolence is replaced by omnimalevolence, greater good is replaced by greater evil, and so on. Cahn argued that all arguments, defenses, and theodicies regarding the problem of evil applies similarly to the problem of good.
An argument that has been raised against theodicies is that, if a theodicy were true, it is argued that it would completely nullify morality. If a theodicy were true, then all evil events, including human actions, can be somehow rationalized as permitted or affected by God, and therefore there can no longer be such a thing as "evil" values.
By religion
Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt
The problem of evil takes at least four formulations in ancient Mesopotamian religious thought, as in the extant manuscripts of Ludlul bel nemeqi (I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom), Erra and Ishum, The Babylonian Theodicy, and The Dialogue of Pessimism.
In this type of polytheistic context, the chaotic nature of the world implies multiple gods battling for control.
In ancient Egypt, it was thought the problem takes at least two formulations, as in the extant manuscripts of Dialogue of a Man with His Ba and The Eloquent Peasant. Due to the conception of Egyptian gods as being far removed, these two formulations of the problem focus heavily on the relation between evil and people; that is, moral evil.
Traditional Jewish Interpretations
An oral tradition exists in Judaism that God determined the time of the Messiah's coming by erecting a great set of scales. On one side, God placed the captive Messiah with the souls of dead laymen. On the other side, God placed sorrow, tears, and the souls of righteous martyrs. God then declared that the Messiah would appear on earth when the scale was balanced. According to this tradition, then, evil is necessary in the bringing of the world's redemption, as sufferings reside on the scale.
Hebrew Bible
The biblical Book of Job is, perhaps, the most widely known formulation of the problem of evil in Western thought. In it, Satan challenges God regarding his servant Job, claiming that Job only serves God for the blessings and protection that he receives from him. God allows Satan to plague Job in a number of ways, with the limitation that Satan may not take Job's life. Job, not understanding what has transpired unseen to him in heaven, questions God regarding his suffering, which he finds to be unjust. God responds by challenging Job in return with a series of questions revealing his power and understanding, after which Job repents.
Another formulation of the problem of evil is the story of the biblical character Joseph in the Book of Genesis. Here, Joseph says that whereas his brothers meant evil by selling him into slavery, God meant it for a greater good, to save many people (from famine) (Genesis 50). Other books of note include Psalms 1 and 82, and Ecclesiastes (Koheleth).
Traditional Christian Interpretations
Augustine and Pelagius
The consequences of the original sin were debated by Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo. Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint all of humanity and that mortal free will is capable of choosing good or evil without divine aid. Augustine's position, and ultimately that of much of Christianity, was that Adam and Eve had the power to change nature by bringing sin into the world, but that the advent of sin then limited mankind's power thereafter to evade the consequences without divine aid. Eastern Orthodox theology holds that one inherits the nature of sinfulness but not Adam and Eve's guilt for their sin which resulted in the fall.
Marcion
Marcion, the 2nd century Christian theologian, is presented by Tertullian in his Adversus Marcionem as presenting this puzzle: "Why does God, who is all powerful and has foreknowledge of the future, allow evil?" Marcion's answer is that God is in part evil himself.
Luther and Calvin
Both Luther and Calvin explained evil as a consequence of the fall of man and the original sin. However, due to the belief in predestination and omnipotence, the fall is part of God's plan. Ultimately humans may not be able to understand and explain this plan.
Contemporary Christian Interpretation
Mary Baker Eddy
Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of the Christian Science movement) regarded evil as an illusion. Consequently, neither she nor her followers have a philosophical problem with the concept of an almighty and wholly good deity. In regard to the question as to what caused or causes the illusion of evil, Christian Science responds that the question is meaningless, and furthermore that enquiring into the origin of the illusion of evil tends to reinforce it, since such an enquiry would strengthen the belief that evil is real. Mary Baker Eddy writes: "The notion that both evil and good are real is a delusion of material sense, which Science annihilates. Evil is nothing, no thing, mind, nor power."
Peter Kreeft
Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft provides several answers to the problem of evil and suffering, including that a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods, b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin, c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil, d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans 5, e) Suffering can bring people closer to God, and f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need.
Hinduism
In Hinduism, the problem of evil is present but does not exist per se as souls are eternal and not directly created by God. In Dvaita philosophy, jivas (souls) are eternally existent and hence not a creation of God ex nihilo (out of nothing). The souls are bound by beginningless avidya (ignorance) that cause a misidentification with products of nature (body, wealth, power) and hence suffering. In effect, Hinduism identifies avidya (ignorance) as the cause of evil and this ignorance itself is uncaused. Suffering from natural causes are explained as karmic results of previous births. See also Karma in Hinduism.
Moreover, even within the realm of avidya, "good" and "evil" are an individual's deeds and God dispenses the results of an individual's actions but has the power to mitigate suffering.
Non-dual Advaita mysticism answers the question of theodicy by maintaining that every seemingly separate person is in fact a thought, dream, or experience of God. God creates and becomes / experiences each creation, deliberately limiting itself to a specific identity in space and time to undergo a particular life experience. Therefore it is God who experiences every pain, suffers every indignity, dies every death, experiences the illusion of being each separate individual.
Buddhism
In Buddhism, there is no theistic "problem of evil" as Buddhism generally rejects the notion of a benevolent, omnipotent creator god, identifying such a notion as attachment to a false concept. For instance, in the Bhridatta Jtaka the Bodhisattva sings:
- If the creator of the world entire
- They call God, of every being be the Lord
- Why does he order such misfortune
- And not create concord?
- If the creator of the world entire
- They call God, of every being be the Lord
- Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
- And he such inequity and injustice create?
- If the creator of the world entire
- They call God, of every being be the Lord
- Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
- Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
Islam
Mutazilite view
In Islamic theology, the Mu'tazili school identified evil as something that stems from free will and human imperfection, arguing that if man's evil acts were from the will of God then punishment would be meaningless. Mu'tazilis do not deny suffering from non-human sources such as natural disasters, and explain this "apparent" evil through the Islamic doctrine of taklif - that life is a test for beings possessing free will.
Other views
Epicurus
Epicurus is generally credited with first expounding the problem of evil, and it is sometimes called "the Epicurean paradox" or "the riddle of 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. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief
Epicurus himself did not leave any written form of this argument. It can be found in Lucretius's De Rerum Natura and in Christian theologian Lactantius's Treatise on the Anger of God where Lactantius critiques the argument. Epicurus's argument as presented by Lactantius actually argues that a god that is all-powerful and all-good does not exist and that the gods are distant and uninvolved with man's concerns. The gods are neither our friends nor enemies.
David Hume
David Hume's formulation of the problem of evil in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
"[Gods] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"
Gottfried Leibniz
In his Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, the sceptic Pierre Bayle denied the goodness and omnipotence of God on account of the sufferings experienced in this earthly life. Gottfried Leibniz introduced the term theodicy in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal ("Theodicic Essays on the Benevolence of God, the Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil") which was directed mainly against Bayle. He argued that this is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created.
Imitating the example of Leibniz, other philosophers also called their treatises on the problem of evil theodicies. Voltaire's popular novel Candide mocked Leibnizian optimism through the fictional tale of a naive youth.
Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant argued for sceptical theism. He claimed there is a reason all possible theodicies must fail: evil is a personal challenge to every human being and can be overcome only by faith. He wrote
We can understand the necessary limits of our reflections on the subjects which are beyond our reach. This can easily be demonstrated and will put an end once and for all to the trial.
Victor Cousin
Victor Cousin argued for a form of eclecticism to organize and develop philosophical thought. He believed that the Christian idea of God was very similar to the Platonic concept of "the Good," in that God represented the principle behind all other principles. Like the ideal of Good, Cousin also believed the ideal of Truth and of Beauty were analogous to the position of God, in that they were principles of principles. Using this way of framing the issue, Cousin stridently argued that different competing philosophical ideologies all had some claim on truth, as they all had arisen in defense of some truth. He however argued that there was a theodicy which united them, and that one should be free in quoting competing and sometimes contradictory ideologies in order to gain a greater understanding of truth through their reconciliation.
See also
External links
- (A Calvinist Theodicy)
- (A Jehovah's Witness Perspective)
-
-
- A Hegelian theodicy.
-
- regarding the problem of evil.
- from Chabad.org
-
-
-
- , A Graduate Level Research Paper*
-
-
-
- , Appendix VI of , by Stephen Palmquist.
|
| |
|
|
