Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Briefly summarize the problem of evil and suffering
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Briefly summarize the problem of evil and suffering
Evil and Suffering
For this assignment, I’ve chosen to write about Evil and Suffering. This topic is particularly interesting to me because I believe in the existence of Evil and God. I believe that some Evil and Suffering is not the work of God. The problem of evil is that people have made a choice to produce suffering on other people. And the people who suffer question the existence of God.
The existence of evil and suffering such as death, pain, or disasters are not alone the work of all-loving, omnipotent, and omniscient God. “The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love” (Psalm 145:8). However, God can allow all the suffering that we see today. If the suffering is caused by moral agents, god does not intervene to stop it because that would violate the principle of free will. For example, if an individual commits a crime and causes a lot of suffering on the victim’s family, God is not going to prevent it. If God intervenes, the criminal would not be considered as evil because the criminal’s action would be prevented each time. If God
…show more content…
However, since God is all loving, he is not intentionally provoking disasters. Nature has its own existence also and the disasters are part of that existence. God could prevent natural evil, but that would be impeding the normal course of nature. Additionally, if god prevents natural disasters, what would god gain? If God prevents an earthquake and saves millions of people, those people would never know that they have been saved by God. As you can see, if god prevents every disaster and every pain, no one would be grateful. Perhaps, god could save some people who had been good and have not committed sins. For example, god punished the Egyptians by drying the sea and the rivers, and making unproductive lands; the sinners who turned against god starved to death and the good people who repented were saved (Driskell,
In his essay, "The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy," Peter van Inwagen alleges a set of reasons that God may have for allowing evil to exist on earth. Inwagen proposes the following story – throughout which there is an implicit assumption that God is all-good (perfectly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient) and deserving of all our love. God created humans in his own likeness and fit for His love. In order to enable humans to return this love, He had to give them the ability to freely choose. That is, Inwagen holds that the ability to love implies free will. By giving humans free will, God was taking a risk. As Inwagen argues, not even an omnipotent being can ensure that "a creature who has a free choice between x and y choose x rather than y" (197)1. (X in Inwagen’s story is ‘to turn its love to God’ and y is ‘to turn its love away from God,’ towards itself or other things.) So it happened that humans did in fact rebel and turn away from God. The first instance of this turning away is referred to as "the Fall." The ruin of the Fall was inherited by all humans to follow and is the source of evil in the world. But God did not leave humans without hope. He has a plan "whose working will one day eventuate in the Atonement (at-one-ment) of His human creatures with Himself," or at least some of His human creatures (198). This plan somehow involves humans realizing the wretchedness of a world without God and turning to God for help.
Not preventing suffering is the same as actively inflicting it. Humans generally believe that if they love another person, they should prevent their loved ones from suffering. Why shouldn't God be the same? If a human causes suffering for an...
After reviewing the work of David Hume, the idea of a God existing in a world filled with so much pain and suffering is not so hard to understand. Humes’ work highlights some interesting points which allowed me to reach the conclusion that suffering is perhaps a part of God’s divine plan for humans. Our morals and values allow us to operate and live our daily lives in conjunction with a set of standards that help us to better understand our world around us and essentially allows us to better prepare for the potential life after life. For each and every day we get closer to our impending deaths and possibly closer to meeting the grand orchestrator of our universe.
Most can agree that random evil and suffering, such as accidents, war, illness, crime, and many more, have the power to disrupt human happiness. Most would also agree that it is not the evil and suffering that affects one, as much as it is how one responds to the evil and suffering that occurs in one’s life. It is undeniable that suffering occurs to everyone in some shape or form, and while others may not believe that it is suffering, it all depends on one’s life. There are many examples a reader can draw from in recent and ancient literature that provides examples of other’s suffering and how they responded to those stimuli. This essay explores how the problem of evil is addressed by Greek tragedy and by Western monotheistic tradition.
Shirley Jackson’s short story “ The Possibility of Evil” is about a little old lady named Miss Strangeworth. She thinks she’s in charge of the town and to make sure it’s free from all evil because her grandfather built the first house on Pleasant Street. At first Miss Strangeworth is a nice little old lady, worrying about people and wondering what others are up to. Then in the middle of the story she becomes a little rude to a few of the townspeople. In the end Miss Strangeworth thought she was getting rid of the evil in the town, but in reality she was causing evil in the town by showing her true colors and being extremely mean and cruel to others. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover because people aren’t always what they seem to be.
The two concepts of the problem of evil in the world have been a subject of much debate, with diverse views regarding the role of God in the occurrence of events and actions that causes human beings to suffer. Thus, while there is a total agreement between Malebranche and Leibniz regarding the role of God in creating the world, where both agrees that God did justice in creating the world, there has been a disparity in their view regarding the role of God in the occurrence of actions and events that causes human beings to suffer. Thus, Malebranche advances the theory of occasionalism, which holds that God is the only causal agent in the world, and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world, because God’s creatures do not have significant causal abilities upon which to act (Brown, 82). Therefore, according to Malebranche, the acts of h...
Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows what is going to happen before it actually happens, would he not be morally obligated to stop people from doing something evil to others, or preventing suffering by those who have been hurt by evil?
We hear about the murders, assaults, robberies, natural disasters and all other evil or natural destructive events in the world, we have to ask the question, how could God let such bad things happen to good people or to let these disastrous events happen at all. Now think about the world and its population if evil or natural disasters did not exist; the world population would be unimaginable. Natural disasters are beyond human control, but murders, assaults, robberies and all other evil or bad deeds committed by human beings is a matter of exercising bad choice or misuse of free will.
In this essay I am going to briefly tell you what Judaism says about the concept of suffering and then I?m going to attempt explaining the two main explanations!
Moral evil was an issue that weighed heavily on the minds of the people of the Medieval period. Philosophers and poets alike attempted to address and understand the problem of moral evil, scrutinizing the roots of evil and the effects of evil on the body and, more importantly, on the soul. Of the philosophers that the period produced the views of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Boethius on the problem of evil are perhaps the most notable. From the literary side of the spectrum, the problem of evil is addressed heavily in Beowulf.
In order to understand where God is in suffering, it is important to first analyze why God cannot intervene in suffering. Rabbi Harold Kushner’s Why Good Things Happen to Bad People concisely explains this mystery. He states that God cannot intervene because “God can’t stop us without taking away the freedom that makes us human." Essentially, the only way God can stop suffering is by not allowing people to cause it, taking away their free will. One of the most prominent examples would be the German concentration camp Auschwitz. Millions of people suffered and died there, but Rabbi Kushner asserts “. . . it was not God who caused it. It was caused by human beings choosing to be cruel to their fellow men.” Man’s evil choices cause human suffering, not God’s complicity. Rabbi Kushner’s observations give a strong foundation to the argument that God cannot intervene. This concept of God meshes with the idea Marcus Borg presents in The God We Never Knew. In his book, Marcus Borg suggests the notion of a panentheistic God, that is, a God that is “. . ....
One of God’s monikers is “The Creator”. He made the universe in seven days, brought a huge flood upon the Earth and rained fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah. Killing through massive disaster was the only option for God, because he couldn’t control the people and make them benevolent. He didn’t have the power. If God had the power, then he would have acted accordingly. God doesn’t like to kill his people, despite him being quick to kill. He wants humans to be fruitful and multiply, he doesn’t want to destroy them. It is irrational to believe that a creator would want his creations to die. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God even gives the town a chance to redeem themselves, but the town fails.
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.
Human suffering is the pain and sadness one feels inside when something bad has happened to her or someone close to her. There are two types of suffering: one is caused by another person, and the other type is caused by human nature (Gillman 187). Suffering caused by another person involves crimes and deceitful actions: A person inflicts pain on another person, either internally or externally, causing them and their family agony. An example of this is when a person murders someone else; the murderer creates the suffering for the victim’s family and friends. The murderer took the life of a loved one away, creating an enormous amount of suffering. A group or agency can cause suffering; cutting governmental funding also exemplifies suffering created by a person or group of people. When the government decides to take money out of a certain program, many people lose their jobs and do not get the care they need. Taking from the AIDS clinics, for example, leaves the patients in the clinics helpless. Although the government tries not to look deceitful, they eventually do look devious because so many people are left with no where to go. The selfish works of the government leaves families and friends of the victims of governmental cuts suffer as well. The family suffers knowing the person with AIDS will eventually die with no clinic support.
Evil has plagued the lives of all creatures and has existed throughout all of time. The problem of evil is that since God created the world and is all omniscient; omnipotent; and omni-benevolent, and since a good thing strives to rid evil; and because there are no limits to an omnipotent being: then because God is all three the world would therefore not contain evil. But fact is that evil does exist and from this some conclude that God does not exist because he would possess all three omni’s and rid evil. He knows of evil because he created it and had knowledge of what it would be, but he does not stop it even though he is omnipotent then that would explain the conclusion against God’s existence due to the problem of evil. If he exists then why does he allow suffering? pain?