The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
In the excerpt from Philosophy of Religion, John Hicks outlines the problem of evil as such:
(a) If God were truly omnibenevolent, he would then wish to eliminate all evil;
(b) If God is were truly omnipotent, he would then be capable of eliminating evil;
(c) Evil exists in the world.
Therefore: (d) God is not omnibenevolent or He is not omnipotent.
Either element of the conclusion is damaging to the traditional understanding of a Judeo-Christian God. It seems simple enough. A benevolent Creator appears incompatible with what we understand to be the existence of evil. Evil is opposed to God’s will, eventually cumulating in the crucifixion of God’s son, Jesus. One must then wonder how an all-loving and all-powerful God would allow such pain to occur to both his creation and Jesus. A perfect God’s world should be similarly perfect. The world is not perfect so it seems that God must not be all-loving or He must not be all-powerful. Rejecting the existence of evil, immediately rejects too much of the Judeo-Christian tradition to be considered, though some philosophers have considered it.
The traditional Christian answer to why God allowed the death of Christ is for the absolution of humanity’s sin. However, this begs the question, as an omnipotent God why was it necess...
... middle of paper ...
...owardice or evil (2) must then work to minimize good (1) and maximize evil (1). This process can continue ad infinitum
It also follows that God, not as benevolent as could be hoped, prefers the maximization of good (2) as opposed to the minimization of evil (1). This is disquieting for the individual who might be the victim of suffering a “greater good.”
It appears that the problem of evil is a substantial one. While arguments exist that can challenge assumptions of the problem, it sometimes requires some definition contorting and does not answer all the challenges evil presents. The greater good defense presents some key insights into how we must perceive God’s actions but does not completely defend against the presented problems of evil. Therefore, a more plausible defense is needed to eliminate the problems evil creates with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
The pervasive problem of evil in the world has pleagued the Christian faith that proclaim God as a good and perfect God. There has been a need for theist to address this issues as a disclaimer for those that use evil as an reason to disprove that God could be good, perfect or even exist. Therefore, theist theologians and philosophers have turned to theodicies to attempt to explain the problem of evil. Theodicy is an attempt to explain why God permits evil in the world. This essay will show the historical approach to theodicy, the opposition to said theodicies and why theodicies could still play an important role today.
The problem of evil is a big topic in today’s society and will continue to be for forever. The problem is that so many bad things happen in the world that Gods existence is debatable and if he is real, it is questionable that he is as powerful as the bible portrays him to be. In this case, we ask the question, how can such a good and powerful God not prevent evil in the world? The argument at hand is that if a perfect God exists, there would be no evil in the world and since evil exists, there is no God. In this paper, I will examine both sides to the problem. I will discuss views on why God is in existence and allows evil, as well as views on why God is not in existence based on the fact that there is evil in the world. After that I will take my stance on the issue and justify why I think that way.
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
The problem of evil is inescapable in this fallen world. From worldwide terror like the Holocaust to individual evils like abuse, evil touches every life. However, evil is not a creation of God, nor was it in His perfect will. As Aleksandr
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
While traditional theology has characterized God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, we all have seen instances of evil in the world, from the genocide currently occurring in Darfur to the mass torture seen in the Spanish Inquisition, where people have been forced to suffer at the hands of others for millennia. Mackie’s argument is that an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good God has the means, knowledge and desire to prevent such instances of evil from occurring, and yet evil clearly exists. Mackie argues that the removal of any one of the ascribed characteristics would solve the problem of evil; however few theologians have been prepared to accept this as the only solution. (Mackie, 1955)
In this paper, I will argue against two of the many proposals that Andrea M. Weisberger represents in her book, Suffering Belief. I will first argue against her claims that evil is not necessary as a means of bringing forth good and that it is not a counterpart to good because she is not successful in acknowledging that the very basic elements of compassion are driven by the roof of suffering, and that one without the other, only results in the absence of higher consciousness. My second argument will be against her proposal which states that evil is not necessary for a long term good because she fails to recognize that the evil which involves millions of deaths due to natural disasters or man-made events, is necessary to maintain the earth’s carrying capacity in the long run. Weisberger’s claim that evil is not necessary as a means of good branches into two different points. Her first point, being that evil is not necessary to maintain the earth’s carrying capacity in the long run, and second, that evil is not necessary for long term goods. I will argue with her proposal against long term goods later in my paper, and for now, focus on her proposal against short term goods and how evil can’t be a means in bringing forward good in general, along with her rejection of the idea that it can’t be a counterpart to good.
It is perhaps the most difficult intellectual challenge to a Christian how God and evil can both exist. Many of the greatest minds of the Christian church and intellects such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas spent their entire lives trying to solve this problem, and were unsuccessful (Erickson, 2009, p.439). However, this dilemma is not only an intellectual challenge, but it is emotional. Man feels it, lives it. Failing to identify the religious form of the problem of evil will appear insensitive; failure to address the theological form will seem intellectually insulting. This conundrum will never be completely met during our earthly life, but there are many biblical and philosophical resources that help mitigate it.
Philosophers of the Medieval period struggled with the problem of evil - specifically, the existence of evil brought a question to the fore: if the world was created by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, then how was it that evil existed? To further complicate the matter, a second question branched off of the first as individuals pondered over whether or not God was ultimately the cause of evil. If God created everything, and evil exists as part of everything, then God, logically, had created evil. But this presented yet another issue, in that if God had knowingly created evil, then he could not truly be all-good. And it is these concerns that philosophers addressed.
In order to understand The Problem of Evil, we must first understand the concept of God. The God that this problem addresses is what we call a PKM god. This god is accepted in multiple religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Over half of the world population claims to be followers of any of
...eradicating the element of fear. It would always be reasonable to maintain the typical conception of an omnibenevolent God who would never intend for moral wrongs to be done.
The existence of famine, war, disease, and other distasteful aspects of humanity pose a tough, insistent question as to why God chose to create evil. As an infinitely powerful creator, surely a morally perfect God can and should create a world where evil does not exist in the first place. To propose otherwise seems to paint God as a malevolent being who apparently takes joy in watching the chaos. Bernard Leikind (2010) is a physicist who published an article that paints a representation of the mystery of evil as seen by most non-believers. In his article, Leikind uses the Old Testament biblical figure Job to support a malevolent God who just as easily gives as he takes away. He references Job 38:1-4 (NIV):
P4: If God is perfectly good and omnipotent, he will use his unlimited power to do and create only good.
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
This is the understanding of a God which includes moral perfection; a God that simply created the universe and left is not whole enough for most theists (for if this were the real God religious morality would have an unsupportable foundation) (Blackburn, 2001: 169). This is the God of the Abrahamic religions. A God that is all knowing (omniscient) all powerful (omnipotent) and, as emphasized above, all caring or omnibenevolent (Blackburn, 2001: 169). Thus the Problem of Evil arises, as formalised below.