THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
The human and anthropological problem of suffering and agony
is the most unpalatable of the existential challenges that man must face and
contend with. The question of the death of young and innocent children, the
incurable and painful disease of cancer, termination of pregnancies,
uncontrollable volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and the sudden death of a close
friend or a beloved family member.
In situations like these, human beings do
nothing but ask “why”? In fact, the question ends up in a theological sphere of
deep emotion or rational speculation. The question inevitably ends up being a
question that puts God on trial; Why would an all-loving, all powerful and
all-knowing God permit or even enable this to take place.
I will simply endeavor to dispel what I
perceive to be unsatisfactory answers to the question of evil both from a
secular and religious perspective. Most answers I believe lay an exaggerated
responsibility on God or on man. Others simply trivialize and underestimate the
problem and post-pone it to heaven for a solution. In the same vein, I will
also propose my own perspective and outlook to the question.
1.3.1 The logical Problem of Evil
Epicurus
was a Greek philosopher who was born in Athens, in the third century BC. He
taught that the purpose of life was to obtain tranquility and peace with the
avoidance of pain and suffering. The following four statements are attributed
to him. They are sometimes used by atheists to deny God's existence. Let's take
a look at them.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is
not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both
able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then
why call him God?” [1]
The Hindu religious tradition has a poem which artistically
tries to explain the same problem in which God’s omnipotence, benevolence and
omniscience is negated or derided. It goes thus;
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
Knowing what’s right did let
wrong prevail![2]
1.3.2 The Human and existential Problem
A story might be useful in trying to situate this problem
because this inquiry is rarely abstract. Imagine a 4-year-old Peter dying of
Leukemia or a recent graduate being run over by a car, or a whole village being
swept by floods or even a family of 7 children losing both parents in a fatal
and tragic car accident. Would such occurrences find a sensible justification
or purpose?
The Consolation
Creation and the Divine ‘calculus’
Indeed, Christian doctrine teaches rather wholeheartedly
that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (Lovingly all- present) and
omniscient (all-knowing).[3] But God does not exist in
isolation and nor in a vacuum. Out of his good love and essential benevolence,
he also made man. Man, a creature who is of God but not God. Consequently, man
is not perfect but good only to some degree. Being imperfect, man is both good
and not- good, beautiful and not beautiful in different respects.
When God made man, a being other than himself, a being that
is not faultless, God also had to leave scope for imperfection and defects and
flaws. If God had made man perfect,
nature would not have had the plurality of creation that is extant. As the
German philosopher Leibniz notes in his principle of the unity of indiscernibles
[4], “if two things are
identical in number, quality and quantity, then they are not two but one. There
cannot be two individuals which are completely alike.[5] There will always be some
respect in which a differs from b, if a and b are not
identical. Conclusively, if God had made the human condition perfect, he would
not need to create man but would simply have replicated himself. (an utter
impossibility!)
It goes without saying therefore that every time in which we
complain about evil , imperfections, flaws and defects in man and in nature in
general, we in fact are complaining that God created us. When we ask God to
eliminate evil, we implicitly express regret and remorse about the act of
creation itself. Of all possible worlds, this particular one is inevitably a
world capable of great evil but also more infinitely a world capable of great
good and abounding love. When placed on a scale, the weight of goodness, love
and care outstandingly and infinitely outweigh the gravity of evil. This life
is indeed worth living.
Nature is inherently good.
Volcanoes, landslides, tropical diseases, viruses, death,
tsunamis, storms and blazing fires, droughts, floods. The list of ‘natural
evils’ is endless. One persists in wonder why the world is so full of terrible
natural occurrences. Is God in the final analysis cruel? I beg to differ!
If one approaches the world with emotion and a deep sense of
subjectivity, such phenomena would be undisputedly be perceived to be terrible
evils. This paper argues the opposite view, that is , that creation and nature
is beautiful and intrinsically valuable. Volcanoes, floods and landslides are
beautiful, stunning and good in and of themselves. The ground of evil in such phenomena is the
human perspective. Cosmology and the philosophy of nature usually teaches us to
experience the world only in relation to man. The world is ‘for us’ and as such
it is judged to be good or bad in so far as it benefits or diminishes human
flourishing respectively. For example,
heavy rains might be termed evil if they succeed in sweeping out complete
villages or farms. However, if such a spectacle took place in a “people-less”
world, it would be considered a beautiful phenomenon to view. Natural events
are taken to be ‘evil if they do not harmonize with one another.’[6]
The notion of meaning
Human beings are not simply experiential beings. They are
not like animals merely capable of experiencing pleasure, joy, sorrow and pain,
starvation, sickness, love, reproduction, peace and ultimately death. This
experiential faculty does not adequately explain the human nature and capacity.
Human beings are essentially meaning-making creatures. We do not simply have
experiences and events but also additionally ascribe meaning, sense and purpose
to their experiences. Irrespective of the experience of evil ,sickness, death
or falling in love. Human beings are able to interpret their experience since
to do so is precisely to answer the question; “What does it ultimately mean to
be a human person.
2. SCHOLARS ANSWER
Due to the depth and gravity of this problem, a number of
scholars have tried to address it in many diverse ways. The question of how
evil is conceivable in an ordered and perfect universe created and maintained
by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity has continued to occupy
philosophers and theologians for centuries. In this section I will try to
outline some of the answers they have suggested in responding to the problem of
evil.
2.1 Alvin Plantinga[7]
The logical problem of evil claims that three attributes of
God, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, in orthodox Christian
theism are logically incompatible with the existence of evil. To respond,
Plantinga demonstrated that God, though omnipotent, could not be expected to do
literally anything. God could not, for example, create square circles, act
contrary to his nature, or, more relevantly, create beings with free will that
would never choose evil. Taking this latter point further, Plantinga argued
that the moral value of human free will is a credible offsetting justification
that God could have as a morally justified reason for permitting the existence
of evil. Plantinga did not claim to have shown that the conclusion of the
logical problem is wrong, nor did he assert that God's reason for allowing evil
is, in fact, to preserve free will. Instead, his argument sought only to show
that the logical problem of evil was unsound.
2.1 John Hick[8]
Hick's reply comprises understanding the creation story in
Genesis in an allegorical or symbolic sense. Rather than take the story as an explanation
of a historical event, he rather proposes that we study it as an account of
what is actually taking place in the here and now. The notion is that we are a vital
portion of God's creation. In essence, we have not yet reached the final 'day'
of creation. God is still, in a way, ‘creating’ humanity (using us as tools and
as that which is shaped). This universe is seen as a workshop for creation of souls.
This creation requires the possibility that we suffer in order to provide
incentive for improvement.
Conclusion
Evil is a self-replicating and cyclical entity. It is
something that finds embodiment in human persons like you and me. Let me give
you an example; I believe that every individual, every family , every state
could mediate and saved hundreds or thousands of people. But we chose not to.
The whole human could decide to
peacefully advocate harmony and freedom. But we choose war. Every single moment
when individuals chose to do evil, they are implicitly saying that they will
become messengers of death, of hate and of violence.
I believe that you and I can add to the immense number of
those who always choose to love, to give, to share, to forgive, to care, to
sacrifice, to do the most good they can. For it is in loving that we eliminate
even the single most traces of injustice, of evil and of pain. Let’s make a
team, that is, team for those who will love and fight evil. we can do it.
Truly, evil is not a blind impersonal force. It has a face.
It has a body. It has hands. It has eyes. It cannot discriminate between
innocent kids and vulnerable mothers. Evil castigates and hurts the weakest.
But I think the weak, the young, the innocent and the vulnerable are most
capable of love and of being loved.
[1] Epicurus
(341-270 BC)
[2]As
translated by V.A. Gunasekara, in The Buddhist Attitude to God,
viewed at http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm (11/17/17)
[3]
Psalm 139
[4] Roger
Scruton, “Modern Philosophy I: The Rationalists and Kant” in Philosophy 1: A
guide through the Subject Vol 1, ed. Grayling A.C (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995) p. 465
[5]
Leibniz, Discourse on metaphysics, sect 6.
[6]
Albert Hakim, Introduction to Philosophy (citing Augustine’s Cnfessions), p 158
[7] Alvin
Plantinga “God, Freedom and Evil.” Harper and Rowe, Publishers, Inc 1974
[8] Hick,
John. “Evil and Soul-Making.” Evil and
the God of Love. Harper & Rowe,
Publishers, Inc., 1966. pp. 253-261.
No comments:
Post a Comment