The Presence of Evil in Our World and the Existence of God - Essay Example

Word count: 1507 The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition by William P. Alston William Alston’s work center on the argument that there is an empirical proof that demystifies the presence of a God with the assertion that evil is a necessary counterpart of this God (29). Further, he outlined his proofs and criticisms by utilizing Rowe’s essay such as the existence of severe suffering, the loosing of power of an omniscient being, and the null existence of an all powerful being (31). These argumentative paradigms are reminiscent of the principles of skeptical theism in which several strategies or methodologies are formulated for causing the human cognitive boundaries to endure in response to arguments from evil as opposing to the existence of God. The main goal of this paper is to delineate the inductive argument article of Alston and to critically analyze his arguments about the problem of evil, the principles related to skeptical theism, and if a logical argument of evil can be made possible. Alston’s Argument This world that we are living in is comprised of a very large extent of suffering. However, classical theism asserts that this world is made possible because of the creation of an omniscient, omnipotent, all seeing, and perfect God. The big question mark here is that why would this all powerful and gentle God develop a world that would include a bunch load of suffering? It is quite antagonistic in the sense that the concept of suffering is paired with good will and love. If it is an omniscient entity, the there should be no small bit of suffering in existence on the lands we are stepping in. Undoubtedly, suffering can be highly accredited to evil, that is, it is a bad thing. And this issue regarding the problem of evil was the principal issue in the empirical and inductive argument of Alston. The considerations regarding the problem of evil was the key variable into the establishment of the philosophical argument oftentimes called the argument from evil. As based on the introductory stages of the article, arguments can come from two different forms namely the deductive reasoning wherein its goal is to establish in a convincing fashion beyond any reasonable doubt, a God does not exist. On the other hand, its inductive reasoning counterpart seeks to promote an ideology that it is very implausible that a God exists to the point that it is beyond consciousness about believing of that God’s existence. Before discussing in detail about the inductive argument of evil and non-existence of God, it would be wise to have a brief account about the deductive version of the argument of evil to gain a comparative understanding of these two concepts. According to Bruce Russell, the deductive argument from evil essentially concentrates on debating about the inconsistency of two propositions. First, the existence of an omnipotent and all-knowing God and second the world being immersed in suffering or evil (121). What made these propositions contradictory is that early philosophers believed that an omniscient God would most likely be opposed to all forms of evil and suffering. Accordingly, that God should have the knowledge and power to counter any kinds of suffering present in this world. In simpler logic, if such a God exists, then suffering should not exist. Contrarily, if suffering does exist, then a God is impossible to exist. Consequently, it is notable that suffering indeed do exist in our world. Then, if this argument is claimed to be true, it will also follow that God does not exist since the two cannot be coexisting at the same time. This is a huge question posed by the deductive argument from evil. Given with the explanations regarding deductive arguments, this will also give rise to the subject matter about theodicy that seeks to clarify why God would permit the existence of suffering. It seeks to codify morally adequate logic why God would probably grant a certain extent of evil or suffering. Moreover, by enunciating a reason about God permitting such suffering, principles of theodicy seeks to quantify that the possibility of both God and evil coexisting can be possible. One assumption from this principle is that the reason God permits suffering is because it is a force that is inevitable. It is an inescapable outcome of the multitude of obstacles projected by God into the world. Nevertheless, these obstacles are created so that it will serve as a learning channel for human beings to cultivate their inherent moral qualities in response towards the proposed challenges of suffering. This form of argument can also somehow define and even challenge the inductive work of Alston. That the two forces namely God and evil can coincide at the same time. If it is true that suffering is a permitted force by God to help develop the morality of human beings, then it can also lead to positive consequences such as the enhancement of human traits and behaviors in terms of justice, courage, perseverance, and even love. If these values are highly inculcated in the system of human beings, then, suffering will not prevail over humans even if evil is claimed to exist in this world. Consequently, the rise of inductive argument came into play after all of these ideas and concepts are incorporated. For example, if the idea of suffering being a part of the natural world as proposed by theodicy in order for humans to develop morality, there is still huge question and issue about why are still there so many suffering present? Is there any acceptable quantity of suffering that can be considered reasonable? What if it is too much already? Alston’s article focuses on these concerns. Over the years, several cases of suffering have been a part of the pages of our history. Take, for example, the Holocaust, the two World Wars, bubonic plague, AIDS, famine, and a lot more large scale torments and malice dispersed in our world throughout centuries. Yes, there might be a parcel of truth about the coexistence of evil and God, but the main problem here is about the quantity of suffering that far extends human cognition and threshold that it even overrides the anticipated positive outcome and overall good for humanity. It could even be possible if God generated an equal amount or value of goodness as much as the suffering offered. Too many evils are superfluous or gratuitous as based on the words of Alston. As based on the arguments of Rowe cited in the article, he believes that God as an entity does not exist. However, the position of this paper wanted to emphasize a loophole in Rowe’s argument. Starting things off, the article might have believed that it is beyond human cognition to be aware of any evils that is permitted by God to be dispersed on this world that consequently results to God having no reason to allow any forms of evil and suffering. The standpoint here is that if God has morally enough intentions to permit suffering, it will be perceived on microscopic or imperceptible levels. Since the assumptions of existence for these reasons are seen as true, it is anticipated that human beings will not be cognizant about it. Perhaps, Alston also highlighted the human cognitive condition, but it does not only rest there. The most basic logic we should not expect to be knowledgeable of, assuming that they are real is that both the rational capacity and moral imaginations of human beings does not even get close to the omnipotent God. It can be compared to the example of a young kid, still inexperienced and naive to gain a logical comprehension from his parents for not permitting the child to play outdoors. As of the inductive argument, human beings will most likely not fully cognizant of most of the reason God are allowing several forms of evil and suffering. Accordingly, this position also strikes a challenge to the first hypothesis posed by Rowe. Conclusion An analysis of the work done by Alston generated many questions and at the same time realizations about the argument about the coexistence of both God and the projection of suffering and/or evil in this world. Further, this paper seeks to outline the inductive argument made by Alston and to critically examine the premises established in the article regarding the problem of evil, skepticism, and the capacity of human cognition. The contemplation believed, as based on relevant arguments both past and present that the presence of evil in our world does not serve as a reliable proof that debunks the existence of God. As it may be, the whole criticism lies on the observation that all these sufferings are present as a natural component in this world. The old debate against God’s existence contingent on the argument from evil can only be put into play if there is any sort of moral objectivism as it is assumed that morality exists, along with all the sufferings brought upon to this world. It should always be put into consideration that reality was never a mirage as it will make a differentiation between good and evil futile. Works Cited Alston, William P. “The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition.” Philosophical Perspectives 5 (1991): 29-67. Print. Russell, Bruce. “The Persistent Problem of Evil.” Faith and Philosophy 6.2 (1989): 121-139. Print Read More