How Does Swinburne Respond to the Problem of Evil and Is His Response Successful - Essay Example

and explain the problem of evil. How does Swinburne respond to the problem of evil and is his response successful? When Plato introduced his philosophic Trinity of Truth, Beauty, and Good here instantly and forever also laid down the foundations of the presence of the Falsehood, Ugliness, and most importantly - Evil. The problem of evil, doing wrong things or worse, the right things for the wrong reasons started with the advent of human kind. According to christian theology Eve ate the forbidden fruit and thereby falling into the eternal cycle of temptation, luring, and desire and consequently, evil. And this freedom of choice, is providential; says Richard Swinburne in his essay “Why Does God Allow Evil” Swinburne argues that having the freedom of choice on our destinies and those around us is a remarkable authority we enjoy as humans. This should, by default entail happiness and peace on earth because everybody wants to be happy, however it is so not the case. He states that this freedom of choice ends up putting a lot of other humans and animals in considerable pain. The existence of pain and suffering is a rather popular argument against the existence of God. While moving on further with his argument, Swinburne admits that justifying evil on whatever grounds shows insensitivity to human suffering, but it is a responsibility of a believer nevertheless to come up with an argument because his belief in God would not hold any ground otherwise. Hence, in a moment of contemplation and reason, any believer must be able to answer this question of existence of evil. Swinburne warns that (showing his sensitivity to people who are suffering) although it is an inevitable task to reason evil, it is also important that these things can’t be argued in the state of passion, not in a sermon for example. It is also crucial that we approach this subject objectively and not relate ourselves and our lives to it. He comes down what would be the basic pre-requisites of a good life on earth bestowed by a good God, and answers first by worldly pleasures. Swinburne then introduces the ‘deeper good’ and hence starts building his argument of the spiritual wisdom of greater good against the corporeal sensation of pleasure and pain. In the field of spiritual goodness, God would give us the sense of responsibility and ‘a share in his own creative activity’ and the catch would be that we ourselves will have to work to these ends of the transcendental good and this necessitates evil. Swinburne then differentiates between kinds of evils. He says that the lack of comfort and opulence is not the cause of evil, because God as big as a creator he is, can always create more. Here he tries to justify Death by saying that it is an end to life and not necessarily lack of it, and for those who believe in afterlife, Death would come as not such an evil thing. Unless, of course, it is untimely or extremely hurtful to the people around him or her. Further, he categorizes evil into Moral Evil and Natural Evil. Moral Evil, he summarizes as the choices humans make which they shouldn’t have or the lack of the actions they should have done. Moral evil is a result of man’s own volition and results from ‘deliberate actions’ or ‘negligent failure’. An example would a father who either pressurizes his kid too much into studying and suffocates his social and complete growth, in lieu of his protectiveness - deliberate action. On the other hand a father who has absolutely no business with his kid’s life because he is so busy with his work, thereby creating a sense of loneliness and paucity of love in the kid’s life - negligible failure. Natural Evil, however are those over which human beings have little or no influence. These are events which cause ‘both physical and mental suffering’ and include natural disasters, diseases, epidemics, etc, and are under no obligation from the human world. On Moral Evil: The evil which is the outcome of the exercise of human free will. Here Swinburne argues that it is a rather preposterous expectation if we want God to give us free will and then ensure that we do not misuse it ever. In other words, his claim is that the cost of free will is moral evil, not necessarily but there is a possibility. He then makes it explicit the idea of free will - It is not a passive and inconsequential choice between multiple actions. It is a ‘free and responsible will’ to make choices between good and evil and these choices are of great significance and consequence to the world. The fact that our choices as free and conscious beings are of so much consequence must prompt us to make choices in favor of the betterment of this world. Energy consumption, building of universities, etc. Swinburne argues that by giving us free will, God is giving us a share in his creative work. He has not only given us free will but also responsibility to fellow human beings. Citing the example of a father and son, Swinburne says that the elder son must have the freedom of judgement to look after the younger son. It is a similar freedom that God has given us, and in this He has given us the choice of ‘hurting and maiming, of frustrating the divine plan’. In a telling statement, Swinburne says that the possibility of evil is almost inevitable in the light of the kind of free will human enjoy. Swinburne then talks about the intention and how sometimes desires overcome reason and hinder the choice of the best action. Now making a deliberate and conscious choice against this evil consequences to greater good. On suffering from someone else’s action, is not the end of the world for me. Here Swinburne talks about the difference between sensory pleasure and pain and the metaphysical goodness. He says that ones’ suffering could refute the existence of God if that was the only pain he knew, and this is one reason why the problem of evil is so intensely contested in the modern times. But Swinburne urges us to the greater and transcendental pleasures of life like directing the future towards growth. He also talks about our life serving a purpose. When Christ said that it is better to give than to receive, Swinburne follows it. He says that one who is instrumental in fulfilling someones’s purpose is also as lucky as the one who has the choice of fulfilling that purpose. Swinburne here alludes to the innate sacrificial characteristic of human nature and recounts the benefits of dying or suffering for a purpose. The uselessness of humans is manifested in the example of Britain where the Social Security has encouraged unemployment and this leads to angst of the modern man. The incapability to contribute to the society gives them a feeling of not deserving what they get. He differentiates between two kinds of suffering - one is which is a consequence of someone’s choice of a worthy purpose, here the sufferer is as much an agent of moral good as the one causing the suffering. The second kind is actual suffering caused by the wrong choice of someone. This power of doing good or bad to people around us is a great gift from our creator, says Swinburne. He also categorizes the actually act of suffering for a purpose, dying for one’s country from the thought that plain believing that one is instrumental in a worthy purpose. The latter is cheating and does not count in any good thing. The pleasure of a true belief in important because I have to believe in the goodness of my being vulnerable at your hands, provided that it is actually a good thing. In the light of suffering being a noble act because it allows free will for someone else, is the suffering authorized? Who gives the right to A to cause suffering to B so that B becomes useful in the execution of a worthy purpose C? Swinburne explains that there has a parental relationship before we exercise such a right over someone. Like the parents have over their children. A mother can make her child ‘suffer’ by making her drink milk, but it is for the kid’s good. This right that parents a child on the grounds that they have brought her into this world and raised her, and by this measure God who has created everything has great authority over us. God can not ask his agents directly to do certain things and hence He gives them free will. However, the question still remains about how much of suffering can be allowed for a greater good? Here Swinburne cuts down the moral rights of even God but adds that HIs powers are crucial because He is the one who gives humans ‘real responsibility’. There are limits to all sufferings, says Swinburne and the most crucial ending to all sufferings is death. Our short lives are a default escape from all the sufferings of this world. The suffering is not endless, and that would have been a great argument against the existence of God, quips Swinburne. So when it all boils down to the moral evil, Swinburne points out that because God has given us ‘considerable opportunity to harm and benefit each other’ and hence as much good is possible as evil. On Natural Evil: The natural evil also allows human to make choices albeit in a different way. A disease can either be researched about and cautioned against or spread through negligence. Natural evils put human on a self reflective pedestal and encourage free will. On the other hand if we are clearly instructed about the good and evil, then the whole purpose of free will would be lost. Then all of us would be certain of God’s will and due to natural instinct to be in God’s good books would make it really difficult to chose. It would also deprive us of joy of discovery of consequences. Natural evil also gives us opportunities to chose between good and evil, for example to create a he and cry about my loss or to act with patience and bear it. In other words, suffering gives us a chance to exhibit good values. God hence allows moral and natural evils to give us a chance to respond and make choices between good and evil and to bring out the various human qualities which are buried in us, waiting for a chance to exercise themselves, for example bravery. Talking about the sufferings of animals, Swinburne explains with a similar theodicy as he does with humans. The danger of getting caught in a forest fire, and rescuing a kid, and feeding their kids are all actions which animals make and hence are not so alien to the idea of good and evil. Lastly, Swinburne tests the reader as he gives them the choice between temporal and eternal influence on earth and hopes that the reader would agree with the latter. He also gives the argument of heaven in order to compensate for the suffering that people in this world for the greater good. Swinburne in his entire essay and as he compares Heaven to earth in the last paragraph, he says that although the former has all the goods and no pain it lacks the ‘good of being able to reject the good’. The suffering is the choice we pay for the great goods that are possible with the free will. Dostoevsky, I think refutes many of Swinburne’s claims and so would I also like to argue. Swinburne is a victim of what are known as meta-narratives of nationalism through which he justifies the a sacrifice for the country. He does not explain the sufferings of a child, not the motherly chiding but the excruciating torture which people put children through as mentioned by Dostoevsky in his essay Rebellion. While Swinburne took a whole essay explaining how suffering begets greater good and gives us a choice between good and evil, Dostoevsky questions the whole idea of knowing good and evil by saying - “Without it, (referring to the acute suffering a little girl child), I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should we know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much?” (Dostoevsky, 1950) By questioning the sufferings of those who have done absolutely nothing, who have no idea about good and evil, who are helpless, Dostoevsky aptly questions the edifice of right and wrong. Also Swinburne in his essay, does not account for the evil done by people to meet their own demands. Neither does he talk about people who do it for their whims and fantasies. In a parental relationship he does mention a ‘certain right’ of a parent over their child and through that argument gives God a huge right over us, but does not specify the right of an army general to send a new soldier into the battle field to die. Also, Swinburne takes support of the various essentialist theories of nationalism, brotherhood among neighbors, and sacrificing the self for the greater good; and he never defines the greater good. He does mention building universities for the future but never considers how helpful that might be. Every body can have their own rights and wrongs and greater good. And he never formulates the greater good, nor does he indicate the subjectivity it would suffer. What for me is greater good might be doomsday for someone else, and Swinburne never considers any of these issues. Hence, Swinburne although engages in multiple kinds of evil doesn’t really convince the reader that the suffering in today’s world is for some greater good. Works Cited Swinburne, Richard. Is There A God? Pp. 95-113 (Oxford University Press, 1996). Print Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov, C. Garnett trans. , Book V, Chap 4 (New York: Modern Library Inc. 1950) Print Read More