Did Evil Really Triumph over Traditional Theism - Essay Example

Full Did Evil Really Triumph Over Traditional Theism? Evil abounds in this world. This makes people question the realityof a God who is perceived to be good. Individuals have been heard asking where God was when devastating disasters struck areas, killing thousands of innocent people. Some even reckoned He might have been asleep or tired or out of town when He did not stop natural calamities to destroy human lives and properties. The problem of Evil presents these assumptions and reflects on an interesting argument about the goodness of God which atheists often claim. The author presents explanations and examples to defend his understanding of the subject matter. Through the examples cited in his argument, he tries to convince his readers that God is not as good as believers assert him to be. However, there may be some points which the analysis might have missed to cover even though they are quite important to dismiss. Therefore, this paper will look deeper into the argument and discover what counter-arguments could be presented in order to qualify the author’s claim that God is unlikely to be all good and that evil triumphs over traditional theism. The problem of evil is an important issue in the quest of truths in a/theism because human beings are inquisitive beings whose most sought information is about superbeings. With the rise of scientific and analytic quests, the area of faith is questioned. People want to reason. They want to see evidences rather than simply be presented with intangible ideas that the mind can only imagine. In the aforementioned article, the author presents his arguments quite well by discussing the subject matter point by point. Examples are given in order to make a clear picture of the discourse he is trying to paint. He then gives his reactions and assessments of his disputations as well as the justifications of those who disagree with him before finally getting into his conclusion. The author brought up the issue about the problem of evil because he cannot quite link the various evils in this world to the goodness of an omnipotent God. First and foremost, as the writer claims, the power and abilities of God do not need to be disputed because He made the heavens and the earth. Those are jobs which a limited man cannot do and therefore, it could be safely concluded right away that God is powerful. However, the question arises considering that with His power, how could He be considered to be good when He does not even help a dying baby in a burning house? Since His ability to save the child is not what is being examined here because as it was already mentioned, the case is settled that He is omnipotent. Therefore, this only means one thing; that God does not like to help save the baby. Consequently, He is thus considered evil. The author used an illustration of a child who witnesses a house burn down with a baby in it. Although the child is able to bring the baby to safety without any danger, he refuses to save the baby. By human and godly standards, the child who did not save the dying baby is considered evil. In relation to this, God, who is able to save the baby without endangering himself or other people, refuses to save the baby; is also evil. He argues that God, as an omnipotent being, is able to perform a miracle save a dying baby in a burning house. However, there are many babies who die in such a manner. The writer then acknowledges the argument of some theists who say that God has some good reasons behind tragedies such as teaching parents to recognize their dependence on God or to remain humble in every circumstance. Indeed it is difficult to understand how a loving and good God would allow an innocent baby to perish in a fire when He could have done something about it. Nevertheless, the author seems to have limited the counter-argument to the death of the baby and the lessons the parents have to learn when he was supposed to navigate all angles. It should also be noted that there is also the role of parents in this circumstance. The presence or absence of the parents should have already been questioned in the very first place. Why would a baby die in a burning house anyway? The very reason why God gave babies parents is for them to take care of their needs from food to security. It is not that God is unable to attend to the needs of children or even older people but He has given the responsibility of raising children to parents. Indeed, God would have been able to save the baby but if it is going to teach the parents to become more responsible in taking care of more children in the future if He were to take one baby from them, then that would be a lesser evil. On the other hand, considering that God saves the baby and if, the parents who were stupid enough to have left the baby alone, will have more children whom they will recklessly raise; what greater disaster that would be. On another point, God might have reckoned that getting a baby in heaven would be far better compared to when He lets the baby grow under the careless hands of his parents and become a problem in society when he grows up. The case may have been extended however the scenario given can most probably happen just as the case of the baby dying in the fire. The problem of this argument is, it has left out the role of the parents in the situation. Although the use of a baby is well-understood as the symbolism of the innocent and good people being trapped in tragedies, the involvement of other people has yet to be considered. In addition, the author also acknowledges the claim about a “higher morality” that He has in circumstances such as the tragedy of the fire and the baby. The writer questions this “higher morality” because what we call to be good can be bad but what we call to be bad can be good in the sight of God. He cannot adhere to the notion of saying that black is white and white is black. However, the author seemed to have looked on some angles of the argument again and has not seen the bigger picture that may run through in this circumstance. The author claims that theists parallel God to parents and the children to the questioning adult. Furthermore, the ignorant child is said to be unable to judge his parents well. In discourse, the author says that a child would judge a good parent according to the many good behaviors he has observed and cites Hitler as an example. If Hitler were a man who loved animals and children and if he had a child, he would have judged the father as good even though everybody knows that Hitler murdered many people. This is unacceptable to the writer and it indeed makes a lot of sense. Similarly, a man cannot judge God as good on the basis of the so-called “higher morality”. On the contrary, the author’s idea about man’s notion of good is bad in the eyes of God and man’s understanding of bad can be good in the sight of God, can be illustrated using the parent-child relationship again. For instance, in the eyes of a parent, discipline is for the child’s well-being. However, because of the experience of pain whether the discipline is in the form of spanking, scolding or grounding, the child perceives the discipline as bad and therefore concludes that he has disagreeable parents. On the contrary, the parent, knowing that the disciplinarian actions s/he employs on the child will make him a better person, considers his/her manners good and desirable. Similarly, a child may want to have meat and frozen foods for his meals everyday and refuses to eat fruits and vegetables because they are not appetizing to him, would consider the fruits and vegetables as bad and think the delicious meat and frozen foods are good. Every parent knows that fruits and vegetables are essential for a healthy body and meats and frozen foods should be taken sparingly. There lies the difference in the perceptions of parents and children, which perhaps would more clearly illustrate the difference between the perception of a questioning person and God. The Problem of Evil is an interesting discussion however there are some defects in the arguments presented therein. The author limited his considerations about the discourse that God has some good reasons behind every tragedy and this has been clearly argued upon earlier. Moreover, he also talked about the counter-argument of theists about God’s “higher morality”. Again, the discourse did not tackle other possible arguments from the theists such as a child considering his parents to be bad because he does not like the feeling of being isolated when grounded, being spanked for a misbehavior or being scolded when he needs correction. Such perception is similar to the argument at hand, that God who has a “higher morality” could be comparable to a father or mother who is perceived as a bad person because s/he wants to discipline a child. Word count: 1,555 Read More