A Dialogue Concerning The Problem of Evil - Speech or Presentation Example

?A Dialogue Concerning The Problem of Evil While quietly reading a book en d “Why I am not a Christian,” by Bertrand Russell, on a bench on campus at the edge of the quad, Amy was approached and greeted by an old man. Annoyed, she placed her book down and responded. Amy: Is there something I can help you with? John: Well, my name is John, and I am a devout Christian. I’ve always had a love for philosophy of religion and noticed you were reading Russell. I was wondering if you would like to have a discussion about it. Amy: Uhh...I guess so. Why do you ask? John: Well, a retired old man doesn’t have much to do these days, and I want to see what these professors are teaching you kids these days. But let me ask, how come you are reading Russell? Are you an Atheist? Amy: Yes. John: May I ask why? Amy: See, my main problem with believing in God, is that when you look around the world, there are so many problems. Not just small problems, but real, serious, heartrending problems. There is world hunger and starvation. There is violence, hatred, war and genocide. There are natural disasters like earthquakes, floods and volcanoes, which wreak havoc and cause terror amongst fellow humans. There are egregious crimes we commit against each other, like rape, kidnapping and murder. If God really exists, how could he ever allow all of these terrible things? John: Ah, I as most other practicing Christians have ran into some of these existential type worries, which have caused me to doubt my faith. But in the end, after working hard and maintaining my relationship with God, the answers have been revealed to me, and my faith has in turn become stronger. Amy: That’s all well and good to the practicing Christian. However, I admit that I am not too familiar with the bible, many of your religious teachings, and your personal esoteric spiritual experiences, so before we can have this discussion, we are going to have to define God in purely ontological terms. Exactly what sort of entity is God? What are his characteristics? John: Fair enough. As a theologian, I had to read many of the works of the great metaphysicians back in divinity school, so I am comfortable having this sort of discussion. It seems to me that God would have to be the best possible being, with all the best possible characteristics. Amy: And why is that? John: Because as the creator of the Universe and all of being itself, God must be the best possible being because nothing created can be greater than its creator. Amy: But certainly you have seen instances where a child grows up to be far more powerful and noble than his or her parents. Is this not an example of a creation being greater than its creator? John: Well in my opinion God created humanity. So even though a child may be born from parents, they descend from a long line of human history that started with God’s creation of Adam and Eve, and thus are technically God’s creation. Amy: Well, that theory may work for you. But it assumes the existence of God, and that God created Humanity. However I do not believe in God, and I believe that life evolved on Earth. John: Touche my friend. It’s good that you caught me in my assumptions. I must point out though, that even if you believe in the theory of evolution, their parents do still not create children. Rather, human genes are passed on through Natural Selection. If the female attracts a strong mate with good genes, and the chance combination of those genes results in stronger offspring, then it seems it’s not the case that the parents are creating the children. The situation can better be described as resulting from the biologically necessary process of natural selection, combined with luck in the genetic lottery. Amy: Wow, I must say I am impressed by your knowledge of Biology! You are certainly no ignorant believer, who detests science and seeks to explain everything strictly through religion. And I admit that what you say is true. Furthermore, I cannot think of any more counterexamples to the assertion that no creation turns out better than its creator. So I’ll have to grant to you the proposition that if God exists and is the Creator in the Universe, he must be the best possible being in the Universe. I must ask though, what sort of characteristics do you suppose such a being might possess? John: I would gladly partake in your little game here, but like we agreed at the beginning, my idea of God is shaped by the teachings of the Bible and my personal relationship with him, so I wouldn’t want that to get in the way of having such a purely abstract, metaphysical discussion. I’m going to let you exercise your philosophical muscles and try to answer that question yourself. Amy: Way to parry the question! I suspect you have caught onto my argumentation strategy here. Anyhow, it seems obvious to me that he must have the best possible characteristics one can conceive of. He must be all-powerful, so that he can accomplish any task imaginable. He must be all-good, because good is preferable to evil. And he must be all knowing, because knowledge is preferable to ignorance. An omnipotent, Omni benevolent, and omniscient being is most certainly the greatest possible being I can conceive of. John: Ahh, just as I suspected. The classical approach to proving God does not exist, because of the problem of evil. If god is omnipotent, Omni benevolent, and omniscient, then evil in the world should be impossible. Amy: Yes and anyone must agree it is a perfectly cogent argument. If god is omnipotent, then he should have the power to eliminate evil. If he is Omni benevolent, he should desire to eliminate that evil. And if he is omniscient then he should know about it. I’d certainly love to hear your response to such a well-reasoned argument. John: Well, as I already said in the beginning, I have an answer to the problem that is not tied up in the study of metaphysics. However, this is a great discussion and ill go along with it anyhow. Now earlier you mentioned that the omnipotent, Omni benevolent, and omniscient being is the greatest possible being you can conceive of. Is that right? Amy: Well of course. What could possibly be better? John: I’m not going to get into the discussion about what could be better or worse. But let me ask you something--do the things you can conceive abstractly always exist that same way in the real world? Amy: I’m not sure I can think of any examples that pertain to the discussion. I mean I can certainly dream up all sorts of fantastical fictional beings and devices that belong in a science fiction novel. But the reason they don’t conform to what is in the real world, is either limited by human technology or the known laws of physics. God should not have to conform to any of these human limitations though, because we are simply conceiving of the best possible being. And it seems perfectly plausible to me that if there is such a being, my idea of it should be pretty close to the real thing. John: What about in geometry? You can conceive of all sorts of “perfect” objects in Euclidean space. Equilateral triangles, squares, circles. But do any of these objects actually exist in nature? Can we create any of them? Amy: Do they exist in nature? Maybe, maybe not. Can we create them? No. But the only limits to our ability to replicate such shapes are the instruments we use to draw them. We cannot create an instrument precise enough to make shapes as perfect as the way we conceptualize them. And even if we could, there is no use for it. This is no surprise though, since humans are limited, but God, who has no limits, should be able to create a perfect world. But let’s suppose I grant you the analogy. The shapes we can create with our instruments fall a little short of what we can conceive of. Let’s say God falls a little short of what we can conceive of. I still could easily reformulate my argument to demonstrate that such a God could easily eliminate many of the evils in this world. John: All right, I surrender. Good work my friend. You have finally taken this dialogue to the point where I have no further responses. And though, in the end, I am unsure whether or not you are correct in your conclusion that an all-perfect being is metaphysically impossible, you really are talented at argumentation. However, the ball is in my court now, and we are going to shift to a theological perspective. Amy: Fair enough, we went back and forth between responses and counter-responses within the framework I provided. Now lets hear what you have to say. John: Imagine a world where everyone was happy. No one ever had to worry about their choices, because whatever they did brought them reward. The idea of character, or growth does not exist, because there is no need for such a thing. No one ever feels rewarded for doing the right thing, because there is no such thing. Everyone always acts benevolently. Amy: Is such a world even metaphysically possible? John: I’m unsure. But that’s beside the point. Tell me what you see missing from such a world. Amy: Well it seems great to me—besides the fact that I would like a little more freedom of action than that. John: Good job. I’m glad you picked up on the idea that one of the great things God has given us is freewill. But for the sake of this experiment, let’s suppose that in this world there is freedom of choice. Every action you take leads to a different benign reward. So you can make different choices, you just never get poor results. Is there anything wrong with such a world? Amy: I’m not sure if there is. Such a world sounds great to me. And if there was perfect being I’m not sure why he wouldn’t create it. John: Hmmm... Figured you might say that at first. But let me put it into context for you. You like philosophy right? Amy: Yes of course I do, it’s my passion. John: And what are some of the things you like about pursuing philosophy? Amy: Well, I really enjoy broadening my depth of knowledge, and trying to figure out plausible solutions to questions that have been asked since the beginning of time. I enjoy thinking about problems that are fundamental to every human’s existence. I like to argue, and come up with impressive responses to other people’s arguments. I like how the subject challenges me to try and learn more about its history and different areas, and to develop my reading, writing and reasoning skills. I like just about everything about it. John: Imagine if everyone who pursued philosophy automatically obtained the same depth of knowledge, the same intellectual skills, and the same benefits from studying philosophy. What would that be like? Amy: Well I guess it would kind of defeat the purpose of studying it. John: I agree, it seems to me it would. So why wouldn’t a world where you cannot undergo any type of spiritual growth, any betterment in character, or morals be devoid of purpose? Isn’t part of what gives life value, the opportunity to change and grow as a human being? Amy: Yes I agree that it most certainly is. John: Would you ever want to live a life where you did not have the opportunity to develop all of these personal traits? Amy: No, it seems to me that would be boring. John: Well so would a life where you cannot develop spiritually. The opportunity to learn and grow is far my important than the elimination of evil so that is why god chose to create the world we are in. Amy: Hmmm...That seems like a fair position to take. Still though, it’s my intuition that God could have created a world with far less evil, and still left room for personal growth and development. John: It’s possible that you are right about that Amy, and I have considered that response before. The only answer I’ve been able to come up with throughout all these years is that at some point you have to revert back to faith. This has worked for me and I have no regrets in my life. However, I have to get going. I have a conference to go to. It was great meeting you and good luck with your Philosophical pursuits you are a bright young girl. Amy: Thank you. Goodbye. Amy decided she wanted to take out her Philosophical Problems textbook and reread the section about the Problem of Evil. She immediately came across a paper by John Hick, and scanned it over. Wait.... was that? No way...it couldn't have been. Amy remembered that encounter for the rest of her life, and although she remained a staunch Atheist, she always had certain sympathy for John Hick’s response to the Problem of Evil. Works Cited BonJour, Laurence, and Ann Baker. Philosophical Problems: an Annotated Anthology. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2008. Print. Read More