The Problem of Evil - Term Paper Example

Client On Evil: A Necessity A discussion on the topic of the problem of evil reveals anassortment of theories based, not on evil, but on goodness. In discovering evil, one must look at the impact of its existence on the development of the supremacy, and the triumphs that good can attain in the presence of evil. In John L. Mackie’s exploration of evil, a look at the defining characteristics evil, good, and omnipotence, carry the topic to the relevance and balance between good and evil. The issue is explored through the perceived power and limitations by which an omnipotent God might or might not be limited. As well, the benefits of evil to the existence of good can redefine the perception of God. In an examination of the influence of evil on the power of good reveals that the balance created by the existence of both is relevant to the existence of God. In Evil and Omnipotence, John L. Mackie looks at the contradictions that are proposed by the existence of evil. His treatise speaks to the logical reasoning that questions why God would allow evil if He is good, and if He is omnipotent, why does He not use that power to change the universe to a place free of evil. Mackie says (T)he contradiction does not arise immediately; to show it we need some additional premises, or perhaps some quasi-logical rules connecting the terms ‘good’ ‘evil’ and ‘omnipotent’. These additional principals are 1 Client Last Name that good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follow that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible. (Zagzebski, p. 26). The theoretical conflict that is created by these proposals must be examined from a theistic and an atheistic viewpoint in order to determine a solution to the problem. However, the solutions that arise are in conflict, so therefore to study the issue, certain assumptions of faith must be made. In order to study the concept of God, one must acknowledge the existence of God. An acknowledgment of the existence of God confirms the existence of evil. Evil is a term to be used in relation to morality which is defined by the spiritual nature of decisions made according to concepts of goodness. Decisions that are made that run contrary to the morality that God has entrusted in the faithful are, by definition, evil. A decision that is contrary to God’s tenants is a sin, which is an act of evil. It is often that evil is confused with cruelty. While cruelty is evil, evil, is not always cruel. One might look at the sin of adultery and see that, when kept secret, cruelty is a vague concept. However, since adultery is a specific act of sin, it is evil. As well, envy is another sin, which means that it is evil, although an envious state may not be cruel. In these examples, one sees that evil is defined by an action against the will and instruction of God. John L. Mackie has written on the topic of evil with the intent of examining the issue from a balanced perspective. Mackie defined the problem of evil by bringing forward thought on the following conundrum. He argued that 2 Client Last Name (1) An omnipotent and perfectly good being (God) exists and (2) Evil exists (They) are inconsistent only when supplemented with two additional assumptions: (3) A perfectly good being eliminates evil as far as it can And (4) An omnipotent being can eliminate all evil (Zagzebski, p. 149) An examination of Mackie’s arguments reveals the essence of the controversy around the concept of ’evil’. When evil is a thing that is not desired by a force of good, then that force of good would be compelled to eradicate evil. The reason that evil continues is either because that force cannot or that it will not destroy its adversarial force. According to a study of Mackie’s work by Linda T. Zabzebski, in her Philosophy of Religion, Mackie puts forth several theories on how to solve the problem. The first solution is that “(a) Good cannot exist without evil.” (Zagzebski, p. 149). This approach suggests a balance between the two forces. The problem with this approach, of course, becomes the omnipotence question. If good cannot exist without evil, then this suggests a limit of the power of God. Mackie suggests that this comparison becomes something similar to the idea of ‘red and not-red’. In other words, there is red, but whatever is not-red, is its opposite. “Mackie says he does not see why there cannot be a universe that is totally red, so if good is to evil as red is to not-red, there could still be a universe that is totally good.”(Zagzebski, p. 150). However, it is clear that a universe that only held good would have inherent problems. 3 Client Last Name The recognition of good can only be made by its contrast. This is the world created in balance. To see evil, is to find the recognition of good. The purpose of knowing the difference cannot be clarified so easily, however, it is clear that to recognize what is preferable, it is necessary to experience what is not. This would be a break down of the ‘red and not-red’ theory of evil. Zagzebski observes that, “A common reply is that, even though Mackie is right that it is possible for a universe to be totally good, the creatures in such a world would not know that it was good.” .”(Zagzebski, p. 150). From this point of view, the knowledge of evil is important for an intellectual understanding of good. However, to extend the problem with this logic, it is good to look at Nelson Pike’s paper on Hume on Evil as discussed by Terence Penelhum in his writing, Divine Goodness and the Problem of Evil. Penelhum quotes Pike as he describes three propositions that are extensions of Mackie’s theory. I. The world is a creation of a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good. II. The world contains Evil. III. A being who is omnipotent and omniscient would have no morally sufficient reason for allowing instances of evil. (Adams, p.70) A discussion of the first two propositions bring to light the problem of the third. If one believes that God exists and that Evil exists, the question becomes the reasoning behind a God with the power to eliminate Evil and the morality of not taking this force from the world. A theist will see the reasoning based on faith. Evil exists, therefore it must exist. 4 Client Last Name Something cannot exist without the will of God allowing its existence, so therefore it is something that God must have cause for allowing. “The existence of evil is something the theist emphasizes. Theists do not see fewer evils in the world than atheists, they see more.” (Adams, p. 70) Sin becomes relevant to the theist in the examination of the existence of evil. The definition of sin is part of the relevant balance. “It is a necessary truth that they see more. For example, to the theist, adultery is not only an offense against another person or persons, but also an offense against a sacrament and therefore against God;” (Adams, p.70). In this theory, one cannot define faith without the temptation to commit sin. This is a furtherance of the concept of balance. However, this conflict of comprehension becomes a central idea for the problems associated with the issue of evil. If ’goodness’ is defined by morality, and the lack of morality defines ’evil’, then the toleration of evil is in itself evil. This conflict puts into question the power of God. For the theist, in believing in God, believes both that God created the world and that much that is in the world is deeply deficient in the light of the very standards God himself embodies. The inconsistency seems to result from two distinguishable functions which the idea of God has. It is an ultimate source of explanations of why things are as they are; it is also the embodiment of the very standards by which many of them are found to be wanting. (Adams, p.70) By believing that God both created and finds fault in the world, it sets in motion the idea that God created a faulty world. In an omnipotent and omniscient position, this would seem a contradiction to the essence of God. This problem creates a questioning of faith. In that questioning, the faith that is expected by God becomes a more difficult prospect. 5 Client Last Name Therefore, the question becomes whether God wishes faith to be difficult, and whether the faults of the world are part of the design. It the faults are by design, the morality of God comes into question. The introduction of this contrary philosophical conundrum presents the third proposition put forth in this triangular conflict. “A being who is omnipotent and omniscient would have no morally sufficient reason for allowing instances of evil.” (Adams, p.70) God, being the definition of morality and goodness, allows evil to exist, therefore, there must be morality in the existence of evil. However, as one progresses through the examination of evil, the idea of ’free will’ begins to emerge. ’Free will’ is put forth as the ability for each person to choose for him or her self in order to define character. Faith is given as an act of free will. Free will must be exercised by an act of choice. Choice must be made between two or more ideas. The choice presented by the existence of evil is between evil and good. Immorality and morality must be defined and divided as acceptable and not acceptable concepts. As in the example of adultery, one has the ability and the choice to decide against the act, or to risk the known and unknown consequences of that act. However, Christians define salvation by the acceptance of God. It is not required that they depart from sin, only that they accept that He is the way to salvation. One does not enter heaven by ’works’, defined as actions and consequences of those actions, whether they be good or bad. If one accepts God and declares faith, however, part of that faith is that the believer will not willingly participate in acts of sin from that point forward. 6 Client Last Name The idea that evil exists so that good can be defined is relevant to the appearance of evil that cannot be reconciled to meaning. Alvin Plantinga, an American philosopher who is a strong proponant of the ‘free will’ defense of evil, puts forth the idea that “significant freedom (the freedom to choose between right and wrong) is a great good. It is so good, in fact, it is worth permitting a certain amount of evil in the world in order to bring in morally significant freedom.” (Weilenburg, p. 46). In this concept, free will is the target of the existence of evil. Having the freedom to choose is so important that the resulting evil is inconsequential. In this theory, the morality of allowing evil is justified by the resulting freedom of choice created by that existence. Mackie‘s second theory is that “Evil is necessary as a means to good.” (Zagzebski, p. 150). This proposes the background and balance for the free will theory. This also addresses the idea that suffering will result in a positive experience once the suffering is passed. The many terrible plagues that are suffered by people have a deeper meaning, so therefore the promise of purpose excuses the existence of evil. “Theism recognizes the existence of very severe evils as long as they have some point or meaning.” (Peterson, p. 30). The unfortunate truth to this concept is that the idea of meaning is transmutable. All things can be defined with meaning if that meaning can be gleaned from any one person. Therefore, an epiphany that is discovered by an individual many times removed from the tragedy might give meaning to that tragedy. This logic has discernable flaws. In taking on the concept of meaning derived from evil and linking it with the concept of free will, it is difficult to reconcile the contradictions. According to Michael 7 Client Last Name L. Peterson’s view on this reconciliation of concepts, “We can now see that the issue before us turns on the ability of critics, on the one hand, to show that theists must accept all of the propositions they use to deduce a contradiction and on the ability of theists, on the other hand, to show that they need not accept all of them.” (Peterson, p. 30). In this diverse rational, faith become the central issue. The theist must accept that faith will join the gaps where logic cannot connect. Critical examinations of theology by non-believers would show that the gaps cannot be connected on the basis of reason alone. Mackie also examines the concept that “The universe is better with some evil in it than it would be with no evil.” (Zagzebski, p. 150). This idea brings the concept of balance back into the discussion. According to Penelhum, Mackie describes first order good and evil and second order good and evil. First order goods/evils are those goods and evils that do not require the existence of other goods and evils. Second order goods are those that could not exist without first order evils. Heroism, sympathy, compassion, kindness and many other virtues would be in this category. There is no courage without fear, no compassion without suffering, no hope without the pain of the unknown. (Zagzebski, p. 150-151). To couple this idea with the idea of free will is to make an argument for the virtue of evil. Therefore, the existence of evil is not against morality and it frees the power of God conundrum from the restraints of the idea that allowing evil is morally resistant and its permission to exist insinuates a lack of the ability to eradicate its presence. As the problem is weighed, another concept is brought out. The idea is that “the best possible organizations of the universe will not be static, but progressive, that the 8 Client Last Name gradual overcoming of evil by good is really a finer thing than would be the eternal unchallenged supremacy of good.” (Zagzebski, p. 31). As Mackie states his perspective on this, he suggests that good is only as relevant as the evil that it counters. Therefore, a world without evil would be a world weak with apathy. It is difficult to muster believe in a cause if there is no adversarial challenge. If the only component to an issue was the good of that issue, then there would be no cause in which to believe. The very act of faith requires the component of evil in order to find definition. Without adversity, there would be no triumph and no growth. As the relevancy of evil become apparent, in that it is necessary in order to lift the supremacy of good, that is essential in the practice of free will, and that it can provide meaningful experiences that transcend the suffering it can oppose, it becomes necessary to decide if there is indeed an oppositional relationship between good and evil, or if they are intrinsically connected, one not having any value without the other. On this premise, it would not be within God’s will to eradicate evil. Therefore, His omnipotence would not be in question. The ability to eradicate evil is negated by the consequences of that elimination. In fact, the value of God would be diminished without the balance of evil. Therefore, evil must exist. In concluding that evil is necessary, the conclusion that it is morally wrong for an entity to fail to act in eradicating evil if that ability is available is contradicted when evil becomes this necessary component of good. In fact, it would be morally wrong for a power to take away evil because of the consequences to goodness. While the acts of evil 9 Client Last Name are immoral, the existence of evil is a natural presence, necessary for the greater good. This thought, however, would be argued against by theists as they seek to understand this duality of purpose that might be present in evil. As evil acts as an opposing force and as a supportive force, it is still termed for acts that are against good, so therefore, suggesting the necessity of evil can raise serious objections. The first objection that theists might make that Mackie brings up is that, while the presence of evil elevates good, this is a small consequence and might “have a merely derivative value, that they are not higher sorts of good, merely means to good.” (Zagzebski, p. 32). This viewpoint diminishes any real importance that evil offers to the balance of good and evil. The second objection that Mackie sees possible is that “this solution that God is not in our sense benevolent or sympathetic; He is not concerned to minimize evil, but only to promote good; and this might be a disturbing conclusion for some theists.” (Zagzebski, p. 32). In resolving the problem of evil with an elevation of the importance it brings to the ultimate cause of good can diminish how God is viewed and create a new dynamic between creator and man. If ’good’ is not about benevolence and kindness, but rather about right and righteous, this changes the Western view of God. In his work, Mackie discusses the work of David Hume, describing his view of evil as having to do with disease and suffering. According to Mackie, this is a very limited view of evil. The effects that evil may have can run from the physical experiences of pain, to the spiritual influences that cause disturbances. Penelhum discusses Hume’s ideas by proposing two scenarios that fit the reasoning that might cause 10 Client Last Name an all-powerful God to allow evil in the form of pain and disease. (i) Diseases are a way of reducing populations and preventing undue pressure on the world food supplies. (ii) Some diseases have aesthetically pleasing side affects: tuberculosis sufferers often acquire a charming pink flush and according to Puccini can often sing better than healthy people. (Zagzebski, p. 72) Penelhum questions the reasoning that an all-powerful God would not have means to control population and food supplies without resorting to disease. This examples, once again, requires a choice between God’s power, or lack of power, and God’s choice that leads to these outcomes. The second scenario is, of course, without defense. Obviously since David Hume was writing with the medical perspective of a man of the 18th century, his example is not relevant. Nothing that is a consequence of tuberculosis could be seen as desirable by a benevolent God. David Hume’s work has inspired a great many philosophical discussions on the existence of God. F. H. Bradley a British idealist philospher of the 19th century is quoted by Nelson Pike as writing: The trouble has come from the idea that the Absolute is a moral person. If you start from that basis, then the relation of evil to the Absolute presents at once an irreducible dilemma. The problem then become insoluble, but not because it is obscure or in any way mysterious. To anyone who has the sense and courage to see things as they are, and is resolved not to mystify others and himself, there is really no question to discuss. The dilemma is plainly insoluble because it is based on a clear self-contradiction. (Zagzebski, p. 39) While Hume has influenced a great deal of speculation on the existence of God, the problem of evil, in its very nature, suggests that God must exist. If the problem of evil 11 Client Last Name suggests that the purpose of evil is to provide meaning, challenge, and free will choices, then it is easy to assert that the opposition, or perhaps, the balance of evil exists. This idea reinforces the existence of God, it does not diminish that possibility. However, a new issue is addressed by Mackie that creates a whole new set of problems. Previously, conclusions have been drawn by the writings of the various authors on this topic that evil is the balance of good, so therefore it holds a necessary existence. The idea that Mackie puts forth is this: “Evil is due to human freewill.” (Zagzebski, p. 33). In this theory, evil has little to do with God, but is a creation of mankind and a product of the misuse of free will. Mackie says, “first order evil (e.g. pain) may be justified as a logical necessary component in secondary good (e.g. sympathy) while second order evil (e.g. cruelty) is not justified, but is so ascribed to human beings that God cannot be held responsible for it.” (Zagzebski, p. 33). This argument allows that in the giving of free will, the adaptation of responsibility was automatic. Mackie asks the question of why God would entrust this freedom to man when the possibility of such terrible evil could be the result. Pike suggests an answer to this dilemma. He draws a parallel between the parent that causes a child discomfort, as in a dose of unpleasant medicine, in order to relieve an illness. Most immediately, there is suffering from the bitter taste, but the action was done with what Pike calls a “morally sufficient reason” (Zagzebski, p. 33) that will have long term benefit. In this way, God’s reasoning for allowing evil in the world may have a yet unknown benefit. 12 Client Last Name Works Cited Adams, Marilyn McCord. (1990). The Problem of Evil Oxford: Oxford University Press. 23 December 2008 Peterson, Michael L. (1998). God and Evil: An Introduction to the Issues. Boulder: Westview Press. 22 December 2008. Wielenburg, Erik Joseph. (2005). Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe. New York: Cambridge University Press. 23 December 2008. Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. (2007) Philosophy of Religion. Carlton, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. 2008 December 22. 13 Read More