A Critical Analysis of James Mackies Argument on the Problem of Evil - Essay Example

Philosophy # 24th April, A critical Analysis of James Mackie’s argument on the Problem of Evil The problem of evil is both a philosophical and a theological problem that the thinkers of all ages have grappled with in an attempt to unravel it. Various philosophers and theologians, therefore, have given varied theories on the problem of evil. This paper looks critically at James Mackie’s conception of the problem of evil. James Macke argues that believers in an omnipotent God are irrational. A critical look at this view vis- a-vis the views of the Christian scholars who hold the contrary view shows that Mackie is indeed justified in his view that believers in an omnipotent God are irrational. The problem of evil is brought about by the contradictory notions of God that the believers in the omnipotent God have. As Mackie asserts, the problem of evil can be simplified thus: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists (Mackie,n.p). The problem of evil rises when we try to reconcile the omnipotent and the infinitely good nature of God, with the reality of evil in the world. If God is omnipotent and munificent as the believers in omnipotent God believe, then evil would not exist in the world because the infinitely powerful and good God would necessarily eliminate evil in the world; in other words, the reality of evil and the omnipotent and munificent nature of God are mutually exclusive. Mackie argues that we cannot rationally account for the reality of evil in the world, as long as we hold the view that God is omnipotent and infinitely good. For this reason, Mackie concludes that the believers in omnipotent God are irrational because they cannot rationally explain how an omnipotent and infinitely Good God can allow evil to exist in the world. Mackie makes a compelling argument to support his view and to dismantle the various weak and flawed arguments of believers in omnipotent God who tries to account for the reality of evil in the world yet holding the view that God is omnipotent and munificent. Mackie argues that if God is infinitely powerful and infinitely good as the believers in the omnipotent God believe, then there would be no evil in the world because evil would be inconsistent with the nature of God. Mackie argues that an infinitely loving/good God would not allow his creations, the human beings, to suffer evils in the world because, as a loving and infinitely powerful being, God would eliminate evil from the world completely. For this reason, Mackie argued that the only way one can account for the reality of evil in the world is either by denying that God is not omnipotent, or denying that God is not wholly good. Mackie then went on to show the fallacies in the arguments of the believers in omnipotent God, in their attempt to account for the reality of evil in the world. The first argument given by the believers in omnipotent God in resolving the problem of evil is that good cannot exist without evil, or, evil is a necessary counterpart of good. On this view, Mackie argued that a critical look at this view shows that the view limits God’s omnipotent power. This is because if God is omnipotent, then God would be able to create good without evil. But, if evil has to be there as a precondition of good, then this means that God’s creative power is limited since He cannot create good independent of evil. For this reason, Mackie argued that this view is contrary to the omnipotent nature of God. Again, Mackie argued that it is not true that evil is a counterpart of good. This is because there is no ontological proof that a thing requires its counterpart in order to exist. Mackie therefore argued that good can exist even with evil being non-existent. The second fallacious argument given by the believers in omnipotent God is that evil is necessary as a mean to good. Some theists believe that although evil at a cursory glance may seem as a bad thing, evil is not bad for it leads to some good. Mackie argued that just as the other argument of the theists that we have looked at are fallacious, this argument also limits the omnipotent power of God. This view implies that God is subject to some causal laws. This would mean that in creating things, God had to use some specific means, without which the creation would not be possible. Again, this view is contrary to the theists’ conception of God’s omnipotence. Mackie therefore concluded that conception of evil as a necessary mean to good is fallacious. The third flawed argument given by the theist in an attempt to unravel the problem of evil is the view that the world is better with some evil in it than it could be without it. The main argument here is that evil contributes to the goodness of the whole universe, and that the universe therefore is better with evil than without it. Again, as the previous two fallacious arguments, this argument raises some fundamental questions about the omnipotence power of God, i.e. if God is indeed infinitely powerful as the theists believe, is God not able to create a perfect world, without the reality of evil which would help in perfecting it? Why would an omnipotent and infinitely loving God create an imperfect world with evil as a mean of perfecting it? This theistic view therefore implies that God is not omnipotent because an infinitely powerful and loving God does not need to use evil as a mean of perfecting the world. The forth irrational argument given by the theist in explaining the reality of evil in the world is that evil is due to human free will. The proponents of this view hold that God endowed human beings with free will, and that human beings are free to choose their actions; misuse of the free will leads to evil in the world (Hasker, n.p). For this reason, the proponents of this view hold that evil cannot be ascribed to God, but to the independent actions of human beings. This view also raises pertinent question on the omnipotent nature of God as conceived by the theists, i.e. if God is omnipotent and munificent as conceived by the theists, then why does He endow human beings with a free will which they are bound to misuse. As an infinitely powerful being, God is able to create human beings without the potency of doing evil things, then why did God put this potency in human beings and yet He knew that human beings will misuse the potency? This view of evil implies that God is not either omnipotent, or He is not infinitely loving. This view therefore contradicts with the theist’s view of God as an omnipotent and infinitely loving being. A critical look at the Mackie’s arguments in support of his view that the believers in an omnipotent God are irrational shows that Mackie is right. This is because as Mackie notes, it is rationally impossible for one to hold the view that God is omnipotent and wholly good, and at the same time account for the reality of evil in the world. Mackie’s critiques of the theists’ arguments in accounting for the reality of evil in the world have shown that all the arguments of the theist are flawed and inconsistent with the omnipotent and infinitely good nature of God. Another important aspect of the theist teaching that Mackie did not take into account is the theists’ teachings on the afterlife and the heavenly beings created by God. Some theists, for instance the Christians and the Muslim, teach that the Angels of God are filled with the grace of God and that they are unable to commit any evil act; in other words, the Christians and the Muslims teach that the Angels do not have the potency to do evil acts. The question that rises here in relation to the problem of evil is, if God was able indeed to create Angels without the freedom to do evil things, then why did He not create human beings like angels, without the freedom to commit evil actions? Again, the Christians and the Muslims teach that after death, human beings will go to heaven, which is a perfect place of happiness. In heaven, the human beings will be filled with the grace of God and they will not be able to commit evil acts. The question here is, if heaven will be perfect place of perfect happiness/goodness and without any trace of evil, then why do Christians teach that evil is a pre-condition of the good? These questions show further the contradictions in the theists’ teachings on the problem of evil. Macke therefore is right in his claim that believers in omnipotent God are irrational. I am certain that Mackie would agree with my view that, the Christian and the Muslim teachings on the afterlife and the heavenly beings, is a further proof that the theists arguments on the problem of evil are flawed and inconsistent with the omnipotent and the wholly good nature of God. In conclusion, I completely agree with Mackie that the believers in omnipotent God are irrational because they hold intrinsically contradictory views about God. Reconciliation of the omnipotent and the munificent nature of God with the reality of evil in the world is not rationally possible, however, much we try to reconcile the mutually exclusive ideas. Works Cited Hasker, W. The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism. Web. Retrieved on, 24/04/2014. From: http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt= A0SO8wsw0Vh Tfk4A oDMTE zYTQ3ODdiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRj> Mackie, J.J.” Evil and Omnipotence”. Mind, New Series, Vol. 64.No.254. Australia: University of Sydney, 1955. Web. Retrieved on, 24/04/2014. From: http://ri.search. yahoo.com/ _ylt=A0SO8zAz0lh T7kYAjM tXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM3I1cDZmBHNlYwNzcgRwb> Read More