Why God Allows Evil - Essay Example

Why God Allows Evil?

Swinburne acknowledges that the world is full of evil. Despite this, he is a firm believer in the existence of God. The question that he addresses attempts to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent and loving God with the presence of so much evil in the world. His main line of reasoning is that through God’s gift of free will we are free to pursue acts that result in evil. Evil is therefore inextricably linked to our free will. He presents the problem by stating,

Yet there is a problem about why God allows evil, and if the theist does not have (in a cool moment) a satisfactory answer to it, then his belief in God is less than rationale, and there is no reason why the atheist should share it (Pojman, 192).

As an initial matter, Swinburne argues that the problem of evil is fundamentally the product of God’s greatest gift. Rather than creating us in an environment that is rigid and static, God has endowed us with certain freedoms.

He is, in this way, a generous God. He has granted us responsibility for our own lives. He has made our lives significant; that is, by our actions we can contribute to the creative activity of shaping the world that we inhabit.

In short, we are allowed free choice. We are allowed to choose among alternatives. We are allowed to create our own consequences in order that we may also maximize the pleasure of our brief existence. Life is limited and God wants us to indulge in it with all of our sensory experiences.

Ironically, it is this very generosity that creates the problem of evil. By providing us with free will, we are also provided with the ability to commit evil acts. In effect, the presence of so much evil is not only logical, but a rational outcome. Evil is logical because for God to deny evil would be to deny us our free will. God chose free will.

There are two types of evil that Swinburne is addressing. The first is moral evil. This is the type of evil that he is most concerned with in his argument. This is because this type of evil is caused directly by human beings. This evil refers to humans doing bad things or being negligent.

A bad thing is something that we know we should not do. He lists examples such as stealing, committing adultery, and causing physical or emotional pain. He also includes acts of negligence. This is a less deliberate type of evil. It involves not doing what we ought to have done. Negligence also results in harm and suffering.

Significantly, this moral evil is not limited to the individual. Moral evil may result from the act of one person or the acts of many. A foreign government, to illustrate, may cause evil acts because of its negligence. A committee or a business may commit evil acts as may a church or other religious organization. Free will, in sum, is given to all of us and we are therefore capable of good as well as evil acts.

The second type is natural evil. This type of evil is not deliberately caused by human beings. Negligence plays no role in this type of evil. An example of natural evil is a disease or a natural disaster that causes suffering. The suffering caused may be mental or physical. This suffering, for example, may be the result of disease or natural disasters.

Swinburne responds to this problem of evil in a very straightforward way. The benefits of free will outweigh the costs of evil. In particular, he states that “there are plenty of evils, positive bad states, which God could if he chose remove” (Pojman, 192). God, in this way, is able to remove evil but does not. He does not because the presence of evil is our choice. God does not create evil; on the contrary, he has merely created free will. Evil is created through the exercise of our free will, and God allows us this exercise of free will.

To sum up, he concerns himself with justifying the presence of evil and the presence of an all-powerful and well-intentioned God. The presence of evil is both natural and logical. It is also predictable given the nature of God’s view of free will. Evil is a part of our creation and speaks nothing as to the existence of God.

My first impression is that he divides God and free will too neatly. He implies that God cannot intervene without destroying the aesthetics of his creation. In particular, Swinburne is confident that God can remove evil and what he calls “positive bad states” if he desired. This is, of course, consistent with God’s omnipotence. It does not seem completely consistent, however, with his corresponding view of God as an all-loving entity. His love of free will outweighs his distaste of suffering. If he can remove some evil, as Swinburne states, then why does he not exercise this power in certain cases? Swinburne’s argument is all-or-nothing in some respects and, while logical, and I this aspect troubling.

Nonetheless, the answer may lie in God’s desire for us to indulge in our sensory experiences. Does a great disaster, such as global war or famine, not merit an exception? God can remove evil, but he chooses not to do so. He can create an exception, for example, from pandemics. God, therefore, seems more interested in the means than the ends. He seems more interested in how we live and function than the consequences of our living. Free will is the means by which are allowed to live. The production of evil is a logical outcome. Swinburne’s argument is persuasive, but it does make me wonder how we therefore characterize God’s love. Does he assume that there can be no pleasure without a corresponding knowledge of suffering? This would make sense, and perhaps lessen my desire that God intervene to remove evil. In short, evil is not only a necessary outcome of free will, but also an essential component of our larger sensory experiences. Our pleasure, in this way, is dependent on knowing and experiencing evil. One cannot exist without the other.

Swinburne also seems to suggest that free will is not entirely without benefits. We learn from our mistakes. We see the consequences of certain acts and the consequences of negligence. Thus, there is the possibility that we will improve ourselves. There is the possibility that God has given us the ability to evolve morally and intellectually through free will. But what have we learned? How many nations are at war today? Is child abuse not an issue in every community across the globe? Do people steal more or less than they did a thousand years ago? Learning and making mistakes, it must be said, are a part of indulging in our lives. This criticism must therefore be directed at human beings rather than at God.

Does Swinburne suggest that God’s grant of free will is irrevocable? He does not make this statement. God can revoke or modify his grant of free will at his leisure. The point is that God’s decision to grant us free will, and thereby allow evil, is the only logical choice.

Swinburne’s essay allows us to try and think of these issues from God’s point of view. What would we do in similar circumstances? He believes that we would choose precisely what his God has chosen. There would certainly be an initial urge to act otherwise than Swinburne’s God has acted. It would be easy, without considering the implications, to state that I would not proceed in the same manner as Swinburne’s God. I could argue that there are few benefits in concentration camps or in genocide. I could argue that there is little benefit in global epidemics.

I would therefore use my omnipotence to prevent suffering and to heal the afflicted. I would share the truth of creation with everyone. This simple truth, our origins, would do wonders to eliminate religious conflict and the evil acts committed in the name of superior faiths. All of this seems so simple. For Swinburne, it is too simple; indeed it is a superficial analysis. To argue in this way would be to ignore the essential nature of free will. It would not be free will, and human beings would thereby be deprived of their true enjoyment of life.

As a final thought, truly evil acts are not committed by a majority of people. We do not see large percentages of people committing rape, committing premeditated murder, or producing chemical weapons to destroy rivals. Truly evil acts are committed by minorities. Our free will, therefore, has not been an overwhelming disaster. It is true that evil acts, whether of the moral type or of the natural type, are heavily publicized in the modern world. It is said that evil sells newspapers and advertising time on television. The presence of evil, from a comparative point of view, might not be as great as some suppose. Indeed, there is much good in the world which is less often discussed. And this goodness is also a product of God’s grant of free will. How we live our lives, in the final analysis, is a personal decision. This ability to make a personal decision is God’s gift.