The Problem of Evil.
The main problem most people have with the notion of an omnipotent and all-benevolent God is, what is commonly referred to as the "Problem of Evil".
The Problem of Evil arises from the supposition that a completely good deity would not have created a world containing evil, or would likewise not permit evil's continued existence and influence in this reality, and that an omniscient and omnipotent God should be able to arrange and re-arrange the world according to Its intentions. So, the common argument is: since evil obviously does exists, either said deity intends it to exist, does not know it exists, or has no power to keep it from existing, and is therefore not completely benevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent. Thus, no such deity can exist.
But.
What is the real definition of evil? Usually, "evil" is painted in broad strokes using widely acceptable terms, such as "suffering" or "pain". However, some theists choose to argue that "evil" cannot be defined in human terms, claiming that only God, the creator of the abstract notions of "good" and "evil", is the only one suited to give us a clear definition of both and their intended roles in our world (much like a painter is the only real authority on his own work, all other outside input is merely speculation and opinion) and thus the premise "evil exists" cannot be verified (this still makes the definition of "all-benevolent" problematic, though since this approach does not refute the argument, as the logic of the argument is still valid if applied to a clearly stated definition such as suffering or pain "as we perceive them", and "benevolence" includes being against human suffering).
However, this response is plagued by a whole slew of problems. Firstly, it is only plausible if one presupposes the existence of God, which at the present moment we can't prove. If God does not exist, and if humans are the highest form of sentient life, then our perception of what constitutes "good" and "evil" simply is what constitutes good and evil.
So, how do we perceive them? Usually, there are two kinds of perceived evil: "moral" evil (oxymoron much?) and "natural" evil. Moral evil is any evil, often defined as seemingly pointless pain and suffering (like the Holocaust or the Silent Hill movie), that results from the free actions of human beings. Natural evil is any other kind of seemingly pointless pain and suffering, such as deaths which occur as a result of natural events. These events (such as natural disasters, disease, or even simply death as a whole) while seemingly unfair to those directly and peripherally involved, are natural and not the result of any free will action of another person.
Now, presuppose God exists, it is plausible that God may allow some suffering in order that we may learn lessons, overcome adversity, and grow stronger. This type of second-order good could reasonably be argued to be a better situation than a world with no evil but also no second-order good. This higher good seems like it could be part of some plan that humans just do not grasp. Yet, as always, certain problems still remain. Example: If one less person had died in the Holocaust, could we still have learned a lesson? Could we still have had the opportunity to overcome suffering and achieve some kind of second-order good? If the answer is yes, then the Problem of Evil remains. Even one tiny bit of unjustified evil is enough for the full force of the argument to be felt.
The only "real" argument is that God allows evil to exist so that humans can have freedom of choice, to do good or evil, so that they are whole beings, and not mindless machines. Critics of this argument point out that according to this logic, everyone who is not omnipotent can be argued not to have "free will". However, the choices a person can make are totally subjective and are dependent upon one's innate nature and the total sum of their experience and knowledge. So, if someone were naturally inclined to do good, he would still have free will and thus the choice to do evil would be ever-present.
Thus the Problem of Evil is ours. Our actions are dictated by us and the choice is ours alone. The notion of where evil comes from ultimately is secondary to where evil goes and what we, as masters of our own free will, do about it.
The Problem of Evil arises from the supposition that a completely good deity would not have created a world containing evil, or would likewise not permit evil's continued existence and influence in this reality, and that an omniscient and omnipotent God should be able to arrange and re-arrange the world according to Its intentions. So, the common argument is: since evil obviously does exists, either said deity intends it to exist, does not know it exists, or has no power to keep it from existing, and is therefore not completely benevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent. Thus, no such deity can exist.
But.
What is the real definition of evil? Usually, "evil" is painted in broad strokes using widely acceptable terms, such as "suffering" or "pain". However, some theists choose to argue that "evil" cannot be defined in human terms, claiming that only God, the creator of the abstract notions of "good" and "evil", is the only one suited to give us a clear definition of both and their intended roles in our world (much like a painter is the only real authority on his own work, all other outside input is merely speculation and opinion) and thus the premise "evil exists" cannot be verified (this still makes the definition of "all-benevolent" problematic, though since this approach does not refute the argument, as the logic of the argument is still valid if applied to a clearly stated definition such as suffering or pain "as we perceive them", and "benevolence" includes being against human suffering).
However, this response is plagued by a whole slew of problems. Firstly, it is only plausible if one presupposes the existence of God, which at the present moment we can't prove. If God does not exist, and if humans are the highest form of sentient life, then our perception of what constitutes "good" and "evil" simply is what constitutes good and evil.
So, how do we perceive them? Usually, there are two kinds of perceived evil: "moral" evil (oxymoron much?) and "natural" evil. Moral evil is any evil, often defined as seemingly pointless pain and suffering (like the Holocaust or the Silent Hill movie), that results from the free actions of human beings. Natural evil is any other kind of seemingly pointless pain and suffering, such as deaths which occur as a result of natural events. These events (such as natural disasters, disease, or even simply death as a whole) while seemingly unfair to those directly and peripherally involved, are natural and not the result of any free will action of another person.
Now, presuppose God exists, it is plausible that God may allow some suffering in order that we may learn lessons, overcome adversity, and grow stronger. This type of second-order good could reasonably be argued to be a better situation than a world with no evil but also no second-order good. This higher good seems like it could be part of some plan that humans just do not grasp. Yet, as always, certain problems still remain. Example: If one less person had died in the Holocaust, could we still have learned a lesson? Could we still have had the opportunity to overcome suffering and achieve some kind of second-order good? If the answer is yes, then the Problem of Evil remains. Even one tiny bit of unjustified evil is enough for the full force of the argument to be felt.
The only "real" argument is that God allows evil to exist so that humans can have freedom of choice, to do good or evil, so that they are whole beings, and not mindless machines. Critics of this argument point out that according to this logic, everyone who is not omnipotent can be argued not to have "free will". However, the choices a person can make are totally subjective and are dependent upon one's innate nature and the total sum of their experience and knowledge. So, if someone were naturally inclined to do good, he would still have free will and thus the choice to do evil would be ever-present.
Thus the Problem of Evil is ours. Our actions are dictated by us and the choice is ours alone. The notion of where evil comes from ultimately is secondary to where evil goes and what we, as masters of our own free will, do about it.
posted by Ryan at 9:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home