EVIL AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

Exploring the problem posed for belief in God by the facts of suffering and

evil.

Natural Evil and Moral Evil.

Human beings are fragile and short-lived. They are liable to accidents and disease, old age and death. The world is not a safe place in which to live, but it is the only place in which to live.

Human beings add to this suffering by their treatment of one another. From world wars to domestic unhappiness, people cause one another pain, whether accidentally or deliberately.

These two features of life are generally referred to as Natural Evil and Moral Evil respectively.

When Does the Problem Arise?

Within the philosophy of religion evil and suffering are primarily a problem for those who believe in God.

The Problem of Evil emerges when the degree of evil is such that it threatens to overwhelm the whole concept of a loving God.

The Problem of Evil.The problem is

generated by the believer’s acceptance

of the following propositions:

1. God is omnipotent.

2. God is perfectly good.

3. Evil exists.

A: Any good being eliminates evil as far as it can.

B: There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

4. God eliminates evil completely.

Traditional Approaches.

There are two traditional lines of approach to the problem of evil.

1. The Augustinian Approach.

2. The Irenaean Approach.

The Augustinian Approach is named after Augustine of Hippo 354-430AD.

The Irenaean Approach is named after Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons c.130 – c.202AD.

Comment on Augustine.Even if Augustine’s second line of argument is accepted – that man is to blame and is suffering the consequences; why, if God is omnipotent and all-loving, did he create in humankind the possibility of disobedience and the ‘fall’?

Did not Thomas Aquinas put it rather starkly:

1. God is both good and without limit so there is nowhere that God is not present.

2. In that case evil cannot exist since it cannot arise where God is present, if God is good.3. But we know evil exists.4. Therefore there cannot be an infinite and good God.

Comment on Irenaeus.For Irenaeus, a belief in a life after death is important. The world may give people an opportunity to grow, but why should they bother to do so? Is it not possible to reinterpret Irenaeus’ approach in secular terms:

1. When we consider life we see that human beings are fragile and fallible, liable to practice cruelty as well as kindness. Relationships fail, and hatreds fester. That’s our world.

2. We call some things good and others evil, showing that we are able to interpret realities in terms of an overall view of human life and our place in the universe.3. In this sort of world we are forced to be creative in personal terms, making choices and living with the results.4. A person acknowledging personal responsibility and reflecting upon the consequences of choices made is using the world as a ‘vale of self-making’.

5. We have no other choice. We cannot take our world back and exchange it for another. We either live creatively, or we complain at the injustice of a world we assumed was made for our benefit.

The Free-Will Defence.1. If you are free to choose to do good then it must be possible for you to choose to do evil.

2. If the world were such that moral evil were made impossible then it makes no sense to speak of having a free moral choice.

3. But having free will is an essential condition of a moral life.

4. Therefore there needs to be the possibility of moral evil in order for people to have free will and to live morally.

Comments on the Free-Will Defence.

1. It makes two basic assumptions.

2. Free will but no evil.

3. God could intervene.

4. Does not explain Natural Evil.

Divine Knowledge and Human Freedom.

This problem comes about through an alleged contradiction between the belief that God is omniscient and the claim that people can act freely.1. God knows that I will do C at T.

2. I freely choose to do C at T.However

• God’s omniscience should not be understood in a temporal sense.• God may limit himself to allow freedom of choice.The truly philosophical question: Free Will and Determinism or Free Will or Determinism?