I'd like to preface this article with the fact that the article does not articulate my personal views on faith and religions, but rather an introduction to philosophy's view on evil. The debate on evil is still one of the most controversial topics in philosophy, but nonetheless is a defining measure of the course of philosophy over time. It is for this reason that I feel it is necessary to discuss this topic on my personal blog, although I may not agree with any particular perspective discussed.
The “Problem of Evil” refers to the contradiction that is the existence of both evil and God at the same time. There are two versions of the issue, the logical problem and the evidentiary problem, which question the existence of God from the criticism of God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence through a logical perspective and through the use of evidence to show that God may not exist, respectively. Each problem must come to terms with what type of evil they cite: natural or moral, and the typical responses of thesis such as Augustinian and Iranaean responses, which may come in the form of theodicies or defenses. The “Problem of Evil” also forces theists not only to grapple with evil but to consider the role of human free will and the paradox of omnipotence and gratuitous evil.
In attempting to prove the existence of God, one of the most difficult concepts is the “Problem of Evil”. The issue is not in understanding the problem, as evil is quite straightforward, but how God and evil are able to coexist and why God would allow for it to exist in the first place. The first version of “Problem of Evil” is that of the logical problem, which states that God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence are logically contradictory as if God were truly to hold such characteristics, evil would not occur. If God were all good and all powerful, God should have both the desire and ability to stop all evil from occurring in this world. There is also the evidentiary problem, which unlike the logical problem does not see evil as contradictory to the existence of God. Instead, the evidentiary problem sees the existence of evil as good evidence of God not existing, as not everything logically possible is likely.
Both versions of the “Problem of Evil” must also grapple with the definitions of evil. Although there are an infinite number of evil acts that have occurred and may occur in this world, evil can generally be categorized into two main descriptions, natural evil or moral evil. Natural evil is evil that is the result of natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis, all of which humans cannot control. Moral evil on the other hand is evil that is the result of free human actions and can be controlled by humanity. Moral evil is typically connected with the concept of human free will, which many theists reference when attempting to justify the existence of moral evil as they see it as a source of progress.
When theists attempt to address either version of the “Problem of Evil”, they typically do so in one of two methods: defense or theodicy. A defense does not aim to explain the reasons why God permits evil, but simply attempts to rationalize why both God and evil can both logically exist at the same time. However, defense is typically criticized for leaving the evidentiary problem, which reasons that God does not exist because not everything logically possible is likely. However, there are also theodicies, which attempt to identify reasons to why God may permit the existence of evil in the world. However, these require that we assume what God values and we know the reasons behind God’s decisions. Thus, rather than simply providing logical reasoning for why both evil and God can exist, the perfect response would provide a plausible account of why God allows for the existence of evil in the first place, even if we may not be completely correct in assuming God’s reasoning.
Two renowned theist responses are those of the Augustinian and Iranaean theodicies. The Augustinian theodicy aims to permit the existence of evil by stating that the world has fallen from its perfect state and that natural evil is a punishment for the transgressions of humanity. This theodicy blames human free will for the world’s fall from grace as God created the world in a perfect manner where no evil existed until humans were created. Why God would actually allow for humans to commit acts of evil is based on the reasoning that a world with free agency is better than a world with no free will, and thus God gave humans free will in order for us to have the perfect world. However, when giving humans free will, there is always the possibility for evil to occur, and thus evil persists, and is punished by God through acts of natural evil. The only time perfection will occur is when those who committed acts of evil enter hell, leaving the world with no evil. The weaknesses with the Augustinian theodicy stem from the belief that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If God were truly all-powerful, how could he create a perfect world that falls into disharmony, even when accounting for human free will. There is also the issue of natural evil, as modern science shows that natural disasters occurred well before the existence of humans, which the theory that natural evil as a punishment for human transgressions cannot account for. Lastly, there is no obvious and constructive purpose to eternal torment in hell. If God were all powerful and all good, then he would be able to reform his creation without the existence of hell.
There is then the Iranaean theodicy, which states that evil is necessary to help humans transform into perfect beings of goodness. Rather than being born perfect, humans must develop goodness through our experiences with free will. Without free will, humanity would not be able to make mistakes or learn from moral evil we experience in our lifetimes and/or commit ourselves. Natural evil is accounted for by acting as an extra challenge to humanity’s progression towards perfection. Without natural evil, there would be no consequences for our actions in this lifetime, no matter the evils we commit, thus God sends natural disasters to punish us and push us towards moral development. In the end, evil can be described as necessary for the process of soul-making, as without evil, there would be no progress towards goodness, which must be continued beyond life on Earth. Had God intervened and stopped evil in this world, it would have jeopardized its purpose. This is ultimately by the design of God and a world with no wrong simply wouldn’t fulfill God’s purpose for this world, as it would both jeopardize free will that God established for the end goal of ultimate human goodness. Weaknesses of the Iranaean theodicy typically consist of issues of free will in general. For one, if God were to be omnipotent, then God should have the ability to give us free will to only do good, rather than give us the choice to do evil. This can be likened to saints or angels, as they are described to technically have free will by theists, yet are perfect forms of goodness. However, this critique is countered by the belief that free will that only result in good due to our perfect character, may simply be an illusion of free will, rather than actual free will. There is also the issue of God being unable to control his own creation, as the Iranaean theodicy indicates that the world fell into disharmony due to human caused moral evil. However, if God were to be truly all powerful, then he should have the ability to control the world he created and stop the world from falling into disharmony, even by possibly intervening an infinite amount of times in order to keep humans from throwing the world into disharmony with their choices of free will. This leads to the paradox of omnipotence, as if it were not possible for God to save this world from the disharmony caused by human caused moral evil, then can God truly be described as omnipotent?
Lastly, there is the issue of gratuitous evil, or the excessive amount of evil that God has permitted. Events such as the Holocaust could have been stopped without the jeopardizing of free will, as the sperm that led to Adolf Hitler could have been killed without a human choice being made. Who is to say the level of evil that has occurred in human history was necessary to produce moral improvement? Had there been a much lesser extent of evil, moral goodness could have been achieved all the same. This is especially true in the case of the death of innocent newborns, who have committed no evil in this world and yet suffer the greatest of evils through gruesome deaths. To allow such atrocities to occur on such a grand scale could indicate that God is not all good, and thus not a perfect being. Had any human watched as an infant died without attempting to help the infant, we would have labeled them bad, thus God could either be labeled as not all-good or not all-powerful, a paradox that may refute the existence of God altogether through the perspective of philosophy.
댓글