Long before I came to an educational program dedicated to theology and the study of Christianity, my worldview was based on the duality paradigm. For me, this meant that the whole world could be divided into good and bad people, believers and atheists, men and women. I believed that this system of Hegelian opposites fully satisfied the world order, and any deviations could be seen as a side of the philosophical struggle. In this system of views, I regarded Evil only as a response to Good. In other words, a good person with pure intentions truly represents the Good, whereas a person full of anger and aggression is their opposite. I have always believed that Evil is transcendent in nature and is initiated by the individuals sinfulness. Thus, in my former view, there was the idea that each of us is initially empty, but over time we accumulate experiences that can be positive or harmful. Negative ones cause a person to become embittered and get bogged down in sins.
I am genuinely convinced that my previous point of view has the right to exist, but soon after studying various theological models this semester, I realized that I was no longer prepared to adhere to it. More specifically, with a study of Ericksons writings and a more in-depth and thoughtful reading of biblical texts, I realized that God is the Creator of all that has been designed and is being built in the world at all times [2]. This is the critical knowledge that led me to believe that Evil itself is not the opposite of the Divine Good. It follows that Evil is a Divine outcome, which means that evil intentions and actions have a purpose for the world.
For me, the world still remains differentiated into Good and Evils moral categories, but the driving forces and motives for these phenomena have been transformed. Good and Evil are no longer extraneous, unrelated entities but are instead divine tools for human development. When I think of Evil, I like to refer to the New Testament, which speaks of the Christians desire to rely on God, who can reward justice instead of sinful human vengeance [3]. Another biblical message that I previously misinterpreted is Timothy 4:18, which affirms the Creators ability to deliver us from Evil [4]. Now with my new system of theological thinking, I acknowledge that Gods ability accurately defines His authority over the whole world, and therefore Evil, as well as Good, is His will.
The aspects of evil and the reality of the devil are deeply explored in different verses in the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament. Evil is highlighted as the source of mankinds downfall and the factor widening the gap in the relationship between God and mankind. This paper explores the element of evil and existence of the devil. Besides, the paper highlights the roots of contemporary Christian leadership related to culture, tradition, worldview, and doctrine. The paper also reviews the differences between the Global South and Global North churches in relation to their views on evil and general ideology. In summary, the paper presents personal opinion on the differences at the global Christianity level.
Biblical Teachings on Existence of Evil and the Reality of the Devil
There are several biblical teaching relating to the existence of evil and the reality of the devil. To begin with, the book of Genesis chapter 3, there is an account of how the devil came in the form of a serpent and used tricks to confuse Even to partake from the forbidden fruit after which she passed the fruit to Adam. In the book of Genesis chapter 6 verses 5, the Bible states that God was not happy with the evil nature of man and begin a plan to destroy the Earth with water.
In the book of Genesis 4:8, Cain was overcome by evil and he killed his brother Abel because God did not approve of his offerings. The book of Romans 12:12 advises Christians not to be slaves to evil, rather, they should overcome evil with good. In the book of Ephesians 6:11, Christians should be armed with the armor of God for them to be strong enough to survive the schemes of the devil. The book further states that Christians are at war with dark evil forces.
In the book of Romans 12:9, Christians should practice sincere love by hating evil and only clinging to the goodness. In the book of Proverbs 8:13, hating evil is equal to fearing the Lord. The verse highlights the signs of evil as arrogance, pride, perverse speech, and evil behavior.
In the book of First Thessalonians 5:21-22, Christians should reject evil by sticking to what is good. The verse is categorical that love as a substance of goodness can be used to overcome evil. In the book of Proverbs 3:7-8, shunning evil equates to the fear of the Lord, which comes with blessing such as good health and nourished bones. The book of Psalms 97:10 states that loving the Lord means hating evil and the dark plans of the devil.
The verse advises Christians to only pay bad with excessive goodness. The book of Isaiah 1:16 states that Christians should stop doing what is wrong by washing their hands of evil plans and deeds1. In the Lords Prayer, in the book of John 17:15, Christians should ask the Lord to protect them from the devil (evil one) everyday. Other biblical teachings on evil are the books of James 1:21, John 1:5, Psalms 34:14, and Psalms 119:1332.
The bible teachings relating to the reality of the devil include the books of John 10:10, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14, Ephesians 6:11, Revelation 12:9, Revelation 20:3, Mathew 6:13, Timothy 3:7, Daniel 8:25, and Mark 13:22 among others. These verses describe the devil as a conniving lie who wants to steal, kill, and destroy as part of his evil schemes. The devil is described as a cunning fallen angel who always disguises himself as the angel of light.
The devil is also described as the crafty deceiver who confused biblical characters such as Even and Cain to partake of evil plans. In the book of Revelations 12:9, the reality of the devil is well described. The verse states that, And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him 3.
Roots of Contemporary Christian Leadership
The roots f contemporary Christian leadership related to culture, tradition, worldview, and doctrine can be traced to the Judeo-Christian tradition which stressed on servant leadership and liberal approach to handling challenges that might face the flock. The tradition highlights the philosophical rational for adopting servant leadership as enshrined in the practice of leading as a servant not as a master.
This means that Christian leadership should be focused on servant service approach to balance the demands of the pluralistic society, such as the approaches to addressing cultural, traditional, worldview, and doctrinal forces in practicing Christianity. For instance, the book of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 highlights the qualities of a servant leader in the church as being sober minded, respectable, above reproach, and gentle4. However, despite possessing these traits, a servant leader in the church is likely to face the challenge from the flock members who are fox in sheep clothing.
The attempt to balance the conflicting interests is informed by the need to manage the myriad of worldviews compete for attention, where it is assumed that there will be a separation between religion and public life, and where a logical framework for the inclusion of religious values in everyday life is missing 5. This situation is necessary since separation flows from presuppositions fueled by a fragmented modern worldview 6.
In practicing servant leadership, there is need to integrate the virtue by using moral pillar to gauge decision making with the agape love, service, altruism, and humility. The moral pillar should be accompanied by trust and a clear vision to guarantee practical application in the dynamic Christianity environment. For instance, in practicing traditional Christian virtues, it is necessary to integrate virtue and humility to avoid conflicts in a perfect teleology. Through this approach, the book of 1 Peter 5:3 notes that the servant leader will be a good example to the flock since he will not have the tendency to domineer over the subjects7.
Key Elements that Account for the Significant Differences in Defining Evil: Global North and South Churches
At present, many Global South Christians are more conservative in terms of both beliefs and moral teaching than are the mainstream churches of the Global North and this is especially true in Africa 8. Since the Global South churches are dominated by the Pentecostal and Catholic denominations, most South Christians operate in the medieval faith characterized by collective appreciation of righteousness as compared to the moderate and liberal Christians of the Global North churches.
The members of Global South churches have a stronger affinity to the sections of the Bible that regard the secular state coldly, that present suffering as the likely lot of the Christian in this life 9 in the fight against evil. On the other hand, the Global North churches have open view of evil as coexisting with mankind but should be regulated. Besides, the Global South churches view evil at national level while the Global North churches view sin at individual level.
Person Reflection
I do not expect the marked differences to lessen over time since the two church dispensations operate in different environments and doctrinal thoughts. For instance, in the Global South churches, poverty and suffering are high and bound to rise further due to inability of the state to create a good environment for economic and social living. For instance, the churches in Africa and Asia, which are part of the Global South Christianity, have group visions and belief systems that appeal to communal approach to understanding the life of a Christian through suffering. This is the opposite in the Global North churches in North America and Europe.
As a result of the different visions, with each church category deploying competing religious orientation, the differences will widen. Besides, the Global South churches are inspired by liberation that is currently lacking in the Global North churches where political and social activism has taken the back seat. Little is being done by the better developed Global North churches to bridge the sexual and moral indecencies that are the core principles of the Global South churches. Thus, due to differences in vision and perceptions towards moral principles in relation to sex and evil, I would suggest that there will be no integration of the Global North and Global South churches in the near future.
According to the interview with Marilyn McCord Adams, the key to understanding evil is its classification according to the magnitude of its impact on the life of an individual. Central to Adams argument is the existence of what she categorizes as horrendous evil an event or phenomenon that is so overwhelming that it threatens to ruin the significance of life for the victim. One of the features of this type of evil is the concept of mutual participation, where both the victim and the perpetrator take part in committing the act of evil. However, it is not clear if this is either a necessary or a sole condition since some of the later examples by Adams (the victims of Cambodian warfare) do not explicitly display involvement in the commitment of the act. Since overcoming the adverse effects of such a phenomenon is beyond the capacity of human beings, the presence of horrendous evil signifies the inconsistency of optimism as a viable, sustainable posture in life and demands the presence of a supernatural and ultimately benevolent being to assist people in dealing with it. In other words, the existence of God is a necessary condition of optimistic posture given the presence of horrendous evil.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strongest point of the argument by Marilyn McCord Adams is the reliance on a rational approach and the necessity to challenge the preconceived notion of optimism. Simply put, the mere acceptance of optimism without acknowledging the presence of evil in the world (some of which, according to Adams, is unbearable by humans) places it in the domain of beliefs and prejudices. Therefore, both optimism and malevolence should be measured and compared to reach a conclusion regarding the real value of existence. However, such an approach is difficult to execute for several reasons. First, the criterion of life-changing experience is highly subjective: an event that can possibly deprive the life of one person of meaning can be deemed less dramatic by another.
In addition, the effects of desperation and powerlessness are known to be temporary, which certainly can be explained by supernatural intervention but is equally explainable by natural and thoroughly studied processes that require fewer new assumptions and therefore are more reasonable. A notable example of such an approach is Adams countering of the argument regarding the optimism of atheistic Holocaust survivors who remained non-believers. According to her, their resilience can be explained by the unarticulated awareness of the supernatural power that is responsible for reintroducing meaning into their existence. In this way, her argument is made impossible to disprove and is, therefore, immune to alternative suggestions. This clearly steers away from the appeal to rationality beyond the assumption of God as a necessary condition stated earlier.
Next, Adams explicitly denounces the factor of human progress as a reason to accept optimism without introducing the supernatural component. Specifically, the progress made in the field of medicine and leading to the eradication of several life-threatening diseases is dismissed as inferior to the supposed lack of progress on the capacity for self-governance and level of corruption. However, it can be argued that the former has a much better chance of qualifying as horrendous evil. As a result, the argument does not offer consistent criteria for defining evil; instead, it is used to selectively include the concepts that align with the preferred posture and reject those that do not. In other words, it is prone to confirmation bias. Finally, the notion of optimism used by Adams seems to have a prerequisite for the presence of a supernatural being; that is, optimism necessitates an external force that is responsible for steering the human decisions and shaping the understanding of lifes meaning. This prerequisite makes it easier for the author to select the facts that confirm her suggestion but further undermines the possibility of rationalization and puts the whole argument in the domain of religion.
Conclusion
After considering the strengths and weaknesses of Dr. Adams argument, we can see that it does not give an adequate response to the problem of evil. When presented with the problem directly, she states that the fact of the presence of evil in the world cannot be explained by humans due to the differences between them and the supernatural, which is basically a restatement of the phrase God works in mysterious ways. Therefore, she uses a concept of evil as a means of confirming the preferred explanation for the human capacity to find meaning in life rather than addressing it as a separate concept.
The article The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism gives a powerful argument to support the ideas of atheism based on the existence of evil. Human pain and suffering is evident in every part of the world. This kind of suffering justifies the existence of evil in our universe (Rowe 335).
According to Rowe (336), the world does not have any omniscient or wholly good human being . Informed atheists should therefore take a unique position concerning the rationality of theistic ideas and beliefs (Rowe 337). The author explains atheists should take the position of friendly atheism (Rowe 335).
Atheists usually deny the presence or existence of any divine creature. The main idea in this article is that the existence of evil in the universe confirms the concept of atheism. The article goes further to explain how atheists should have a friendly attitude towards theism.
This article challenges me to think in different ways about my values and beliefs. I have always resisted the idea of atheism. I believe that the above concept is unfounded, wrong, and inappropriate. However, the author explains why atheism is undeniable. The article gives three premises to support atheism based on different forms of evil.
The first premise is that there is intense suffering that could have been prevented by a supreme being (p. 336). The second premise is that an omniscient being such as God would have prevented any form of suffering in the world. This fact takes us to the third premise. The premise states that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good being (Rowe 336).
On the other hand, theists can use several arguments to support the existence of a supreme being. For instance, they can reject the first premise of atheism by analyzing the existence of good things in the world. Theists also explain how human beings cannot experience good things without encountering different pains and heartaches (Rowe 338). This argument explains why both atheism and theism are powerful concepts towards understanding the nature of evil.
This knowledge has changed my views about the world. I am ready to accept the concept of atheism because it presents powerful ideas to many people. However, the article cannot change my position as a believer. The article has changed my worldview significantly. Human beings should support their arguments and ideas about the existence of a supernatural being.
The best strategy is ensuring that atheism and theism coexist with one another. This situation would be critical towards analyzing the issue of evil in the universe. This idea would be necessary towards safeguarding the religious rights and opinions of many people (Rowe 340).
Human suffering is undeniable in our world. Theists offer unique arguments to explain why suffering plays a major role towards promoting human happiness. Atheists also believe strongly that a supernatural being cannot allow evil things to happen in the world. This situation explains why the idea of friendly atheism is acceptable and relevant.
This concept will be appropriate because it gives an appropriate rationality of theistic belief (Rowe 339). The arguments presented in this article have encouraged me to think in fresh ways about the issue of atheism. Although atheists tend to refute the existence of God in the universe, individuals should have a friendly attitude towards the idea of theism. This exercise encourages me to read more articles and books in order to understand this subject much better.
Works Cited
Rowe, William. The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism. Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. Ed. Louis Pojman and Lewis Vaughn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 335-341. Print.
The existence of God is one of the most challenging topics, the defense of which is extensively discussed in theological literature. The atheists and those who identify as undecided reject the presence of God, arguing that there are no physical, audible, or other confirmations. In turn, the proponents build their arguments on such concepts as the meaning, value, and purpose of life. This paper aims to explore various philosophical underpinnings with regard to the problem of evil in theism to explore the arguments against and in favor of God.
Philosophical Similarities and Differences in Readings
The idea of immortality is one of the key themes that are discussed in theism in terms of the problem of evil. In The Absurdity of Life without God, Craig (1994) states that there is no ultimate purpose without immortality, and the absence of God means that there is no reason for living. The human race, accordingly, is not immortal and meaningless. In this connection, people can be seen as a by-product of evolution and a result of the cosmic accident. Similarly, Thomas (2018) considers that a Neo-Darwinist approach reduces life without God to mere genetic replication and the survival of DNA. The immortality of DNA does not mean the same for people, who become blind and indifferent since their life would end in the grave.
The readings by Thomas (2018) and Craig (1994) have one more similar point that is the purpose of living as one of the arguments that support Gods existence. According to Thomas (2018), who discovers the concept of purpose through the discussion of suffering, God helps to recognize reality. On the contrary to science, Jesus suffering and that of ordinary people illuminate the necessity of pain and its purpose. For example, females have to ensure enormous pain during labor, but the appearance of a baby eliminates that suffering and grants happiness. Craig (1994) claims that it is inconsistent to think that people live for no purpose, and their actions occur by chance. The mentioned author criticizes biological determinism, claiming that this approach equalizes a person and any laboratory specimen, which means that human life is nonsensical.
On the contrary to the arguments that were presented above, Habermas (2008) provides the views of Hitchens and Harris, who examine the goodness of God. They state that there is no objective ethics as they follow from the developmental perspective. The questions about the impact of the Holocaust, Hurricane Katrina, and deaths of innocent children are posed by atheists. According to this point of view, the problem of evil is not addressed by God, which challenges His existence.
Objective Meaning and Good Life
A persons life cannot have objective meaning without God as it is meaningless: there are no unprejudiced right or wrong issues. Craig (1994) argues that people should believe in and value objective meaning, thus understanding that war, oppression, and crime are the expressions of evil. In a universe without God, the very existence of people is meaningless. Only some personal, cultural, and historical values may determine the way of life, but love, equality, and brotherhood become insignificant.
Life cannot be good without objective meaning since the only solution, in this case, is being brave and accepting absurdity. However, it is impossible to live happily in such an inconsistent worldview, which can be observed in difficult situations when people tend to ask God to help them even though they did not accept His existence before (Thomas, 2018). This is an attempt to affirm the meaning and purpose of life, but it is not achievable until a person resides in a two-story universe. In a world, where both a good person and a sinner end in a grave, the very best of the former becomes unreliable and pointless.
Gods Existence and Problem of Evil
The conclusions made in this paper point to the existence of God: the recognition of this fact explains suffering, the meaning of life, and immortality. Habermas (2008) rationally notes that the problem of evil clarifies the presence of absolute morality in the world with God. The atrocities of the Holocaust, for example, can be viewed in terms of ethical standards only in case if God exists. Otherwise, atheists considering the mentioned events seem to establish their arguments against theism only on their personal feelings of disgust. Thus, one cannot live with a partial belief in God: an individual should either deny it and do not lay evil at God accept absolute morality.
Conclusion
To conclude, this paper discussed the problem of evil in terms of theism and found that the arguments in favor of Gods existence are more rational than those of atheists. Suffering and reality can be explained as the way to achieve happiness and immortality with God. The meaning, purpose, and value of life can also be fully understood only in the presence of God. A good life and objective meaning were identified as intertwined concepts that are nonsensical in case people are perceived as mere cosmic orphans.
References
Craig, W. L. (1994).The absurdity of life without God. Web.
Habermas, G. R. (2008). The plight of the new atheism: A critique. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 51(4), 813-827.
St. Augustine was a firm believer in God, and he, therefore, wanted always to do what is right. He argued that God is good and thus he did not create evil.
According to him, evil results from mans deviation to Gods teachings. It is, therefore, a problem as it is a man who chooses to bring evil upon himself. St. Augustine claims that the solution of evil is to do the right thing and to abstain from wrongdoing. He claims that evil results from a man trying to equal himself to God.
For instance, when a person chooses to steal, he knows that stealing is wrong. Despite this knowledge, he steals because, at that particular moment, the person feels in control of everything. St Augustine argued that God is the most powerful being. Sometimes man tries to rival this power. It is this defiance that St. Augustine warned men against (M. Arthur 120).
The Manichean interpretation of the problem is that evil results when two powerful deities work in opposition hence negative consequences. According to this interpretation, the deities are equally compelling. St Augustine has a problem with this belief because it contradicts the omnipotence of God.
It does this by suggesting that God and the devil have equal powers. According to him, God is the only deity and the most powerful being in existence.
The powers of the devil are inferior to those of God. The belief also suggests that evil is as a result of conflict between God and the devil. According to St. Augustine, this is not so. Evil is as a result of mans deviation from Gods ways. He also suggests that other evils like natural disasters are as a result of angels deviating from Gods ways (M. Arthur 125).
Christianity says that for man to live an upright life and have full knowledge of God, evil is necessary. The pain and suffering resulting from evil cause man to realize that he needs God in his life. When a man experiences pain, he will strive to help other people in a similar situation so that they do not suffer as much as he did.
To appreciate the power of good, man needs to undergo the suffering caused by evil. It builds his character and makes him strong such that he can face the hardships of life courageously (M. Arthur 128).
The Christian solution to evil has been very successful. It generally encourages man to live a life that is pleasant to God and humankind as well. Christianity helps man to appreciate both the positive and negative things in life. This way, he can learn from negative things and become a better, stronger person.
As opposed to other beliefs, man can understand that it is not necessarily his fault that negative things happen. For instance, natural misfortunes like earthquakes caused by forces of nature that conflict with each other. Man is not to blame for these occurrences in any way.
Christianity also teaches a man to acknowledge the presence of God in life when things are going well and to seek Him when faced with hardships. It also teaches a man to live and relate well with the whole society. Most importantly, it teaches a man to have respect for life and to value it. This way, society remains peaceful (M. Arthur 132).
Work Cited
Miller, Arthur. The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. New York: Guilford, 2004
The purpose of this essay will be to evaluate the logical problem of evil and free-will defense. The aspects that will be focused on in the essay will be the logical problem of evil where the concept of God and the key attributes that are in conflict with the existence of evil will be discussed.
The free-will defense as a response to the logical problem of evil will also be covered in the essay as well as how the free-will response demonstrates the existence of evil to be logically inconsistent with the existence of God. Objections to the free-will defense as a logical solution to evil will also be presented in the discussion.
Logical Problem of Evil
The problem of evil according to Inwagen (188) is defined as the label for an intellectual problem that is contrary to emotional, spiritual, psychological and theological problems. The prevalence of evil in the world or the logical problem of evil can easily be used to form a basis for an argument that is against the existence of God or any other omnipotent being.
The logical problem of evil states that if God really existed he would be an all powerful and morally perfect being who would not allow any evil or immorality to exist in the world. But since there is a lot of evil in the world, God does not exist and this basically forms a basis for the logical problem of evil. According to the logical problem of evil, the continued existence of evil since the beginning of time is a prelude to the fact that God is non-existent (Inwagen 188).
The response to the logical problem of evil is the existence of a morally perfect and omnipotent being that has the relevant knowledge of evil and how to deal with it. God is an omnipotent being who is pure, good and morally perfect and can be able to deal with evil. The concept of God is basically made up of Him being an omnipotent being, His knowledge of evil and His moral perfection.
God is seen to be a morally perfect and omnipotent being meaning that he can do anything as long as it is not an intrinsic impossibility. Because omnipotence and moral perfection are the non-negotiable components of God, the implications of this is that if the universe was made by an all powerful being and that being was less than omnipotent then the atheists would be right in assuming that God did not exist.
A morally perfect being would not allow evil to exist in the world and him being omnipotent would mean that he has the power to control the existence of evil. The implication of this statement is that such a being is either false or is wholly ignorant to the occurrence of evil (Inwagen 192).
One of the key attributes that is in conflict with evil is moral scorn which according to Inwagen (191) is the safest kind of evil because it is easily taken for granted by most people. Scorn which is generally a form of moral insensitivity is a type of evil that is committed against a persons emotional and spiritual feelings. It is meant to belittle the actions, opinions or comments that individuals make towards something of common interest.
Moral scorn conflicts with general scorn because it can be used against individuals who disagree with others by demonstrating self-righteous acts or moral posturing. Moral scorn is meant to belittle the actions or opinions of other people without necessarily being backed by evil feelings such as malice or hatred. Moral scorn deflects an argument from employing any forms of evil to one that employs self-righteousness or moral posturing meaning that it eliminates the occurrence of any form of evil completely (Inwagen 191).
Freewill Defense
The free-will defense is the only response to the logical problem of evil because of the existence of rational, self-aware and good human beings who have a free choice or free will to take part in evil or good. The free-will defense explains the presence of God to be that of an omnipotent being who grants human beings with the power of free choice and free will.
Free-will is a great good created by God to outweigh the existence of evil in the world and it is therefore seen as a defense to the logical problem of evil. The simplistic form of free-will points to the fact that evil exists in the world and the existence of God as a morally upright being. If evil did not exist in the world, there would be no need for human beings to decide whether they will engage in evil or good meaning that the free-will defense is meaningless (Inwagen 198).
Because God created human beings to be rational when it came to choosing between good and evil, he would not be in existence if people lacked the free-will defense when choosing between right and wrong. Free-will means that a person is morally responsible for the choices they have made bearing in mind that they had the choice to do otherwise.
Free-will provides human beings with an option to choose what they think is right regardless of whether or not they think it is evil or good. The choice of free will therefore points to the existence of evil in the world and since free-will is a moral choice derived from morally right and rational human beings, it points to the existence of God as an omnipotent being (196).
The free-will defense addresses the logical problem of evil because it offers human beings with an alternative to committing evil. Free-will provides people with a chance to be morally responsible for their actions though they had the chance to do otherwise. The simplistic form of the free-will defense can at best be used to deal with the existence of some forms of evil as opposed to a vast amount of evil that originates from the acts of human beings.
Objection to Free-will Defense
An objection to the free-will defense is that it fails to address the logical problem of evil because free will and determinism are compatible concepts that co-exist in the world.
This means that God as the omnipotent being could create a world where human beings were free to commit evil but also do good. This seems to be a surprising argument to make but it has a strong basis based on philosophers such as David Hume and Thomas Hobbes who held the belief that free will and determinism were perfectly compatible concepts that could coexist in a world full of both evil and good.
These philosophers argued that free-will meant being free to do what one wants to do while determinism involved making the right choice based on what a person wanted to do. If free will and determinism were compatible therefore, an omnipotent being could create a human being who had a free choice to choose between evil and good (Inwagen 199).
A persons free will is therefore what one wants to do with regards to the above analysis meaning that a free will is an unimpeded will. A creator who would want to offer people with a free choice would only need to arrange matters so as to achieve the intended desire in human beings.
This means that if a human being had a desire to commit act x instead of y, they would be able to achieve that desire because they have the option of x and y implanted in them. If every human being with a free will always did what they felt was right there would be an abuse of free will and evil would not exist in the world through the human abuse of free-will. This means that the free-will defense is not a suitable response to the logical problem of evil based on this objection.
Works Cited
Inwagen, Peter. The problem of evil. New York: Oxford University Press
Why do bad things happen? Why the earthquake in Haiti that killed thousands upon thousands? Forget the French evangelist who claimed it was Gods punishment for their Voodoo practices: there were hundreds of children who would beat the good preacher to heaven if the trumpet was to sound this moment. But wait&..It was a punishment for their deeds, right? That is exactly the point: God is not that all loving, after all!
However, what perhaps relates to the issue at hand is when, in the Book of Genesis, God created enmity between the womans offspring and that of the serpent. At a literal level, the serpent would bite mans heels, and the latter will clobber the formers head; which is normally the case. In the wider scheme of things, there is a connection between the evil forces (symbolized by the serpent in the context of Genesis) and human suffering.
While the initial pronouncement of suffering as a punishment was a form of retribution for mans sins, the circumstances under which it is effected (as portrayed by the fate of the fawn) sometimes pities man as a victim of forces beyond his control, most of which he is not accountable for. In the biblical story of Job, for instance, Job losses his possessions and is afflicted with a skin ailment for no apparent reason at all, besides the fact that God allowed Satan to do it. This is not the character of a loving God.
Maybe God is as powerless and helpless as His creatures in the face of evil forces, huh? Why couldnt he stop a mere slip of the world from its natural course to avoid an earthquake? Or, closer home, why didnt he stop the lightning from striking the tree? It was an accident, perhaps? Then He could have, in His omnipotence, somehow prevented the poor fawn from dying!
Whichever way the issue is interpreted, it leads to two glaring possibilities: either God is not very merciful, as assumed, or, He doesnt have the powers to intervene. Either He wont: He possesses the power but is not willing to intervene, or He cannot- He is thoroughly powerless. Period!
And there lies the dilemma of a believer.
The faithful know a very powerful and equally loving God. Accordingly, because He is omnipotent, he can stop misfortune; and for His wonderful grace, He would not allow it to afflict His creatures. But it does happen, time and again!
To explain the fate suffered by the fawn would require a theodicy that reconciles Gods loving and omnipotent nature and the reality of evil in the world. St. Augustines theodicy, particularly, argues that the free will accorded to man implies that God doesnt have to intervene in every aspect of human existence. The presence of evil, according to Augustine, is designed to achieve a greater good, namely to lead men towards a quest for goodness and Gods perfect nature. However, this is an evil that does not lead to any good, for no human beings witnessed it to learn.
Hicks theodicy posits that the existence of evil is to lead men in their soul building, to grow towards spiritual maturation (Rowe and Trakakis 102). He compares it to the child-parent relationship, where the parent lets the child confront difficulties so as to learn from experience. That is why you limit the amount of money your kid can spend on his fancies: you can afford it, but he should learn some responsibility. Likewise, God can shower humanity with His love and protection, but He exposes mankind to suffering so as to develop desirable virtues such as endurance and patience.
Nonetheless, the issue in question does not serve any such purpose, since humans are not involved. A dead fawn cannot learn anything from its misfortune, right? One limitation of Hicks theodicy, therefore, is its failure to recognize that some suffering and misfortunes, such as the death of the fawn, could have been prevented without either diminishing our moral and spiritual development or undermining our confidence that the world operates according to natural laws (Rowe and Trakakis 103).
Finally, it leads to Wendy Donigers explanation of karma, which he calls the transfer of merits (Doniger 8). He observes that misfortune, such as the death of the fawn, implies a rebirth to a better after-life. In relation to human life, he says that the existence of evil is to exhort the worshipper to undertake remedial actions in order to swim like a salmon upstream against the currents of karma (Doniger 14). In this light, it appears that evil is caused by fate, but nonetheless to serve the same purpose as outlined by Hick: to lead humanity to a desirable state, the rebirth of a better life. The fawns fate, accordingly, is a wake-up call for mans consciousness about the existence of evil, and like a salmon, to swim against its currents.
Works Cited
Doniger, Wendy, O., Wendy, Doniger. Karma and rebirth in classical Indian traditions. California: University of California Press, 1980.
Rowe, William L., Trakakis, Nick. William L. Rowe on Philosophy of Religion: Selected Writings. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
As a philosophical issue, dealing with the Problem of Evil is fundamentally a matter of refining definitions. It means that the apparent contradiction between the existence of Go3d and the presence of Evil should be dissolves. It is important to consider those natures differently, do not try to create opposition between them. God is a rational being who acts in accordance with reason.
Peter van Inwagens defense left evil without attention and focused instead on modifying the God terms. This helps consider the world from the point of view of its creation by God as not a spiritual being, but as rational being who acts in accord with reason. God exists and he possesses the unique characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence and to understand why evil exists.
Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is depicted in the following statement: If Go3d exists then how is it possible for evil to be present in the world. Being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, Go3d has the capacity to eliminate all cases of evil and provide happiness and goodness for all.
It is possible to state that the existence of evil in the world helps us understand what happiness and goodness truly are. This influence human reasoning and is based on the opposition of these notions. Only having cognized what evil is, people are able to distinguish goodness.
Gods characteristic features are aimed at helping people who have experienced evil to know what good. Only Gods omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence help him do what he has done, namely create this world.
Omnipotence of God
God is omnipotent and it is impossible to reject it under the statements of evils presence. There are a lot of different reasons which can support this idea. Defining the notion of the omnipotence of God, Peter van Inwagen points to the fact that we do not know what exactly God can do, we are just aware of the fact that he can. That is all.
To prove God omnipotence, it is possible to implement the following examples. All people could have spoken German if they had lived in Germany. All people could have played golf, if their lives had been connected to this kind of sport. God can do this, but there is a natural question, what for?
For what purpose would one speak German if he/she did not use it in everyday life? Why should one overburden his/her brain? Is it just for the reason that God CAN do it? All God does is reasonable and can be explained.
God is unable to create a world where everything is good, as it contradicts the idea of personal choice and the understanding of goodness. As it has been mentioned above, if people did not experience bad things they would not know what goodness is.
Therefore, people are the source of evil. The very understanding that God can do whatever he wants shows that he is omnipotent. This description leads to the conclusion that God can either do something or not to do it. Reason is the main tool God should be guided by as he can do it and he does it in the way how it must be and as a result, correct.
Gods reason is based on omnibenevolence, which human reasoning is based on choice. Being omnibenevolent, God is unable on bad actions, thus, the nature of evil is a human being.
Omniscience of God
God is omniscient. The definition of omniscience presupposes that a person is omniscient when he/she knows for sure the main idea of the proposition and this person cannot have the false considerations. Omniscience of God is explained by the fact that those who have always behaved in a good manner in the relation to others are going to be rewarded.
This idea may be tried to be contradicted by the fact that the freedom of choice of human life rejects Gods omniscience. It means that if a human being has an opportunity to choose a life style, God is unable to know what is going to happen.
But, having predicted that God is omniscient, it is possible to say that he is able to predict a choice of a human being. This characteristic feature should be connected with Gods omnipotence as an ability to do everything.
God knows everything and he offers people the right to choose not as the hidden ability to guide human choice, but as the confirmation of the fact that God knows everything, and he is aware what choice a person will make.
Sometimes, human choice is directed at the evil side, but Gods noninterference is explained by the freedom of choice and the cognition of evil with the purpose to understand what goodness is. This is the main reason why God does not interfere into human decisions, as they will still come to the understanding of goodness.
Omnibenevolence of God
Omnibenevolent nature of God should not also be questioned as God has created this world with the purpose to give us life, but it is we are who make choice and act in opposition to Gods reasoning. God offers us the right to choose what exactly we want, therefore, he is not responsible for the choice people make.
He can influence us and help us make choice according to his omnipotent nature and he can be aware of the choice made by people as he is omniscient, but, he offers the choice for people. It is their decision how to act. This does not point to evil existence and does not violate the problem of evil from the point of view of the inability to influence human choice if wrong decision is made.
God is omnibenevolent because his actions are directed at the goodness and human happiness. Everything he creates has its purpose, but, it is human choice whether to use that goodness or not. Thus, it can be concluded that the Gods omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence cannot be the reason of the problem of evil as these notions are not connected.
Personal argument
Having stated that problem and having considered it from the point of view of the problem of evil, we came to the conclusion that to define God, it is important to use the following features, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
Having discussed there issues we have managed to prove them and point to the fact that they cannot be used as the contradiction to Gods existence within the problem of evil. In other words, we have stated that the problem of evil does not go along with Gods definition as evil presence in the world is an obligatory issue and it does not rejects omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent nature of God.
Conclusion
Therefore, it should be concluded that the problem of evil can be explained via rational, reasonable, and scientific. Gods characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are not undermined. The existence of evil is obsolete in relation to the existence of God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.
There is no place to the evil problem as the existence of evil does not reject the presence of God. These notions are to be present together in order to show people what goodness is. Furthermore, the presence of evil in the world does not reject Gods omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence as these notions should not be considered as opposed notions.
The problem of evil has been defined by different scholars. Polkinghorne (14) defines it as the process of reconciliation between evil and good. The problem of evil, therefore, tries to show that there is no logical way in which good and evil can exist in the way they are presented in religion.
This paper will discuss the problem of evil, state the main claims that have been argued by John Mackie and Alvin Plantinga, and show some of the arguments that other scholars have raised with regard to the problem of evil.
As mentioned in the introduction, the problem of evil questions the likelihood of a co-existence between evil and good that is normally present in religion. According to Oppy (27), religion argues that good involves what God wants and asks of humans.
Evil, on the other hand, involves what God does not want. However, Oppy presents an interesting argument that what religion terms as good or evil can be viewed as one element. Oppy (27) argues that the good aspect of religion involves the omnipotent and omniscient God. However, these adjectives can also be used to describe something evil.
Rowe (65) has, however, rejected the problem of evil by stating that there is a thin line between good and evil as expressed in religion. For example, many proposers of the problem of evil argue that the act of God placing judgment on humans can be viewed as both good and evil, thus there is no solid way of knowing what the specific act is.
However, Rowe (67) observes that the act is good because it is a judgment that will supposedly be fair and just. This qualifies the act of God reigning judgment on humans as a good act. Rowe (67) further explains that evil can be seen in the free will that is actually bestowed on humans.
He argues that the act of God giving humans free will, as explained in the Christian Bible, is a good act. However, the choices that the humans make for themselves based on the free will that they have can be evil.
The problem of evil has been divided into two main components. Different scholars have argued their cases using these two components. The first component is the logical problem of evil. The scholars who identify with this component argue that if an all powerful and ever present God exists, then evil does not exist.
The scholars, however, also agree that there is evil in the world, thus such a powerful and ever present God does not exist. One scholar who has tried to derail this component is Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga argues that the ever present and all powerful God exists, and so does evil. He argues that the presence of free will is what causes evil and not the existence of God.
This, however, has been criticized by several scholars who have argued that if the God involved is all knowing and powerful, then he knows when evil will occur and how to stop it. If he does not stop it, then it means that he does not want to stop it. Based on this argument, it is very difficult to explain the difference between good and evil (Beebe 57).
The second component is the evidential problem of evil. This is a component that is supported by scholars who aim at showing the existence of evil. There is only slight difference between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. Trakakis (82), who supports the latter theory, argues that there is no possible way of the co-existence of a bad spirit that causes evil together with a good spirit that does good deeds.
According to the proponents of this argument, if there was an omnipresent and omniscient God, then he would have been able to remove evil and any agents that cause it. The fact that evil exists, therefore, shows that the presence of such a god is questionable (Trakakis 94).
Many other scholars have tried to base their arguments on the problem of evil using religion and everyday happenings (Inwagen 67). Two of the most common scholars who have also tried to explain the problem of evil include John Mackie and Alvin Plantinga. The works of these two scholars are further discussed in this paper.
John Mackies argument on the problem of evil
John Mackie was best known for his arguments about right and wrong as presented in both Philosophy and Religion. Mackie tried to describe the different possibilities that would have occurred if good and evil existed in the same realm. Being an atheist, therefore, Mackies argument revolves around reducing the relevance of God and religion.
He argues that there is no God and this can be proven by the fact that there is a lot of evil in the world. According to (Inwagen 67), evil in this sense means the suffering that many human beings go through and not necessarily the bad actions one human being does to another.
Mackie also argues that many people have believed in the existence of the omnipresent God because it is not only catchy, but people also want to believe in something with more power than normal human beings. Mackie argues that the objective values that are supported by religion are not only false, but they are also not realistic.
Inwagen (69) supports Mackies statement and argues that it is extremely difficult to note where the consequences of doing evil come from. He also states that some of the consequences can make the involved individual become worse than they were.
For example, in the case of a man who is convicted of theft, there are many loopholes on the relevant punishment with regard to the problem of evil. Many people would commit this man to prison. If he were stealing to feed his children, then his children would go hungry and neither the court that sent the man to prison, nor the person whose property was stolen would be concerned about the welfare of the mans children.
Mackie disregarded the argument of free will that many other scholars had used to explain the existence of both good and evil in the same realm. Apart from claiming that the idea of free will is of no value to the problem of evil, he also added the fact that it does not explain why a powerful god would let people suffer.
Mackie was of the idea that a perfect God would also create a perfect human being, thus there would be no evil. However, societal problems prove that there are some human beings who are purely evil. Therefore, if god is perfect, then why would he create such imperfect human beings? If God is perfect and creates perfect creatures, then who or what created these imperfect human beings (Inwagen 69)?
Like many other scholars, Mackie also argues that the choice of free will would have been applicable only if human beings would choose to do the right thing all the time (Inwagen 53). However, what is considered evil in one society might not be evil in another. In todays world, the punishments of evil are also very different.
For example, stealing in Saudi Arabia is punishable through the chopping off one finger or hand. Stealing in other countries is mainly punishable through fines.
Phillips (52) also argues that if God would allow evil to reside on earth, then God himself has aspects of evil. He further explains that God would only let evil and other bad things happen to human beings if he himself was bad. This reduces the relevance of God as portrayed by religion.
In as much as John Mackie had many followers, he also had various critics. Alvin Plantinga was one of the scholars who criticized Mackies theory of the logical problem of evil.
Alvin Plantinga and the problem of evil
As mentioned, Plantinga was against the logical explanation of the problem of evil. He argued that free will should have an impact on the discussion of the problem of evil. He adamantly rejected the works of Mackie through his free will defence. According to this defence, Plantinga tries to explain the existence of an omnipresent and omniscient God, while also explaining why evil is necessary.
Plantingas main argument is that the fact that God gave human beings free will means that humans have the right to choose good or evil. If human beings did not have free will, then they would always have done good deeds (Plantinga 464).
Rowe (65) backs Plantingas argument by stating that the Christian Bible shows the difference between having free will and not having any will whatsoever. He argues that according to the Bible, the first human beings did not have free will, thus they always chose good deeds (Plantinga 466).
However, they had the chance to make their own decisions after getting the free will. It is these decisions that allowed evil into the world. From this explanation, one denotes that evil comes from decisions and choices and not necessarily from a bad spirit.
Plantinga also defended his argument by stating that it could be true that God allows evil things in order to test moral goodness. This means that God has the power to make the evil go away, but he does not do that so that he can test the righteous and the evil people.
Many critics of Plantinga have argued that his free will defence has only paid attention to moral evil, instead of talking about natural evil too. Moral evil can be defined as the evil that is done by someone because of their beliefs. The case of a doctor who decides to stop the treatment of a patient due to lack of money to pay the doctors fee is an example of moral evil. Natural evil, however, is that which has no cause or reason.
For example, diseases and death are considered natural evils. There are some people who are also considered naturally evil. According to region, many of these people are not righteous. Plantingas theory, therefore, does not give an explanation of the latter kind of evil (Trakakis 93).
Discussion on Plantingas response to the logical problem of evil
Even though the Plantingas response to the logical problem of evil has been accepted by many scholars, it also has several loopholes. One such loophole is the fact that Plantinga agrees with the possibility that God might allow evil to be present in the society as a way of knowing the righteous and the evil.
However, according to Hasker (91), this means that the choices that are provided to man always involve some evil. If this is the case, then God also has some aspects of evil, thereby ruling out the opinion that God is good.
In the same breath, the argument does not fully solve the problem of evil theory because it does not discuss the relevance of natural evil. Religion has, over the years, explained that there is one single nonhuman spirit that causes natural evil. This theory does not discuss this aspect of evil, yet it has solely based its argument on religion (Hasker 91).
Conclusion
Although there many scholars who have tried to solve the problem of evil, none of them has provided solid solutions. John Mackie and Alvin Plantinga are two scholars who differed in the best way of solving the problem of evil concept.
Plantinga refuted all the work that Mackie had presented with regard to the problem of evil. He argued that free will was relevant in determining the solution to this problem. According to Mackie, however, free will was irrelevant.
Works Cited
Beebe, James. (July 12, 2005). Logical Problem of Evil . Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2009): 57 82. Print
Hasker, William. The Triumph Of God Over Evil: Theodicy for a World of Suffering. Nottingham, UK: Intervarsity Press, 2008. Print
Inwagen, Peter. The Problem of Evil. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print
Inwagen, Peter. Christian Faith And The Problem Of Evil. Oak Industrial Drive, NE: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004. Print
Oppy, Graham. Arguing about Gods. Leiden: Cambridge University Press. 2006. Print
Polkinghorne, John. Belief in God in An Age Of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale Nota Bene, 2003. Print
Phillips, Dewi Zephaniah. The Problem Of Evil And The Problem Of God. England: SCM Press, 2004. Print
Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print
Rowe, William L. God and the Problem of Evil. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons, 2001. Print
Trakakis, Nick. Evidential Problem of Evil . The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006): 82 94. Print