The evidential problem of evil is explored by Charles Darwin, as he noted that he witnessed the daily suffering of so many animals on a daily basis during his research , he concluded that the sheer amount of evil in the world must weigh against god holding all of the divine attributes. Example of the problems of evil in the world include the spread of viruses such as HIV which affect those in under developed countries so often that they must suffer until they die, surely such a great theistic God would not have allowed such viruses to exist and control the lives of so many. The holocaust is an example of genocide amongst many other genocides such as those imposed by Idi Amin , the cruel dictator of Uganda for several years; the holocaust having lead to the deaths of millions of innocent Jews on the grounds of one man (Hitler’s) terrible jealousy , surely is evidence of suffering enough to discard any belief that god is omnipotent or omniscient.
Darwin discussed that given evil exists, we must choose between two hypothesis, either that there is an infinitely powerful, completely good God who created the world or ... that there is no such God.
Lastly, William Rowe stated how pointless evil is evidence that a theistic God cannot exist at all , he used the description of a fawn being trapped and slowly dying in a forest fire slowly and in agony , the agony the fawn endures is pointless , yet it is nature , surely a wholly good God would end this suffering quickly as it is pointless.
To conclude, the problem of evil lies in that devoted theists such as Christians and Muslims believe in a God who possesses all of the divine attributes and yet suffering is so prominent , they believe in such a God regardless of what evil may strike them in their lifetimes yet surely their God would protect the devotee from having to experience such pain. The problem of evil however is only a challenge for the religious, for atheists this is not an issue as they do not believe in a God who should be responsible for it, the existence of evil is the biggest destroyer of the belief in God.
- Are the theodicies’ attempts to deal with moral and natural evil and suffering doomed, in the face of so much evil and suffering?
Each of the theodicies oppose atheism and attempt to prove that God holds all of the divine attributes he supposedly has , regardless of the evil in the world.
Firstly is Augustine’s theodicy. Augustine argued that God is good and powerful and as he is , he created the perfect world, the only reason evil came into the world is because some of his creatures turned away from him such as the fallen angel Satan who chose to do wrong , and Adam and Eve’s failures to resist temptation in the garden of Eden. Augustine’s theodicy places all blame for evil in the world (both natural and moral) , as being caused by the freely chosen acts of God’s creatures , herein lies the freewill defence.
Augustine also argued that evil is part of the natural balance of the universe and although it may seem pain and suffering outweigh the good and appear to go unpunished in this life, justice is restored in the next life as those who have done wrong on earth are sentenced to life in Hell.
A criticism against Augustine’s theodicy is that Augustine justifies suffering in this life with suggesting people go to hell to make up for it in the next , this raises a question as to why such a benevolent , omnipotent and omniscient creator , allow suffering to continue eternally in Hell.
Iraneus’s theodicy differs to Augustine’s as he did not believe the free-will of humans to be the reason for evil in the world, Iraneus thought that humans should use their free-will to achieve perfection in the next life, in this way he believes evil being around is a challenge and to overcome it means that perfection will come in the next life. John Hick supports Iraneus by naming the world “ the vale of soul-making” , he makes a point that our souls are strengthened by the struggles in this life and that God must keep a distance to keep the purpose of our lives a mystery so we as humans continue to strive to reach a state of holiness and ultimately , God.
A criticism to the Iranaen theodicy is that the theodicy views evil as a means to an end, humans can then ask “ is the end worth it?” how can God possibly justify for example , creating a world in which children can be tortured to reach an ultimate goal?
Gottfried Leibniz’s theodicy states that God being the all-powerful and good beings had the task to select from amongst all possible universes he could create, the one which was the best, as God is aware of what may have happened in other universes, he must have selected the best. As this universe is the best, pain and suffering must therefore be essential ingredients for the best world and evil must be for the better regardless of what form it takes. Leibniz argues that although we as humans cannot see why suffering is necessary for the divine plan, this is simply because we cannot comprehend God’s perspective and we cannot understand what another universe might be like.
A criticism to Leibniz’s theodicy comes from Voltaire, a French writer. Voltaire published a novel named ‘Candide’ , in the novel a character named Dr Pangloss regularly announces that this is the best world possible, eventually Candid witnesses the hanging of Dr Pangloss and states “ If this is the best possible world, what can the others be like?” , Voltaire contrasts the horrific pain and suffering in the world against Leibniz’s theodicy.
To conclude, the theodicies’ attempts to deal with moral and natural evil in the face of so much evil and suffering are doomed, as each of the criticisms against them bring into question how a God who holds each of the divine attributes can justify such suffering in the world as a means to an end in the next life. In my opinions , the existence of Hell alone blows the theistic ideal of a God out of the water as it simply connotes that some humans will have to experience large amounts of pain infinitely to God’s approval, thus God cannot justify suffering in this life as he has the power to inflict it on mortals forever should they rebel against the system in their life previous to the afterlife.