Assess whether the problem of moral evil casts doubt on the existence of God

Authors Avatar

Assess whether the problem of moral evil casts doubt on the existence of God

    St. Augustine once defined evil as that "which we fear, or the act of fearing itself". He and Aquinas (1225-74) both deny the existence of evil as a thing in itself, but rather as an absence of good. This is linked to Aristotle (390-323 BC) and Plato's (428-348 BC) definition of good as the complete fulfilment of a being's natural telos.
"[Evil is] nothing but the corruption of natural measure, form and order."-Augustine. More specifically however there are two sorts of evil; natural and moral. Natural evil is that over which humans have no control e.g. natural disasters. Moral evil is that which is caused by humans e.g. the holocaust. The problem of evil affects all theistic religions, whose followers must each respond to John Hick's (1922-) question: "Can the presence of evil in the world be reconciled with the existence of a God who is unlimited both in goodness and power?" 

    The logical problem of evil proposes that the idea of world full of suffering created by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is a logically inconsistent one. David Hume (1711-76) stated that one of these three propositions must be false. It is impossible to deny that there is evil and suffering in the world, so he claimed that God must be limited either in His power or in His love.
"supposing [God] to be finitely perfect...a satisfactory account may then be given of natural and moral evil." The evidential problem of evil is similar, but is not a logical problem in that it does not seek to show inconsistency in theistic belief. Rather it asks: "for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?" - Darwin. In other words, which of two possibilities is more reasonable?

1. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent God created a world full of gratuitous evil.
2. There is no such God.

William Rowe illustrated gratuitous, preventable evil with the example of a fawn being trapped in a forest fire and dying in agony over several days. He doesn't see this as a deductively found proof of atheism, but rather that it is just a more reasonable stance.

    Process theology meets Hume on his own terms by stating that God is not omnipotent, just powerful. However, this appears to be a strong contradiction to the Bible
"I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil, I the Lord, do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7. A theodicy however is a response to the problem of evil which maintains faith in God without denying evil's existence, or without qualifying God's nature. Augustine proposed the "aesthetic" theodicy. He compares the world to a painting with God as the painter. "...the beauty of a picture is increased by well-managed shadows...the universe is beautified even by sinners" The moral balance between good and evil is ultimately restored by the justice of God after death. The sinners are sent to Hell and the Good to Heaven, and a "moral beauty" is achieved. However, as Darwin pointed out, Augustine dosen't account for the vast amount of gratuitous evil experienced by animals (who do not have an afterlife). Furthermore, Augustine dosen't seem to have solved the problem of evil, but rather just moved it to the next life. Why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God allow for evil and suffering to exist in hell?

   

Join now!

Following on from Augustine's "aesthetic" theodicy is the "contrast" theory. It proposes that good and evil make sense only in the presence of each other as opposites. For instance, the concept of an uphill slope can exist only alongside the concept of a downhill slope. Without evil, we could not recognise good just as if we lived in world with no darkness, we would not recognise light. However, this isn’t a theodicy, but rather process theology. It denies God's ability to create a world of pure goodness which humans could still recognise, and thus qualifies his omnipotent nature. Furthermore, it ...

This is a preview of the whole essay