Discuss the Problem of Evil

by aamirk47 (student)

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Aamir Kaderbhai

~The problem of evil~

“In a world in which billions of innocent people suffer, it makes little sense claiming that there is a good and all-powerful god”

I do not believe this sentence is true or makes sense to me as there has been many philosophers who have come up with arguments called Theodicy’s which are arguments that oppose the sentence above as they are arguments that endeavor to prove the existence of an Omnibenevolent (all loving), Omnipotent (all powerful) and Omniscient (All Knowing) God in an evil world. The word Theodicy comes from the Greek words (Θεος) Theos meaning God and (∆ικε) Dike meaning justice and the meaning is an attempt to show how it is reasonable to believe both in a loving God and in the painful facts of life. In the following essay I will be explaining how I have used some of these famous theodicy’s to come up with an argument that opposes the theory above that god cannot exist in an evil world.

(Throughout this essay all my theories will be based on the fact that god created evil. I have come to the conclusion that this is true because if god is omnipotent and omniscient then he has to have created evil. There is no way that god wouldn’t know that evil would occur when he created the world and there would be no way he wouldn’t be able to stop it occurring. The only logical solution is that god created evil)

One theodicy and reason why I disagree with the latter statement is the Irenaean theodicy. This is the basic summary

P1.A world of moral individuals is a good thing.

P2. Individuals have to learn how to be moral.

P3. Suffering and evil are necessary in order to learn how to be moral.

P4. God desires to create a world of moral individuals.

C. God must therefore allow suffering and evil in order to bring about the good of a world of moral individuals.

This theodicy comes in two parts. The first comes from St Irenaeus (130-202 AD), a Father of the early Christian Church, who thought that humans was not created perfect, but that they required growth in order to reach perfection

The philosopher John Hick has developed this view further. Hick agrees with Irenaeus that God created us with the potential for growth. However, Hick then sees the process of 'soul making' (as he calls it) to be a response to the evil in the world. So, if cancer did not exist, or the evil actions of others, then we would not have the means of which it would be possible for us to develop spiritually. Also, Hick argues, there exists what he calls an 'epistemic distance' between human beings and God, so that we are not born knowing of his existence, and it is not something which it is easy to gain certain knowledge of. Therefore, the process of soul making also involves a battle to find religious faith. Islamic philosophy also sees the world as John Hick did and believes that god cares for us not by making a paradise to live in, but an evil world full of challenges which lets us grow into beings of much more intelligence and worth in gods mind. Evil is only there for us to overcome and by facing evil, learn from it: The most painful mistakes we make are normally the ones that teach us the greatest lessons (e.g. Madeline McKan’s kidnapping taught thousands of people to be more careful when leaving young children on their own). This implies therefore that there can be no true good without evil as making the good choices in life involves overcoming the evil ones. (e.g. someone pressurizing you into drugs and you having the courage to say no). Muslims also believe that once someone has faced these challenges of life, it has opened up ones soul enough that god can judge them according to how they have faced up to evil in their life and decide whether they go to heaven or hell.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Another theodicy is the free will argument. This is the basic summary

P1. God wants everyone to have the right to make their own decisions as to judge their true character

P2. If this free will existed then there is nothing stopping us from making morally evil decisions

P3. Free will exists

C. Therefore evil exists

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another theodicy is the free will argument. This is the basic summary

P1. God wants everyone to have the right to make their own decisions as to judge their true character

P2. If this free will existed then there is nothing stopping us from making morally evil decisions

P3. Free will exists

C. Therefore evil exists

St Augustine argues that it is impossible for evil no to exist in a world were humanity has free will. If humans were programmed to only make the right decisions then they would be no better than robots, as everybody would be programmed to make the same right decision when they are faced with the same choice. If someone can choose right freely than there has to be an option to choose wrong freely. Therefore evil is the price of humans having free will. (e.g. if you had an business rival and you heard someone was plotting to kill him. You have the free will to either choose to tell him or not, there is no force except your conscience stopping you making the wrong decision).

Finally, there is the Big picture Theodicy. This is the basic summary

P1. Some evil has to be caused to prevent a higher evil

P2. Humans cannot see the whole picture of the world’s evil

P3. God can

C. Therefore God allows some evil so that to prevent a higher evil to occur.

This Theodicy claims that God’s greater knowledge (Omniscience) allows him to know that he shouldn’t interfere in cases that we would normally think a person should interfere. Given our limited, finite knowledge, we don't see the bigger picture and think God should have intervened. God, however, sees the bigger picture and recognizes that he should not interfere because his interference would do more harm than good. In this way, God is doing the right thing in letting the evil occur. (e.g. Peter Parker in the move ‘Spiderman’ might have cursed god for letting that thief run past him and kill his uncle. However god would see that this would eventually lead to Peter becoming Spiderman and saving countless more lives than just his uncle). Humans have no means to see into the future, while God’s Omniscience allows him to do so and until we find this technology then we have no way of knowing if stopping one evil happening will cause a much greater evil to happen in the future.

However, some people may disagree with me because of several critiques of the Theodicy’s above.

In terms of the Iranaean theodicy, critics might say that Ireanaeus was wrong in saying that all humans have the potential for development. Say a newly born child died in a transport accident. How was it possible for that child to develop spiritually and be judged by god and go either to heaven or hell? The same goes for a mentally disabled human. How is it possible for them to develop in a normal human way? If this is true than the Iranaean theodicy is logically made redundant.

Others, who are critics of free will theodicy, might say that St Augustine was wrong in saying that if there was no evil then there would be no free will. They would say that there is normally more than one way someone can make the right decision (e.g. if there was someone who was broke and living in poverty because he couldn’t get to his place of work, if you had some money to help him would you buy him a new car so he could get to work or would you buy him an apartment so he isn’t living in poverty, both are morally right choices). If this is true then even if evil didn’t exist there would still be free will, as infinitely good beings would still be able to choose different options in making decisions, making the free will theodicy redundant.

Finally, critics of the big picture theodicy might argue that the big picture argument has not passed the holocaust test. It is easy for someone to imagine some sort of example like Peter Parker’s uncle’s death leading up to the avoidance of thousands more; however it is almost impossible to think of a way in which the holocaust, the murder of 6millon innocent humans, could have led to prevention of many more deaths taking place. Critics also might argue over the value of human life. How would you compare the life of a surgeon to the life of a brain damaged 90 year old man? Or an animal life for that matter? To one person the surgeon might be more important and to the other an animal might be, how can God fairly decide which one to save if he has to. If it is only a matter of opinion then there can be no right solution

Despite this however, I still believe I am right as I can give reasons that, in my opinion, disprove the critiques above.

One is that, critics of the Iranaean Theodicy would say that not all humans have the potential for development; however they have not taken into account the element of an afterlife and made the mistake of thinking that this world is permanent. To the small percent of the population that does not have the potential for growth and development so that they cannot ultimately be judged by god, God would provide a test for them in the next life so that he will be able to judge them or he would judge them on the basis of the fact that they have not done any evil in their life therefore give them a heavenly reward. And even if this is not true and the souls that can’t develop are not judged by god, then this is no basis to argue that the Iranaean theodicy cannot be true. Even if there is a small group of souls that can’t use the evil in the world as tools to develop, then that does not mean that god did not put evil in the world for that very reason. If the majority of the world can develop using evil, then surly it is logical for god to still put it in the world, even if there was a small minority of the world who can’t.

Another is that if, according to the critics of the free will theodicy, we would still have free will if there was no evil as there can be more than one good decision option in a choice. However, this free will, where only good choices can be made, would be an extremely limited free will, one where it wouldn’t make a difference what choice we would make as they were all good and right. If this was reality, then god would have no basis on which to judge us and decide whether we should go to heaven or hell as people as all our life decisions were good. You could even go as far as saying that Heaven would be pointless as the meaning of heaven is an evil free world where there is nothing but bliss; if earth had no evil then it would technically be a heaven.

Finally, critics of the big picture theodicy would say that it is impossible to think of a way that the holocaust might have saved more lives by happening then if it didn’t and it is impossible to determine the worth of certain people’s lives as it is all a matter of opinion. However, by saying this, the critics miss the vital point that God is Omniscient and the fact that humans are not. If God is Omniscient then surely he would know what will happen in the future and take the best course of action to prevent the most suffering. Similarly with the matter of the worth of human lives, if god had to decide between the lives of two different people, as he would know exactly what will happen in the future, is it not likely that he would choose the one which would ultimately lead to the least amount of suffering? Until humans become Omniscient or gain the ability to see into the future then we have no real basis to disprove this argument.

By this point you will be wondering why I have used three different theodicy’s in my argument for the existence of the ultimate God and there is not one theodicy I agree with most, but instead it is the combination of all three theodicy’s that gives me a basis on which I can conclude the existence of this God

As a born Muslim, my faith has lead me to believe in the Iranaean theodicy and the free will theodicy as these two are arguably very similar. If god put evil in the world to test us, the he had to give us free will so that we had the right to choose either the good or evil choice. Only then can God judge us according to our true actions in life. However, I also think that some evil is not put in the world to test us, but has to be caused to prevent a higher evil from occurring. I believe this because it makes a lot of logical sense to me and I see examples of this happening on a much smaller scale every day (e.g. someone had to torture a terrorist for information, but that information lead to the prevention of twenty deaths). As humans have a finite knowledge we cannot see the whole picture of the earth’s evil and god, with his infinite power, can, so we can only find examples of this theory on a much smaller scale. I have also chosen these three theodicy’s because they do not contradict each other. I do not believe that all evil in the world has to be placed there for the same reason. I will end this essay by saying that it is more than unlikely that we will ever know the true reason why god created evil. If God is omniscient then the reason why he created evil is likely to be far beyond the comprehension of our mortal minds and until the day we also become Omniscient, we will only be able to make up slightly flaw theodicies.