Recalling the definitions of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, we may be inclined to feel God exists and not evil or equally, that evil exists and God does not. Either way it appears that both conclusions are mutually exclusive. J. L. Mackie in his essay, Evil and Omnipotence says,
"These additional principles [premises] are that good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the proposition that a good omnipotent thing exists and that evil exists are incompatible."
Mackie, J. L. (1955) "Evil and Omnipotence", Mind 64, pp200-212
All the foregoing suggests that mankind is not a free agent, instead implying that human beings are merely subject to the whims and caprices of an all-powerful deity. But mankind can tell the difference between good and bad and humanity's inclination to choose between good and evil is termed free-will. From this 'freedom to choose' arises the free-will defence which allows for the existence of both evil and an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Given that God cannot do something logically impossible, and having granted free-will, He would have to allow the existence of evil. In other words, because God only does that which is logical, He could not confer free-will and also prohibit evil. No one, not even God, could interfere in a choice between good and evil.
One might think that an omnipotent God could so order the world that humanity would always freely choose the good in preference to evil. In such a case there would be no human evil, and if God also arranged a universe devoid of natural evils, we could then rightly claim to be living in a Utopia. There would be no natural disasters in this Utopian universe and each person would do good to everyone else. Nevertheless, attractive as the arrangement sounds, the problem of a Utopian universe is destined not to properly serve God's purpose of creating a virtuous world. The existence of a Utopian universe implies a general claim that virtue is always exercised but some virtues can never be exercised. For example, it would be impossible to exercise the virtue of compassion in a world without evil, similarly, if evil did not exist, humanity would not have the opportunity to execute virtues like compassion, forgiveness or courage in the face of adversity.
An view favoured by Christian Fundamentalists is what might be termed the, Hell and Damnation approach, incidentally an ethic which was also popular during the Victorian era. The idea is that we (Humanity) are fallen beings, living in a fallen world, subject to all manner of natural disasters and diseases that would not have happened if we had not rebelled against God (See Rom. 8:20). In this interpretation free-will is seen as something to be evaluated. It is as if it were test with God judging results and determining reward or penalty. But this idea of God evaluating a life and consigning the subject to either heaven or hell has the effect of removing the element of majesty from the Supreme Being. Instead it compromises His omnibenevolence and reduces Him to little more than a vindictive old man — albeit an old man with supreme powers. This whole concept is at odds with the teachings of the New Testament, which is based upon concepts of toleration and charity. The acknowledgement of free-will means that we can accept living in a fallen world, a world where evil exists but where natural rules and laws allow us to predict outcomes with some certainty. For example, gravity can sometimes be harmful but at other times it may also benefit us.
When we speak of free-will we need to be clear in our understanding of what an omnipotent, benevolent being would be able to do and not do. A condition of God allowing free-will means that man (that is man in the biblical sense) must have the freedom to choose between a good action and an evil action, it simply wouldn't be logical for God to endow mankind with free-will only to remove freedom of action when an evil act is about to be committed. With that in mind, it follows that there has to be a limit to His omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Furthermore, once God has granted free-will, and considering the myriad of choices mankind has to make during his existence, either collectively or individually, it must be that at some time during mankind's existence an evil choice is made. This is the argument to justify 'original sin' as an attribute of mankind, the theological idea of mankind's fallen nature. From the principle of an omnipotent God allowing free-will, He would also be bound to allow evil in mankind. From that standpoint we get a clearer understanding of what an all-knowing (omniscient) God can do. Similarly, He would not know which choice, subsequent to a given event, mankind would make. In conferring free-will He would also have to concede a limited version of omnipotence.
But at the end of the day we may wonder why free-will is so essential. After all, what would mankind lack if free-will did not exist? Could not God create happy and contented beings without the need for free-will? Not necessarily so. The next example illustrates a situation where lack of free-will constitutes a loss. Imagine a class of philosophy students facing the prospect of an end of course examination. I, in common with many others, do not like sitting examinations and, for the sake of this argument the examination can be taken as representing 'evil'. Now let us remove free-will. The tutor announces that he has already decided that 75 per cent of the class will pass the examination and that 25 per cent will fail. Additionally he already knows who will pass and who will fail the exam. Under these circumstances, because the outcome is determined, there would seem to be little point in sitting the examination or even studying for it. A theist would presumably add that it has to be that God would want humanity to freely choose Him as the ultimate being, for without free-will any relationship between God and humanity would simply be reduced to the unsatisfactory bond of a servant who is obliged, without any knowledge or appreciation of consequences, to submit to his master's bidding.
One of the responsibilities of humanity being granted free-will is that mankind has to make its own future, otherwise anything bad or evil would be God's fault and that would mean He would not be omnibenevolent. However, empirically speaking, one has to conclude that there is far too much evil in the world, more than would seem equitable, and that much of this evil is due to common human vices. And there is the iniquity of evil caused to those who have done nothing to deserve it, for example why does an innocent have to suffer evil? It could be argued that a battered baby — battered even to the point of death, had done nothing to deserve the evil. In reply our theist may say that mankind's earthly existence and all the evils done are finite, whereas God's existence is eternal so that the apparent pointlessness of evil may simply be a matter of our limited cognitive powers. There is another move open to the theist, she may say that even with unnecessary or unjust suffering in the mortal world, a sufferer could still meet her just reward in the afterlife. This is a weak argument. It is as if I broke into your house, stole all your belongings and then told you not to be upset because you might win next Saturday's Lottery. Therefore, the free-will defence alone fails to fully explain why mankind has to suffer the natural evils for which humans have no responsibility.
Yet, if the purpose of the universe is to produce virtuous people then all the evil, both natural and moral, has some logic to it. In Evil and the God of Love, John Hick suggests that the whole of the natural world exists to prepare human souls for higher things. This idea of a moral training ground is sometimes referred to as, the vale of soul-making defence. The mortal world, with all its blessings and evils is, according to Hick, a type of school and one way to envisage our time on earth is as, essentially, a moral training ground for making souls. This scheme then requires that, in order to provide incentive for improvement, there is the possibility of suffering.
Hick's explanation of our time on earth leads us to two consequences:
Suppose we cannot complete our education in one lifetime. Perhaps we need more than one go in order to progress on through various stages of competence. Just as in our schooldays, some would learn faster than others and, in the same way, the slower ones would need more time to develop.
As adults we tend to recognise there is a value to be had in learning and pushing oneself to excel and as we mature further we begin to see that the 'reward' of schooling may not simply be the expectation of a better job, etc. But rather that the value of school is in the sheer joy of learning and of challenging oneself to excel.
Hick says,
"If, then, the purpose of human life is that we grow through our own free choices towards our perfection, what kind of world would provide a suitable environment for this? Not an earthly paradise devoid of any pain or suffering, without problems, difficulties, uncertainties, setback, disasters of any kind. For moral and spiritual growth always comes through challenge and response; and our world is a challenging environment. This does not, of course, mean that God has planned the particular challenges and hardships that we each face. It means that God has created a world-process that is, from our present point of view, very imperfect in that it is not designed for our comfort but includes unpredictable elements both of natural contingency and of the inputs of human free-will."
(Hick, John. Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion (Palgrave 2001), p. 9.)
This view of Hick is a rational interpretation of the relationships between God, mankind and evil. Mankind, having free-will, is neither an automaton nor mildly accepting of 'God's Will'. Mankind questions, predicts and influences events, so illness is treated and cured and natural disasters are predicted and defences built. Armed with free-will, mankind has the opportunity to counter evil (be it natural or human). On this interpretation God looks upon mankind as an ally in His fight against worldly evil, not seeing mankind as born into evil needing to be saved by Him, but seeing mankind as accepting subjects, accepting of both God and his code of morals.
It is humanity's lot to be born, to live and finally to die, there is no avoiding that. But if we seek to leave a slightly happier world behind us, then it would be consistent to always seek to pursue the good, to care for nature and for all things natural and to try to help our fellow beings grow and develop. Of course, the worthy ideal of leaving a better place behind has to be tempered with a degree of realism. We have to accept that our individual efforts may hardly seem adequate. One man can only achieve so much and yet, if only for the sake of generations to come, mankind simply cannot refuse the struggle.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Hick, J. (2001) Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion.
Hick, J. (1966) Evil and the God of Love, Macmillan.
Mackie, J. L. (1955) Evil and Omnipotence, Mind 64, pp200-212.
Romans 8:20
