Most people however accept that evil exists. Christianity, Judaism and Islam contain teachings about instances of evil such as Jesus’ persecution by the Roman’s and we are faced with the reality of it every time we turn on the news and are faced with yet another accident, abduction, murder or terrorist attack. Writers such as Gaskin have attempted to classify evil. Two particular classifications have been suggested Moral Evil and Natural Evil. Moral Evil is “unnecessary suffering caused by the free actions of rational men and women”; this includes examples such as murder, terrorism and abduction. Natural Evil is “suffering imposed on sentient beings by the natural world without the influence of any human being”. These include examples such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and the weather.
Other attempts to solve the problem of evil have by made by disputing the validity of the other premises for example Irenaeus. He did this in the same sort of way as Leibniz by attempting to reconcile the existence of evil with God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Irenaeus’ idea is that Evil and suffering fulfil a purpose. That purpose is to aid “soul making” which Irenaeus sees as God’s plan. He believes humans were created as imperfect so they could grow into the likeness of god through the experiences of the world. An analogy can be made here between doctors and illness; if people didn’t get ill then doctors wouldn’t know how to treat certain illnesses. Criticism’s can be applied to this approach. For example why couldn’t god have created people in his likeness from the beginning and placed them in a perfect world? A response to this could be that a perfect world is quite inconceivable. The laws of physics make it unimaginable, for example a child falls from a top floor hotel balcony, in a perfect world god would step in and alter the laws of gravity so that the child floats safely down to earth. Scenarios such as this would cause innumerable problems for the human race, as they would be no telling when the laws of physics would change. By getting rid of the hardships of the world life would become like a dream where we could drift delightfully but aimlessly. If we lived in a perfect world then we wouldn’t learn through evil and suffering, life in that sort of world is quite unimaginable. Irenaeus also doesn’t appear to consider that evil and suffering often have negative consequences that greatly outweigh the positive ones.
There appears to be some reference to this ‘soul making theodicy’ in Part X of Hume’s dialogues concerning natural religion. Philo appears to accept this idea within the passage “I am indeed persuaded that the best and indeed the only method of bringing everyone to a due sense of religion is by just representations of the misery and wickedness of men”
The problem of evil can also be used to reject specific arguments for the existence of God, for example the design argument as presented by William Paley. The design argument asks one to consider first a stone and then a watch. The differences between them are obvious; Paley claims that the stone could have been there forever whereas the watch is unlikely to have. He believes that the parts of the watch are obviously arranged in this certain way for a purpose, he claims that because of this it has to have been manufactured and therefore it must have a maker. He then applies everything said about the watch to things in nature, such as the human eye, which appear to have been designed for a purpose. He eventually concludes that we can infer that the world has a creator because of all the things within it which appear to have been designed. This argument is limited to begin with as it is purely based on the analogy of the watch. The problem of evil limits this argument even further. In Hume’s Philosophy of Religion written by J.C.A Gaskin it is claimed that evil restricts the inference which can be drawn from the design of the universe to the character of the designer. This is called the inference problem. Gaskin makes the point that if “evil restricts the inference in the design argument it may also restrict what sort of god there could be”. Of course to accept this one has to first accept the design argument as proof of the existence of God. Supposing one does accept this argument, as Hume does, problems are caused for the believer. Within the text Philo presents the problem quite eloquently “Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then evil?” In my opinion the design argument serves to present more problems for the religious believer, as one can’t infer an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being from a universe which contains instances of bad design, evil and innocent beings suffering, which in turn disputes the validity of the design argument. Hume doesn’t solve the problem in my opinion in his dialogues he just presents the problem. Much of Part X in his dialogues is concerned with Philo and Demea discussing instances of evil not solving the problem. The attempt made by Cleanthes in Part XI to solve the problem resorts back to limiting the abilities of God and this is surely unacceptable for religious believers.
William Paley points out that if a watch goes wrong we don’t immediately say that it wasn’t made for the purpose it was ascribed to. He says “irregulatities and imperfections are of little or no weight in the consideration when that consideration relates simple to the existence of a creator”. He tells us to take into account the instances where “skill, power and benevolence are displayed”. He is in essence in my opinion justifying the times when things go wrong and asking us to watch for the good things and don’t pay as much attention to the bad things. This is all well and good but the same objection can be applied to this as the one I applied to St Augustine’s argument right at the beginning, in denying evil one is denying the right to suffer and people all over the world are suffering. It shows no respect for those who are victims of evil and I believe this disputes God’s omnibenevolence nonetheless. If god were a morally perfect being he would suffer alongside those victims of evil.
In this essay I feel I have shown the problem of evil causes many conflicts within religious belief. Attempts to solve the problem are at best unsuccessful for example Irenaeus and at worst add fuel to the fire in the case of St Augustine.
Bibliography
William Paley “The Argument from Design” Reason and Responsibility
Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau (eds) pp 40-45
David Hume “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” parts X and XI Reason and Responsibility Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer- Landau (eds) pp 69-80
Nicholas Brunnin and Blackwell Companion to Philosophy
E.P Tsui-James (eds) (1996)
J.C.A Gaskin (1978) Hume’s Philosophy of Religion London: The Macmillan Press LTD
Marilyn McCord Adams The Problem of Evil United States: Oxford University Press
and Robert Merrihew Adams (eds) 1990
Tony Pitson - Lecture notes lectures entitled Paley’s presentation of the argument from design and The Problem of Evil
Thomas Paul Frizpatrick The problem of Evil Class notes from sixth-form college
