The nature of God has been the topic of debate. The good vs evil debate has turned around questions of God’s immanence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. This chapter will look at how the problem of evil came into existence. It aims to question evil in face of God. Is God all loving? Surely such a God does not wish to see his creations suffer in pain caused by evil? Is He all knowing? Without a doubt, a God who knows all knew about evil! And yet evil still exist? Is God all-powerful? Even if God did know about Evil, knowing Him to be all powerful, is He capable of getting rid of it? To answer and expand on the problem of evil, this chapter will look at theodicies which aim to explain the coexistence of God and Evil. Augustine Theodicy and Irenaeus theodicy both aim to defend God in the debate of God Vs Evil. Augustine through the idea that evil is a privation of a substance created by God and Irenaeus through the aspect of Soul-making. This was further reestablished by John Hick with additional reference to the Epistemic Distance between God and Mankind. The Process and Protest theodicies are also examined as a means to explore various perspectives on the problems of Evil and suffering. Finally, it studies the solution for the problem of evil, the Freewill Defence.
There are two main problems regarding the problem of evil. The first problem deals with evil in a purely logical form. Evil is inconsistent with the traditional idea of the God. God is all knowing, loving and powerful thus can resolve the problem of evil. Thus evil can by no means exist. “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent? Is he able and willing? Whence then is evil?” The base of this problem can easily be clarified by removing one of the conflicting ideas; that evil actually exists or God is benevolent and omnipotent. It would be easy to say that by removing either of the statements would clear the inconsistency, however removing God’s key attributes, omnipotence and benevolence and simply denying the fact that evil is a problem means “to enter some murky theological waters”. Although the God of Classical Theism has always held these key attributes, the idea or concept of a morally limited God also fails to appease the problem of evil. Therefore, most explanations to the logical problems of evil revert to identifying the key characteristics of God but aim to show that they are no possible contradictions. This argument gives a logical reasoning that although God is omnipotent and benevolent, there are logical and fundamental limitations, meaning that God cannot create beings out of freewill and yet determine their actions. It is because of freewill and the actions which come out of this that evil arose. The solution to this problem is the Freewill Defense. The second problem of evil arises from inductive reasoning as opposed to logical reasoning. Similar to the traditional arguments for God existence which stem from noticeable features of the environment, the inductive reasoning focuses on the problem of evil by arguing through “experience of gratuitous suffering and infers” and questions that since an all-benevolent and omnipotent God fails to stop suffering there must be at the very least a “moral indifference”. This view of the problem of evil is known as the “evidential problem of evil”. Although there are various responses to this problem many states that there must be a bigger reason to God’s “reluctance to stop evil”. These problems develop as theodicies to seek justification for God’s allowance of evil. The problem of evil is also furthered as the problem of suffering which aims to provide an in-depth explanation for the pain or loss of an individual. It focuses on the “discussion of particular consequences of evil, rather than the more abstract concept”.
The Logical problem of evil arises mainly through the Christian view of God. If God is all-powerful, he will have the ability to prevent evil. If God is all-loving he will want to prevent evil. Therefore because there is evil in the world, God is neither all-powerful nor all-loving. Christian theology is keen to assert that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and does not, therefore, accept the conclusion made above. Consequently, Christian thinkers throughout the ages have tried to make clear the arguments to justify the presence of evil in relation to the belief in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. The word used for such arguments is Theodicy, (Etymological definition, ‘a righteous God’). “A theodicy is a systematic attempt to explain the existence of evil and to reconcile that evil with the benevolence and omnipotence of God”. God’s concept of goodness may be very different than humans, and so may allow God to tolerate the existence of what we consider evil. Because God is so different from humans, His idea of goodness may be more complex than humans’ simplistic view. What that can mean is that evil may be part of some divine plan. Perhaps God’s concept of ultimate goodness might mean that God allows or tolerate some degree of evil as part of some plan. There is usually a distinction of at least two type of evil present at all times in the world. These are a moral evil, which arises from the actions of individuals and groups and may include acts such as lying and stealing. Natural evil arises from causes which humans have no control over and include hurricanes, tsunamis as well as disabilities. The sheer scale of human suffering has often caused vast numbers of people to reject their belief in God. However Christian and other religious thinkers have consequently tried to convince people that faith in God can be restored. St Augustine of Hippo was an early Christian theologian whose writings were very influential in the development of Christian ideas about the human situation in relation to God as well as the development of Western Philosophy. Not only does the problem of evil and suffering contradict the attributes of God, it is the most serious claim against the existence of God. The basic characteristics of God pose a problem for believing in God and in dealing with the problem of evil. Augustine’s theodicy contended that since God is creator and benevolent, he cannot be held accountable for the presence of evil on the planet. Evil, in fact, does not exist as a separate substance, for example, blindness is an absence of sight or sickness an absence of health. The prime example for this is the Fall of Man portrayed in Genesis and the resulting teaching of original sin. God is along these lines absolved and the fault for evil and suffering belongs decisively with people who pick exploitation over goodness. He argued that evil was a privation, an absence of good and had no power in its own right. He started from the assumption that God is wholly good and that God created a world free from defects, as shown in Genesis 1, ‘All God has made pleased him’, which showed that evil and suffering were therefore unknown. Since evil is a privation, God could not be held responsible for it as God did not create it. For Augustine, moral evil entered the world through entities such as humans and angels who had freewill. The rebellion of humanity, represented in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve showed how humanity abused God’s gift of freedom. Augustine explained natural evil by referring to the biblical story of the rebellion of the angels under the leadership of Satan. As they fell from God’s grace they corrupted the natural order and made it a place of suffering as opposed to a blessed place it was before. While the Augustinian theodicy looks to represent moral evil through human freedom, it is less convincing as a clarification of natural evil which Augustine ascribes to Lucifer and the fallen angels wreaking destruction towards Gods creation. This reliance upon scriptural myths like the garden of Eden and the fall of the angels does not attract the theodicy to critics. In any case, the most compelling protest is the idea of freewill which plays such a fundamental part in all theodicies. For Augustine, the difficulty focuses upon the production of a finite perfect being who picks privation over perfection; to make this choice humans must have been flawed from the start, which shifts responsibility back to God the creator. Humanity would ultimately find salvation in Jesus, who would not only restore the relationship between God and humanity but also redeem the created order at the end of the day.
Irenaeus’s theodicy, also known as the Irenaean theodicy was derived from the 2nd century and had been restated by John Hick. The central point of this theodicy was the aspect of soul-making. Evil and suffering existed in the world to enable imperfect creatures to grow towards a perfect state. Unlike the Augustinian theodicy which stressed Mans fall from perfection, the Irenaen theodicy emphasized development through the exercise of freewill, people would be able to overcome difficulty and temptations and thus approach God and perfection. God created an epistemic distance between Mankind and Himself, which was also a reason to why many people doubt Gods goodness. It was the idea of soul-making that Evil was created by God so that moral goods such as courage and forgiveness could arise in the face of suffering and therefore our souls could evolve to a higher state through their experience of evil. Hick like Irenaeus stated that freewill was absolutely vital to the human existence to be meaningful. This directly affected mankind's ability to do well and thus had a greater quality than it had been had the action been forced. As it came out of freewill, the love shown towards God would be greater as mankind was free to choose to love Him. The epistemic distance between God and mankind and the separation felt from God helped mankind to exert freedom. It gave mankind a chance to choose out of freewill between good and evil. Freewill enabled mankind to make moral decisions. The counterfactual hypothesis, therefore, establishes that Gods purpose would not be possible in a world completely free of suffering and evil. Hick concluded that while the world was not “design for the maximisation of human pleasure and the minimalization of human pain, it may nevertheless be rather well adapted to the quite different purposes of soul-making”.
Process theodicy is an aspect of process philosophy, which was concerned with looking at God’s very active involvement in the world. God is described as being actively involved in the process of his creation and the maintenance of that creation. Process theory stressed this especially. It was developed by David Griffin who stated that God is not omnipotent and therefore did not create the universe. The universe exists but is not directly linked to God’s created world. The concept of God in this theory was a radical view compared to other views as God was seen to be a part of the world and therefore was bound by natural laws. This theory takes into account Darwin’s theory of evolution by stating that God started off the evolutionary process but nothing more. Human beings can have the freedom to act how they wish and they are free to reject God. A second major part of this theodicy was that God himself suffered along with mankind because God was simply part of the world. He did not have total control over it henceforth God experienced suffering as mankind did. This appeared to be a radical point in mainstream Christian theology. The distinctive aspect of process theology was that God not only suffered on the cross but suffered when mankind was suffering throughout history. In theory, God could not stop evil, however, according to process theodicy, God could accept some responsibly for it because he started off the evolution of life. Therefore God can be blamed for some evil in the world, as He knew He would not be able to control it. Although God can bear some responsibly for evil and suffering this theodicy states that there is more Good than evil.
Like Process theodicy, Protest theodicy explained the existence of evil by stating that God was not wholly benevolent and omnipotent. It aimed to look at the relationship between worship and need. The theodicy criticised the human response to God in various times of need, “the yearn for Gods love and at the same time hold Him accountable for the suffering that he allows”. Like the theodicies before, Protest theodicy takes into account the aspect of freewill and states that though humans through their actions must bear the majority of the weight of responsibility, the freedom given to them is a protest or punishment in itself. Freedom given to mankind by God can be seen as a gift which is both too little and too much, therefore God must take ultimate responsibility for evil. “everything hinges on the proposition that God possess – but fails to use well enough- the power to intervene decisively t any moment to make history course less wasteful. Thus, in spite and because of his sovereignty, this God is everlastingly guilty and the degrees run from gross intelligence to mass murder"
Both the Classical theodicies, Irenaeus and Augustine theodicies have contributed majorly to the debate regarding the problem of evil and have been both criticised and supported by others. They both put forward the argument that evil was the consequence of humans exercising Freewill. This came to be known as a theodicy in its own right known as the Freewill Defense. The Freewill defense predominantly stated that the world was an ideal and logically necessary environment which allowed humans to be humans as it provided true freedom in the form of real choices. This consequently produced true goodness or true harm. Without such choices, one would not be free and nor, therefore, be human. Richard Swinburne, a contemporary Christian Philosopher, and theologian states that Freewill shows that we lived in a world which forces us to choose between good and bad. Swinburne states that the reason God wants us to suffer is that he wants us to be heroic in our lives. Religious people would believe that God in his greatness would require us to make selfless and noble decisions when faced with moral decisions. He wanted us to choose good actions seen though it may have bad consequences. For Swinburne, a true moral hero would be someone who would choose Good even though that action involved suffering in the long run.
Although the theodicies gave a logical explanation regarding the coexistence of both God and evil, they failed to deliver a concrete explanation for the problem of evil. It gave way to many philosophers to criticize the existence of such a God and to question whether God is an objective reality whose existence can be proved by logical or empirical means. In its simplest form, the problem remains; God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscience why does evil exist. There is by all accounts inconsistency between these statements therefore, the problem remains that if any two of them were true then logically, and the third would be false. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher and a dominant figure in modern philosophy. Kant contended that the human mind lays the foundation of human experience, that reason is the origin of ethical quality and that the world as it seems to be "in-itself" is autonomous of man's ideas of it. Kant believed in the existence of God, although his criticism regarding the existence of God came from a more obvious explanation, which stated that God had to exist because of morality existed. This will be discussed in later chapters.
Kant opposed Descartes argument, which stated that God had to exist, as existence was a predicate of perfect beings, God. Kant stated that one could define a thing as they see fit, but whether or not that thing exists in objective reality was another question altogether. He also argued against Anslem who stated that for something to be seen as a predicate of another it needed to be descriptive about it. Existence could not be defined as being a predicate as it did not describe God. It did not give anyone any information about God.
Brian Davis supported Augustine’s theodicy by stating that evil could not properly be called a substance, but rather was ‘a gap between what there was and that there ought to be’. The logical problem had been put forward by F. D. E. Schleiermacher. He argued that it was logically impossible for evil to originate from a perfect world, which God created. Whether or not evil was a deprivation, it would still be a part of the world and therefore be an attribute of God. Therefore, either the world was not perfect, to begin with, or God enabled it to go wrong. Along with these criticisms is the scientific criticism regarding the Genesis Creation and Fall story on which Augustine’s theodicy relies strongly upon. Firstly, the idea the world, made perfect by God, was damaged by humans, contradicts the evolutionary theory, which asserts that the universe had continually been developed from an earlier stage of chaos. Essential to evolution was the innate and selfish desire for survival, which rendered the Genesis concept of blissful happiness in the Garden of Eden. The second major weakness of Augustine’s theodicy is the assumption that all humans were seminally present in Adam. This theory may be rejected on scientific facts and therefore concludes that humans are no longer guilt for Adams sin. Consequently, God is not just in allowing us to suffer for someone else’s sins.
Irenaeus’s concept of heaven for all seems unjust for many people and therefore raises the question of God’s justice. Religious people object to it as it contradicts religious sacred texts such as the Bible and Qur’an, which state that wrongdoers shall be punished. It also weakens the idea of moral behavior. If everyone were to simply go to Heaven, then moral actions on Earth would not matter, as we would be left with no incentive to make any development in ourselves. There is also the dominant question of how much suffering was acceptable for the process of soul-making, an idea put forward by John Hick. The main criticism was put forward not only against Irenaeus but also against God was that suffering could never be seen as an expression of God’s love. Therefore Irenaeus’s theodicy cannot be accepted without difficulties. Yet as with Augustine, it emphasizes the importance of freewill, which in turn has been criticised and supported by many.
The freewill defense, which added to both the works of Augustine and Irenaeus, gives further explanation as to why evil and suffering may be necessary. However, it also attracts criticism that has already been considered by the two theodicies. The Freewill Defence does not explain why people choose to turn away from God. This prompts a further argument as to whether God has actually created a race of genuinely free beings who have chosen to commit crime. J. L. Mackie argued that God’s gift of freewill could not possibly be used as an excuse for the existence of evil. God may have simply made free beings who would never, in fact, have chosen to sin. To this John Hick argued that while humans might have appeared to choose good on all occasions, in relation to God they would not be free because God could have made them in a way that they would never choose evil. This can further be argued that from Gods points of view, humans are merely robots whose actions were already decided when they were made. This issue becomes even more complex when relating it to the concept of freewill and determinism. For if God knew in advance that His creations would do in any situation, it would be fair to say that he has preordained evil. Furthermore, if God did not know about Evil, then it would question His omnipotence. This relates to the Process Theodicy, which states that God was not all-powerful and His only purpose was to simply start the creation of the world. In essence, it believed that God suffered with humans and because he is not all-powerful, he is not able to intervene and stop it.