HOME WEB NEWS IMAGES CLASSIFIEDS YELLOW PAGESPOLLS - SURVEYS WIKI COUNTRIES PHOTOS US UK INDIA
Cities Stocks Weather Movies Coupons Travel Blogs Health Horoscope Maps ASIA EUROPE Classifieds Yellow Pages
|
|
|
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Theodicy. (Discuss) |
| Part of a series on |
| Deities |
|---|
|
General approaches Specific conceptions Experience and practices Related topics |
In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God, a force for infinite good.Tooley, Michael "The Problem of Evil". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The problem is most often discussed in the context of the personal god of the Abrahamic religions, but is also relevant to polytheistic traditions involving many gods. A proposed solution to this dilemma is called a theodicy.
Contents |
Epicurus is credited with first expounding the problem of evil. David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions: "Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
The problem of evil takes at least four formulations in ancient Mesopotamian religious thought, as in the extant manuscripts of Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom), Erra and Ishum, The Babylonian Theodicy, and The Dialogue of Pessimism.Ancient Babylonia—Wisdom Literature. Bible History Online. Retrieved on 2007-04-19. In this type of polytheistic context, the chaotic nature of the world implies multiple gods battling for control. In ancient Egypt, it was thought the problem takes at least two formulations, as in the extant manuscripts of Dialogue of a Man with His Ba and The Eloquent Peasant. Due to the conception of Egyptian gods as being far removed, these two formulations of the problem focus heavily on the relation between evil and people; that is, moral evil.
Epicurus is generally credited with first expounding the problem of evil, and it is sometimes called "the Epicurean paradox" or "the riddle of Epicurus." In this form, the argument is not really a paradox or a riddle, but is considered by some critics as being a reductio ad absurdum of the premises.Tattersall, Nicholas (1998). The Evidential Argument from Evil. Secular Web Library. Internet Infidels. Retrieved on 2007-04-12. “[The Argument from Evil] is a reductio ad absurdum argument. It claims that there is an inconsistency with the theistic hypothesis and certain facts about the world. What atheism has to say about morality is irrelevant as to whether theism is contradicted or made improbable by the fact that pointless suffering probably exists.” Epicurus drew the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of the gods, who care about the matters of mankind, assuming absolute concepts of benevolence, knowledge, and power. More generally, no paradox or problem exists for those who do not accept the premises, in particular the existence of a benevolent god or gods. The assumption of a benevolent divine principle, however, was not only a central concept for both classical and later schools of philosophy,Plato, in his Timaeus, states that the Demiurge\'s intentions were good. Gottfried Leibniz based his philosophy of optimism on the idea that god is both omnipotent and benevolent. but continues to be one of the essential assumptions of Christianity to this day.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief
Epicurus himself did not leave any written form of this argument. It can be found in Lucretius\'s De Rerum Natura and in Christian theologian Lactantius\'s Treatise on the Anger of God where Lactantius critiques the argument. Epicurus\'s argument as presented by Lactantius actually argues that a god that is all-powerful and all-good does not exist and that the gods are distant and uninvolved with man\'s concerns. The gods are neither our friends nor enemies. The stronger form most people know of Epicurus\' problem of evil is actually David Hume\'s formulation of the problem of evil in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
"[Gods] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"
Marcion, the 2nd century sect leader, is presented by Tertullian in his Adversus Marcionem as presenting this puzzle: "Why does God, who is all powerful and has foreknowledge of the future, allow evil?" Marcion\'s answer is that god is in part evil himself.
The biblical Book of Job is, perhaps, the most widely known formulation of the problem of evil in Western thought. Other books of note include Psalms 1 and 82, and Ecclesiastes (Koheleth).
An oral tradition exists in Judaism that God determined the time of the Messiah\'s coming by erecting a great set of scales. On one side, God placed the captive Messiah with the souls of dead laymen. On the other side, God placed sorrow, tears, and the souls of righteous martyrs. God then declared that the Messiah would appear on earth when the scale was balanced.
According to this tradition, then, evil is necessary in the bringing of the world\'s redemption, as sufferings reside on the scale.
In the 5th Century, Pelagius denied the Augustianian answer to the paradox of original sin. Augustine\'s answer was the Limited Sovereignty argument, which stated that Adam and Eve had the power to change nature by bringing sin into the world, but that the advent of sin then limited mankind’s power thereafter (to evade the consequences). The problem of evil then asks: "Is God\'s creation still good?" Pelagius argued that death is a natural part of the universe. Both he and John Chrysostom believed that Christians, through their baptism, are free to make moral choices; that, although their wills cannot affect the course of nature, it can — and must — affect their moral decisions. This view, however, does not exclude the possibility that death came about as a result of human action. Pelagius\' main argument was that God is just, and it would be unjust to punish many people for the sin of two people. Adam and Eve sinned, but universal mortality cannot be the result of their sin alone. Mortality must be the result of some other cause, which Pelagius held was simply the structure of nature. Pelagius\' position is regarded by most Christian denominations as a heresy.See, e.g., http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm Augustine\'s position on the issue is discussed further in the section on Criticisms and responses below.
Origen, an early Christian scholar and theologian, suggested that the problem of evil was a misnomer. Origen\'s response to this was the concept of Apocatastasis. Simply stated, the ends justify the means. That is, all of creation is reconciled by its purpose of facilitating freewill. This argument is still prevalent in Eastern Orthodoxy today. The concept can be traced in the works of St Clement of Alexandria, St Isaac of Syria, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Gregory the Great and St Maximus the Confessor. Modern versions of the argument can be found in some of the writings of Dostoevsky (see the Devil\'s conversation with Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov and in Stepan Verkhovensky\'s play in The Possessed) though Dostoevsky himself never expressed his endorsement of the idea.
|
|
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2007) |
One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil presented by Epicurus may be schematized as follows (this form of the argument is called \'the inconsistent triad\'):
This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens (denying the consequent). In this case, P is "God exists" and Q is "there is no evil in the world". Other logical forms of arguments articulating the problem follow. One criticism of this argument is that it assumes that God is unable to exist with evil, but some religious texts on the description of God and evil are said to state otherwise, such as the Book of Job.
Logical problem of evil
Evidential problem of evil
As argued by Paul Draper in a seminal article in Noûs (1989), the evidential problem of evil goes as follows:
Argument from evil natural laws and processes
Moral argument from evil
Inductive argument from evil
Argument from the biological role of pain and pleasure
In Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l\'homme et l\'origine du mal, a well-known essay written in 1710, Leibniz introduced the term "theodicy" to describe the formal study of this subject. This term is also used for an explanation of why God permits evil to exist without it being a contradiction of his perfect goodness.
The fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo mounted what has become one of the most popular defenses of the existence of God against the Epicurean paradox. He maintained that evil was only privatio boni, or a privation of good, much like darkness is an absence of light. An evil thing can only be referred to as a negative form of a good thing, such as discord, injustice, and loss of life or of liberty. These are all defined in terms of a spectrum with its lowest absolute being zero (injustice being the absolute lack of just decision or action), as opposed to an infinite spectrum such as electromagnetic forces. If a being is not totally pure, evil will fill in any gaps in that being\'s purity. This is commonly called the Contrast Theodicy — that evil only exists as a "contrast" with good. However, the Contrast Theodicy relies on a metaphysical view of morality that few people, even theologians, agree with[citation needed] (that good and evil are not moral judgments).
The related concept of Yin and Yang (known as "Taiji") is used in Eastern thought to illustrate complementary opposing forces (positive/negative, light/darkness, male/female, heat/cold, good/evil) as an unchangeable and necessary law of nature. Such forces always exist and are opposite yet inseparable from each other by their very nature, because they can only be defined in terms of their opposite. This dualism is thus similar to Contrast Theodicy, but differs in that opposites are generally referred to as on opposite sides of a zero; thus, evil is an opposing force to good with a neutral equilibrium.
In addition, yin and yang are not only traditionally depicted as complementary, but comingling and incorporating the other. No force or object is perfectly yin or yang; the darkest night fills the sky with stars, while the brightest day creates that much more difference in the shade of a tree. Similarly, no action or person is perfectly good or evil; there is always some good inherent in evil, and some evil inherent in good.
A criticism of this thinking is that such dualism requires all opposites to be describable in an infinite spectrum, with "zero" as an equilibrium point between opposing forces that can have infinite effect. In reality, physics has demonstrated that light and heat are quantitative, with darkness and cold being their absence as is argued in Contrast Theodicy. They have no positive limit, but do have a finite negative absolute. Thus, many physical concepts used as metaphors for good and evil and described as similar according to Taiji in fact have no negative, only a complete absence. The counter is generally a difference in the definition of a "force" in terms of affecting change. Heat affects a positive change in temperature, while cooling affects a negative. Heat and cold therefore affect opposite change, and are thus opposing forces. Similarly, good as a metaphysical force acts in a constructive manner, while evil acts destructively. Both affect change in society towards order or chaos. In creating opposite effects, they are defined as opposing forces.
Another response to this paradox argues that asserting "evil exists" would imply a moral standard against which to define good and evil (see also Argument from morality). Therefore, by using this argument one implies the existence of a moral law, which requires a law-maker. Most theists would assert that this law-maker is God, whilst many atheists would argue that morality can just as easily be reached through reason — that this law is in fact a social contract agreed to by all humans; subconsciously developed from social prisoner\'s dilemma and/or that this problem is more accurately described as a problem of physical suffering, which can be objectively defined against a standard (of zero physical suffering), or that morality can be reached by its ability to support humanity\'s means to attain life.
The problem of evil is often phrased "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Some religions answer that good people simply do not exist. For example, Christianity teaches that all people are inherently sinful and that only God is good [1]. Therefore, humans deserve whatever evil they suffer due to their inherent sinfulness.
|
|
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007) |
In On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine of Hippo also argued that Epicurus had ignored the potential benefits of suffering in the world.
Some theists argue that God allows evil to exist so that humans can have freedom of choice. The argument runs as follows:
Having concluded that capacity for evil is a prerequisite for free will, they argue that favoring the presence of free will over an absence of evil is consistent with the concept of a powerful, benevolent god.
Critics of this argument claim there is an implicit assumption that the capacity for evil necessarily leads to the occurrence of evil, and assert that it is logically possible to have a world in which people have free will and are capable of evil, but nonetheless live morally.
Finally, critics will assert that this response only deals with evil stemming from human choices, not evil over which humans have no control, for example volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and other natural disasters.
Ditheistic belief systems (a kind of dualism) resolved the problem of evil by positing that there are two rival great gods, that work in polar opposition to each other. Examples of such belief systems include Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism and in a way those currents of Christianity and Islam comprising the Devil, although the latter tend to define some kind of asymmetry between the two deities\' capabilities. While the concept of omnipotence is difficult to hold in ditheistic belief systems, "asymmetrically ditheistic" belief systems as described above can\'t logically adhere to the omnipotence of one of the opposing forces as the omnipotent one then could simply rid itself of the other. Thus generally, ditheistic belief systems are technically not subject to the problem of evil because its source is evident.
In Hinduism, the problem of evil is present but does not exist per se as souls are eternal and not directly created by God. In Dvaita philosophy, jivas (souls) are eternally existent and hence not a creation of God ex nihilo (out of nothing). The souls are bound by beginningless avidya (ignorance) that cause a misidentification with products of nature (body, wealth, power) and hence suffering. In effect, Hinduism identifies avidya (ignorance) as the cause of evil and this ignorance itself is uncaused. Suffering from natural causes are explained as karmic results of previous births.
Moreover, even within the realm of avidya, "good" and "evil" are an individual\'s deeds and God dispenses the results of an individual\'s actions but has the power to mitigate suffering.(see Karma in Hinduism).
The problem of evil is generally considered in Buddhism as a basis for not believing in a benevolent creator God, which Buddhism considers to be self attachment to false concepts. For instance, in the Bhûridatta JatakaV. A. Gunasekara, The Buddhist Attitude to God [2] the Bodhisattva sings:
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord? If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create? If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what\'s right did let wrong prevail!
Mu\'tazilis identify evil as something that stems from free will and human imperfection, arguing that if man\'s evil acts were from the will of God then punishment would be meaningless. Mu\'tazilis do not deny suffering from non-human sources such as natural disasters, and explain this "apparent" evil through the Islamic doctrine of taklif - that life is a test for beings possessing free will.
| | Philosophy Portal |
| Arguments for and against belief in God | |
|---|---|
| For | Cosmological · Ontological · Teleological · Transcendental · Christological · Morality · Consciousness · Love · Beauty · Degree · Desire · Experience · Miracles · Near-death experiences |
| Against | Evil · Hell · Nonbelief · Inconsistent revelations · Poor design · Transcendental · Noncognitivism · Omnipotence · Free will · 747 Gambit · Occam\'s Razor · Euthyphro dilemma · Ethical dilemma · Argument from Biblical Defects |
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia
