Theism and the Problem of Evil: A Critical Study
Chapter One
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this work is to bring out the work of different theist and their different explanation on the problem of evil and the existence of God and most importantly on how they tried to find solution or answers to this very problem of evil and existence of God.
Before showing why evil persist in this world created by God who is omnipotent, omniscience and all-loving (which is the major aim of this work), if it is a thing or not, then if it is a thing, who created it? What causes it?
Why evil persist in this world created by God who is omnipotent, omniscience and all-loving. And also a critical study of different theist who try to solve or who gave their explanation and meaning to the very problem (Theism and the problem of evil) at hand.
CHAPTER TWO
THE CONCEPT OF THEISM
THE MEANING OF THEISM
Theism
The Word “theos” “ qeos” in Greek means “ God”. Theism means belief in God, where God is understood to be the single omnipotent creator of everything else that exist. God is regarded as a being distinct from his creation though manifesting himself through it and also essentially personal, earring for and communicating with mankind and infinitely worthy of human worships and obedience. Theism is a central element in the whole judaeo Christian religious tradition. A theistic argument is one that is meant to establish the existence of God and “prove” it to non- believers or reaffirm it for the benefit of believers.
THE IDEA OF GOD (PETER KREEFT)
The idea of God is either a fact, like sane or a fantasy, like Santa1.
If it is a fantasy, a human invention, it is the greatest invention in all of human History measure it against all other invention, mental or physical, put on one side of the scale the control of five, the domestication of animals and the cultivation of wheat; the wheel, the ship and the rocket ship baseball, the symphony orchestra and anesthetics – and a million other similarly great and wonderful things. Then put on the other side of the scale a single idea, the idea of a being that is actual absolute, perfect, eternal, one, and personal all knowing, all-loving, all-just, all–merciful, and all- powerful, undying, impervious, unbribeable, uncompromising and unchangeable, a cosmic creator designer, redeemer and provider, cosmic artist musician scientist and sage, the infinite abyss of pure being who is yet a person, a self, an “I”. It is disputable whether such a being is a fact or a fantasy, but it is indisputable that if it is a fantasy, it is by for the greatest fantasy in history. If it is humanity’s invention, it is humanity masterpiece.
The idea of God has guided or deluded more lives, changed more history, inspired more music and poetry and philosophy than anything else, real or imagined. It has made more of a difference to human life on this planet, both individually and collectively, than anything else ever has. To see this clearly for yourself just try this thought experiment: suppose no one in history had ever conceived the idea of God. Now rewrite history following that premise. The task daunts and stagers the imagination from the earliest human remains- religious funeral artifacts – to the most recent wars in the mideast, religion- belief in a God or gods- has been the main spring of the whole watch that is human history.
Many people have found the idea of God to be comforting, inspiring and the source of hope. But the philosophy of religion is concerned not with the psychological benefits of believing in the idea of God, but rather with the question of whether the word God refers to anything in reality. As Kreeft put it, “God is either a fact, like sand or a fantasy like Santa”. But once we start raising question about the existence of God, a number of other question arise. How can we decide whether God exists. There are rational argument that demonstrate that God exist or at least that his existence is probable? Is there evidence that counts against God’s existence? Is it impossible or inappropriate to approach this question in an objective way? Should we fall back on faith or subjective consideration in making up our minds? What about the existence of suffering in the world? Isn’t it pretty hard to square this fact with the belief in an all- powerful, loving God.
Most of our discussion surrounding these question deals with the monotheistic conception of God found in such religious as Judaism, Islam and Christianity monotheism claims that one God created the word and sustains it while transcending it. (hereafter, I refer to this position as simply “ theism”).
2If we think of God as the creator of heaven and earth” and if we consider heaven and earth to include everything that exists except God, then we appear to have, in the foregoing consideration, fairly strong reason for asserting that God, as so concerned exist. Now of course most people have much more in mind then this when they think of God, for religious here ascribed to God ever so many attributes that are not at all implied by describing him merely as the creator of the world, but that is not relevant here. Most religious persons do in any case, think of God as being at least the creator as that being upon which everything ultimately depends, no mater what else they may say about him in addition. It is in fact, the first item in the creeds of Christianity that God is the “creator of heaven and earth”. And, it seems there are good metaphysical reason, as distinguished from the persuasion of faith, for thinking that such a creative being exist.
3If, as seems clearly implied by the principle of sufficient reason, there must be a reason for the existence of heaven and earth i.e. for the world then that reason must be found either in the world itself, or outside it, in some thing, that is literally supernatural, or outside heaven and earth. Now if we suppose that the world i.e. the totality of all things excepts God- contains within itself the reason for it’s existence, we are supposing that it exist by it very nature that is that it is a necessary being. In that case there would, of course be no reason for saying that it must depend upon God or anything else for its existence, for it exists by its very nature then it depend upon nothing but itself, mush as the sun depend upon nothing but itself for it’s heat. This, however is implacable, for we find nothing about the world or anything in it to suggest that it exist by it own nature and we do find, on the contrary, ever so many things to suggest that it does not for in the first place anything which exist by its very nature must necessarily be external and indestructible. It would be a self- contraction to say of any thing that it exists by its own nature or is a necessarily existing thing, and at the same time to say that it comes into being or passes away, or that it ever could come into being or pass away. Nothing about the world seems at all like this for concerning anything in the world, we can perfectly easily think of it as being annihilated or as never having existence in the first place, without there being the slightest hunt of any absurdity in such a supposition. Ultimately then, it would seem that the world or the totality of contingent or perishable things, in case it exists at necessary and imperishable, and which accordingly exists, not in dependence upon something else, but by its own nature.
CHAPTER THREE
CONCEPT OF EVIL
The concept of evil is a bifurcated one. It is a concept involving philosophers and theologians. It is also a concept, which prove or disprove God’s existence.
Different philosophical school of thought through the ages have given different explanation of the concept of evil in order to understand what we are talking about it is worthwhile to have a clarification of what evil is.
Evil is a negation of the perfection of being. It is an active force, which requires continue resistance on the part of God and humans. Different philosophers have different views on the concept of evil.
According to Augustine, evil is not a positive thing it is not something positive but simply negative of being. God created every positive thing, for God is the creator of all things and whatever he created is good. Augustine thus disagree with Plotinus who held that matter was evil since evil is not a positive thing, but only the negation of being, it does not make sense to ask who created it for evil was not created and could not exist on it’s own since it is not a being? Only substance can and do exist on their own and they are good because they were all created by God. To Augustine, evil is nothing but the corruption of natural measure, form and order what is called evil nature is a corruption. If it were not corrupt nature it will be good, but when it is corrupted, so far as it remains a natural thing, it is good. It is only bad in so far as it is corrupted.
3And “there can be no evil where there is no good… nothing evil exist in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity. Evil, therefore have their source in God and unless they are parasite on something they are not anything at all. Moreover, anything that has being is good.” If the good is for diminished as to be utterly consumed just as there is no goodness left, so there is no existence left. The only positive point that can attribute to the view that evil is non- existence is that it shows the presence of evil in the universe as secondary, rather than primary and essential.
For the Manichean’s concept of evil, they are of the motion that life consist of perpetual conflict between the good and evil. The principle of good (Ormuzed) and the principle of evil (Ahriman). These are the two ultimate sources of thing i.e. good and evil.
HAPTER FOUR
THEISM AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
WHAT THEISTS UNDERSTAND AS THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
It is impossible to deny the existence of evil in the world as we human beings experience pain and suffering everyday. It is generally accepted that there are two different types of evil- natural and moral. Moral evil is caused by human beings and occurs when human inflict suffering on other people (e.g. world war, the holocaust), animals (e.g. animals testing) or the environment (e.g. pollution, destroying the rainforests) natural evil is not caused by human and occurs naturally in the world e.g. earthquakes, droughts and cancer. However, not all evils can be easily separated into these categories as human can contribute to natural evils i.e. although cancer is naturally occurring disease, human often do things which bring it about.
CHAPTER FIVE
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
EVALUATION OF THE TOPIC THEISM AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Different theist gave different interpretation of the concept of evil. Firstly John Hick explain what he understood by evil and gave his explanation.
John Hicks developed what he calls “minority report” in the history of theology. This view is that when God initially created humanity, there was still some work to be done in making us a complete product. However, this remaining work could not be accomplished by God alone, we have to contribute to the process, using the greater good defence, Hick argues that even God himself could not achieve certain result without allowing us to struggle against evil and to endure suffering.
Atheistic writers almost invariably assumed a conception of the divine purpose which is contrary to the Christian conception. They assumed that the purpose of a living God must be to create a hedonistic paradise and therefore to the extent that the world is other than this, it proves to them that God is either not loving enough or not powerful enough to create such a world. They think of God’s relation to the earth on the model of a human being building a cage for a pet’s quarters as pleasant and healthful as he can, any respect in which the cage falls short of veterinarians’s idel, and contain possibilities of accident or disease, is evidence of either limited benevolence or limited means, or both. According to John Hick, those who use the problem of evil as an argument against believe in God almost invariably think of the world in this kind of way.
But if we are right in supposing that God’s purpose for man is to lead him from human Bios, or the biological life of man, to that quality of zoe, or the personal life of eternal worth, which we see in Christ then question that we have to ask is not, is this the kind of world that an all-powerful and infinitely loving being would create as an environment for his human pets or is the architecture of the world the most pleasant and convenient possible. The question that we have to ask is rather is this the kind of world that God might make as an environment in which moral beings may be fashioned, through their own free insight and responses, into “children of God”?
According to John Hick the best way a parent can show love to a child is to bring them up in the best environment, a parent who love his child will want them to become the best human beings that they are capable of becoming, does not treat pleasure as the sole and supreme value, certainly we seek pleasure for our children, and take great delight in obtaining it for them; but we do not desire for them unalloyed pleasure at the expense of their growth in such even greater values as moral integrity, unselfishness, compassion, courage, humour, research for the truth, and perhaps above all the capacity for love. We do not act on the premise that pleasure is the supreme end of life; and if the development of these other values sometimes clashes with the provision of pleasure, then we are willing to have our children miss a certain amount of this, rather than fall to care to possess and to be possessed by the finer and more precious qualities that are possible to the human personality.
According to him, a child brought up on the principle that the only or the supreme value is pleasure would not be likely to become ethically mature adult or an attractive or happy personality. And to most parents it seems more important to try to foster quality and strength of character in their lives at all times with the utmost possible degree of pleasure.
In conclusion, John Hick says that the purpose of loving and wise parent for their children is not just pleasures alone and absence of pain because it can not be the supreme and overriding end for which the world exist. Rather it must be a place of soul making. And if value is to be judged, not primarily by the quality of pleasure and pain occurring in it at any particular moment, but by his fitness for it’s primary purpose, the purpose of soul making. (1)
Augustine also gave different interpretation of the concept of evil. To him God is a perfect being, therefore anything evil should not be associated with him. As a result of his concept of God as a perfect being who has nothing to do with evil, Augustine came to team with the Manicheans who upheld two ultimate principles. These two principles are; the principle of good (ormuzd) and the principle of evil (Ahriman).
These two principles are the ultimate sources of all things. Ormuzd is spiritual things and light while Ahriman is the source of darkness and all material things.
For Plotinus, evil is not a positive things, it is not something positive but simply the negation of being, the lack of being which is also the same to Augustine. Augustine’s notion that God is all powerful, all knowing and also the creator of all things and at the same time not responsible for the evil in the universe is unquestionable because reason been that it is only God that has power to create, whatever exist traces its source of existence to God. Therefore, if evil been it moral or metaphysical) exist in any form must be traced to a being who is responsible for the creation of all things. If evil is the work of another being, it suggest that there are two beings responsible for the creation of the universe, which Augustine would definitely not agree with.
More so, since the world is created by a perfect being, it should not contain evil, it follows that God is the cause of evil in the universe because He is the creator of all things and all things were created by him, so definitely evil is created by Him. If God did not create all things, God would not be in existence and man would not have been committing evil. Therefore, God is the originator and cause of evil that befall on man. According to Father G.H. Joyce, he repudiated the notion of Augustine that evil is not seal and that God is not the cause of evil in the universe. But for Joyce, evil is real he says:
“The existence of evil in the world must all times be the greatest of all problems which the mind encounters when reflects on God and it’s relation to the world, if He is, indeed, all good and all powerful, how has evil any place in the world which he had made? Whence come evil? Why is it there? If all-powerful, why does he not deliver us from the burden? As like in the physical and moral order creation seems to generously marred that we find it hard to understand how it derive in it entirely from God?(2)”
In addition, Augustine held that man is the source of moral evil, which can only be traced to man misuse of his free will, man has the right to choose between good and evil, therefore, he is the source of moral evil”3. Augustine fail to answer who is the source of physical and metaphysical evil that are beyond human contact?
He illustrated the necessity of evil in the universe by using simply analogy of a good painter. A good painter uses both dull and bright colours to bring out the beauty of his work. He states also that a well organized city comprises of heroes, clowns, and servants. In order to appreciate what is perfect, there must be imperfection that is regarded as evil.
Following Augustine’s explanation of the problem of evil, it is both good and evil that can make the world look harmonious. For example, to appreciate good health one must poor health. The two analogies used by Augustine to illustrate the necessity of evil in the universe do not really portray, the pains natural and moral evil inflect on men.
Finally, Augustine, there fore succeeded in illustrating that a universe face of evil is a complete utopia. But he did not succeed in propounding solution to the problem of evil in the universe. He however enumerated God from been responsible for the problem of evil in the universe, yet He created the universe and everything in it. Augustine argument looks more of theodicy rather than being philosophical.
CONCLUSION
Finally, the problem of evil is a bifurcated one, it constitutes one of the great difficulties by both theologians and philosophers. However, it is clear that evil exist in the universe created by a perfect (being) since he is the creator of all things. The purpose of evil in the universe still remains abstract to man inspite of the various attempts made by intellectual of different school of thoughts to explain it, and none have given a definite and satisfactory solution to the problem of evil and this very problem of evil is still unsolved.
Many thinkers either rest the cause of evil on human free-will or as a part of the designed for nature to make good possible or to bring one up to be responsible in the universe. However, since no theologian or philosophers have given us definite explanation to the problem of evil in the universe, and no solution have been propounded, they have been busy explaining but no solution to the problem, it is very clear that the problem of evil will continue to be a problem to man since there is no solution to the problem. And finally, man will continue to face this problem until there is an answer to it. Only God knows when solutions will be found.
REFERENCES
- Barnes J, The Ontological: Carl (London Machirdan, 1972).
- Bethrand R.; An Outline of Philosophy, (London: George Adilen and Unian Ltd., 1970).
- Descartes R, Discourse on Method and the Meditations, Translated with an Introduction by F. Sutcliffe (Harmands Worth: Penguin 1968).
- Edeh E.M.P Towards an Igbo Metaphysics, (Chicago Lodaoice Univ. Press, 1985).
- Frost S.E. Basic Teaching of the Great Philosophers (Published by Ploubleday New York. 1977).
- Isirimen .C. and Akhilomen .D, Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Rearly Church Controversies (Lagos: A.B. Associate Publishers 1958).
- John Hick The Philosophical Journey (New York: McGraw Hill 2003).
- John .S, Philosophy of Religion (London: Collier Macmillan Ltd. 1958).
- William .F. Lawhead The Philosophical Journal(New York: Mc-Graw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2000). Pg. 359 – 361.
- Om,eregbe, Philosophical Look at Religion(Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd. 1990). Pg. 138.
- Pike “Pleating a free will and evil” Religious Studies(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979). Vol. 6 No. 4, pg 450.
- H. Kusheners, When Bad things Happen to Good People, (New York: Avion Books 1981). Pg. 12.
