THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

DEFINITIONS

EVIL
We can talk about moral evil and natural evil.

Moral evil deals with the sort of evil that is created by human beings – murder, rape, theft, damage to people and to the world.

Natural evil has traditionally been seen as “natural disasters” earthquakes, typhoons, floods, volcanic eruption. Ironically these are often referred to by insurance companies as “Acts of God!” Even so they cause much human suffering.

The distinction between the two can be clearly understood, although recently people are more aware that one sort of evil can easily spill over into the other.
To what extent are typhoons and extremes of temperature brought about by man’s misuse of the earth, which has produced global warming. Famine may be a natural occurrence but it may equally be the result of civil war. Nevertheless from out point of view the two types of evil need to be recognized.

GOD
May be said to be
OMNIPOTENT – all powerful – in which case he should have the power to overcome evil.
OMNIBENEVOLENT – all good – in which case he should not let evil occur.
OMNISCIENT- all knowing – in which case he must have known evil would come in and should have prevented it.

SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Let’s look at it diagrammatically.
Imagine a triangle

Clearly this triangle isn’t going to work and someone has to leave.

One solution might be to say that God is not omnipotent. God has set the world going and he does what he can.
Another solution might be to say that God is not all loving. This has terrible consequences but might be substantiated by some parts of the Old Testament.
A third solution could be to deny the existence of evil. What we call evil isn’t really bad, it is just the worst we know and we assume it is evil.
A fourth solution might be to deny the existence of God. This is what an atheist would claim and indeed if that is the case, then much of the “problem” of evil goes away. If there is no good and powerful God, then evil is just the way the world is.

LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION
There have been many attempts to find a solution to the challenge of evil. These are called theodicies and we need to look at two early Christian attempts at these

AUGUSTINE’S THEODICY

Augustine of Hippo 354-430AD was a very influential Bishop of the church in North Africa.
He based his arguments on the Bible, especially on the accounts of the creation found in Genesis.
Evil cannot have come from God since the creation was faultless and perfect.
God though was justified in allowing it to stay.

All evil is either
sin
or a
punishment for sin

All humans including innocent babies deserve to suffer because all humans were present in the “loins of Adam.”

But

If God was simply just, everyone would go to his or her rightful punishment in hell.
Through his grace and through the crucifixion of Jesus some might be saved and go to heaven. So God is merciful as well as being just.

WHAT DO PEOPLE SAY ABOUT AUGUSTINE’S THEODICY

Today no one seems very happy with this solution. Augustine relies very heavily on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Occasionally extreme Christian groups do trot out his ideas, claiming that depravity and natural disasters are a judgement from God, but these people seem to be in a minority as far as Christianity is concerned.

Brian Davies
Does support the view that evil cannot be regarded really as a substance. He claims that it is a gap between what there is and what there ought to be.

Others would claim that thee might be some mileage in the idea that all evil is created by humans, either directly in the case of moral evil or indirectly in the case of natural evil. With our increased understanding of the human influence on global issues they may have a point, but if the earth one day were to be in collision with a massive asteroid which caused untold death and destruction, the theory of human interference might just crash with it.

CRITICISMS OF AUGUSTINE’S THEODICY
1. logical Error – this was put forward by Schleimacher 1768 – 1834 who drew attention to the fact that evil is still a feature of the world, whether it is a privation or not. On the grounds that something cannot come from nothing, either the world was not perfect to begin with or God allowed it to go wrong. It is not clear how a perfect world could generate a knowledge of good and evil or obedience and disobedience. Both concepts in a perfect world would be unknown.
2. Scientific Problems – the theory of evolution and our knowledge of how Genesis was written would seem to cast doubt on the historical reliability of Augustine’s key text. If one takes away Genesis, then his theory is highly suspect.
The idea that everyone has descended fro Adam would not be acceptable to a modern biologist.
3. Moral Error – the issue of hell also causes concern as Augustine conceived it. Hell appears to have been part of the design of the universe from the word go. This must mean that God anticipated created beings would go wrong. The idea of selecting some people for heaven and some for hell has also caused great concern among Augustine’s critics.

ANOTHER SOLUTION

IRENAEUS’ THEODICY
St Irenaeus (130-202 AD) thought that the existence of evil actually serves a purpose. From his point of view, evil provides the necessary problems through which we take part in what he calls "soul-making". From this point of view, evil is a means to an end in as much as if it did not exist, there would be no means of spiritual development.

LOOKING POSITIVELY AT THE WORK OF IRENAEUS

He finds a cause for evil and admits that God is partly responsible for it.

He gets away from the text of Genesis and the story of the Fall of Adam.

It is possible to measure this account of the origin and purpose of evil with the theory of evolution.

A person’s free will can be a positive as well as a negative aspect of life. Irenaeus doesn’t rely on the rescue package brought about by Jesus in the same was that Augustine does.

CRITICISMS OF THE IRENAEAN THEODICY
1. He implies that God’s creation was not perfect from the word go.
2. He has a very optimistic view of mankind – that eventually everyone will develop into God’s likeness. Each individual will master temptation and evil and go to be with God. History would seems to indicate that this is unlikely to be true. Hitler?
3. If eventually everyone will go to heaven, it seems to call into question why people need to lead moral lives. The whole point of moral behaviour seems to be lost. Why no just enjoy temptation and be a nuisance to society for as long as possible?
4. Irenaeus seems to be saying that suffering is an expression of God’s love for humanity. Victims of genocide would undoubtedly disagree with this.

COMPARING THE THEODICIES OF AUGUSTINE AND IRENAEUS
One has to be very careful here candidates should note that the earlier theodicy belonged to Irenaeus.
Irenaeus’ dates are 130-202AD and Augustine lived between 354-430AD. Teachers and textbooks delight in teaching Augustine first and sometimes imply that the Irenaean theodicy is an improvement on the work of Augustine! Take care how you phrase that.

1. Augustine beings with the Biblical story of creation and the Fall. Irenaeus does not.
2. Augustine claims God is perfect and that the world was free from flaws. Irenaeus believed that the world was not created perfect.
3. Irenaeus said that human beings were not perfect and had a capacity for evil.
4. Irenaeus thought God allowed evil so that man could be free to choose good or evil. Evil had to be thee so that humans could decide to turn their backs on it and choose the good.
5. Augustine thought that natural evil was also the result of man’s sin. Irenaeus believed natural evil was put there by God to create a “vale of soulmaking.” Suffering, he believed taught humans obedience.
6. Suffering was they way in which a person progressed from being simply in the image of God to being in his likeness.
7. Augustine believed that there was a gulf between man and God. This was brought about by sin. Irenaeus on the other hand thought man and God grew closer together as a result of man overcoming his appetite for sin.
8. Augustine made use of the idea of hell. This was largely ignored by Irenaeus who believed that all would progress to heaven.

THE FREE WILL DEFENCE

There have been a number of attempts to update the theodicy of Irenaeus. These centre around the importance of human free will not around the perfection of God

JOHN HICK points out that free choice is better than compulsion.
For humans to love God, they have to be free to do so. Such love cannot be forced. The capacity to love God is a quality that has to be developed.

PETER VARDY in the Puzzle of Ethics – Imagine a king falls in love with a peasant girl. He could simply demand her love. However, love cannot be compelled – it must be earned. Love for God cannot be compelled – it must come about absolutely freely.

RICHARD SWINBURNE argues that even when there is great suffering, as in the Holocaust, such events cannot be prevented by God without compromising the freedom of human beings.

Those who object to this theory feel that it would have been possible for God to have created humans who are free, but who would always choose the right course of action. J L Mackie thinks that God’s failure to do this means that God is neither omnipotent nor wholly good.