Friday, November 9, 2012
Evil? No Problem
In sections X and XI, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo
uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT
benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument
fail? What about the possibility that suffering is part of some great
good like free will or character development (a theodicy)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that there is an abundance of evil and suffering in the world. Every country faces poverty, crime, and natural disasters at one point in time. However, there are also moments of happiness and pure joy in every country. Hume defies God’s existence by saying that if God exists as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being he is said to be, there would be absolutely no evil in the world. He would know, want, and be able to prevent evil. By Hume’s reasoning, God does not exist.
Personally, I do not agree with Hume’s argument. It is possible for God to exist as an all-powerful being alongside the evil in the world. It should be considered that God creates evil and allows suffering in order to instill an understanding of what is good and bad by a contrasting method. In order for us to know and appreciate what is good, we must have a basis off of which to base our judgments. If there is never a food shortage, we would never know what it feels like to be hungry and appreciate a filled stomach. If there is never rain, we wouldn’t know to appreciate the sun. If no one we cared about ever died, we would never realize how important to us they were when they were alive.
Because we are not omniscient beings, we don’t understand that experiencing the bad can benefit and educate us in the end. Our minds are not as extensive and 3 dimensional as God’s mind is. What seems cruel to us can seem educational to Him. He is also said to be benevolent, so by allowing us to suffer and see both the preferable and painful sides of life, he is ultimately moving us to becoming knowledgeable of the good things in life.
If God never exposes us to suffering or evil, some people may not be able to realize how bad evil really is in the world. If a person’s friend is murdered, they feel the sorrow from their death and most likely won’t murder someone else in order to avoid that painful experience. If a person is starving, odds are that they will work harder to receive more food in the hopes of not facing hunger again. God’s potential method of using comparisons to determine good and bad proves that he could exist as a benevolent, omniscient being along with the suffering in the world.
Philo sets up a very strong and complex argument to prove that either God does not exist or that God is not benevolent. His first premise is that there is a lot of suffering in the world. Then he defines God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If God is omnipotent, he is able to prevent suffering, if he is omniscient, he knows how to prevent suffering and if God is omnibenevolent, he wants to prevent suffering. He then claims that if God exists, there is not suffering. He concludes this argument by saying that because there is suffering, God does not exist.
ReplyDeleteWhile this sounds like an extremely strong and sound argument, there are flaws and issues that cannot be ignored when evaluating its validity. The first and strongest objection to this argument is the idea of free will. There are four types of possible worlds: one with free will and no evil, one with no free will and suffering, another with no free will and no suffering, and one with both free will and suffering. While the notion of a world where free will and no evil exist is favored, it is logically impossible. The idea of a world where there is no free will and no suffering is not appealing because it prohibits humans from making decisions. One with no free will and evil is neither logical nor appealing. The last and most realistic possibility for a universe is one with free will and evil. Evil comes hand and hand with free will and we humans are forced to accept this suffering. If God wanted to prevent evil, he would indirectly be taking away our free will because it is impossible for humans to escape negative and violent thoughts. For example, if I wanted to punch someone and God prohibited me from doing this, he is not only stopping evil but is also prohibiting me from making my own decisions. It is very difficult to argue that a world without free will and evil is better than a world with free will and evil as a byproduct.
In addition to talking about the suffering that humans cause, Philo is also referring to natural disasters caused by God. He is arguing that if God existed, there would be no natural disasters because he would have the desire to prohibit these from occurring. This is a significantly stronger argument than suffering caused by humans, but there are some flaws in this argument as well. First, we should examine Hurricane Sandy. Philo would argue that if there was a God, he would have prohibited this hurricane from hitting and destroying New York. What he fails to realize, is that the severity of this hurricane is a direct result of global warming. Had us humans not emitted the amount of greenhouse gases that we did, natural disasters such as Sandy would not cause such immense suffering. Now lets look at the examples of houses being destroyed as a result of these natural disasters. It is possible that these houses are not being destroyed as a result of the disaster itself, but actually as a result of poor designs. If humans had improved technology and sturdier buildings, these disasters would not cause as much damage to society. I do agree that this is a much stronger argument and one that holds validity, but I still believe that there are detrimental flaws. In conclusion, I believe that this argument has some potential but ultimately fails as a result of free will and the idea that many of these disasters are directly caused by humans themselves.
In my opinion, we can examine two clear counter examples to Philo's argument that if there is evil in the world, either God does not exist or God is not benevolent.
ReplyDeleteThe first of these is that we are making too many assumptions about God, as we examined with Berkeley. In Hume’s argument for God, he never firmly proves that if there is a supreme being that he is all-powerful. In our standard view of God, we imagine him as omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and omniscient. Hume uses these assumptions to make his argument regarding God and evil, however he never directly proved that his God exhibits these three qualities. For example, we can look at the Machine argument for god that Hume provides. Assume it is true that there is a supreme being who created the complex machine that is the universe. However, I can think of countless machines that once created, no longer require operation by their creator. Therefore, it is possible that God created our universe and then disappeared, or merely sits back and enjoys the show. Overall, Hume makes quite a leap in assuming that his God possesses all three of these qualities, and therefore, under the possibility that God is not all-powerful, he would be unable to do anything about the evil in the world.
Another counter argument to Hume’s claim is that of Theodicy. Let us now assume that God exists and is all-powerful. Just because there is evil in the world does NOT make him not benevolent. It is very possible that God instills this evil in the world in order to help the greater good. It could teach people a lesson that will help them in the long run, or maybe it is something evil at the expense of few in order to save many. Ultimately, it is not just for us to qualify something as being evil, because we are not able to examine it from every perspective and see its every effect like our God can. Finally, what would good be without evil? If there were no evil in the world, we would not be able to understand the concept of good and our lives would be quite melancholy. Therefore, it is possible that God must instill these evils in the world in order for us to also experience great happiness and joy.
If I came across a sphere in the woods similar to the one descried in the question I would wonder where it came from. I think anyone would. As previously stated by many bloggers we as humans have a fear of the unknown. This fear compels and motivates us to search for the cause of things, such as the sphere in the woods. The thing is though that I only desire to understand the sphere, I don’t to understand it. Perhaps, the sphere is something that I will never understand. From a universal prospective, whether I do or do not understand the sphere matters very little. My understanding, or lack thereof, of the sphere has no ramification on the universe. The cycle that the universe regularly follows won’t change. The laws that govern the universe will remain constant. In the greater scheme of things nothing will change. Problems only occur on the personal level. A lack of understanding is frightening to people. So we search for the answers, even when there are none. What we do when we can’t find answers is accredit the sphere to some kind of divine intervention. This point has been mentioned in class. I believe it was Will that said that we use God as an excuse to attempt to explain things we don’t understand. I choose to see it differently however. I choose to see an idea of God as a coping mechanism rather than an excuse. Take for example creation. Scientifically speaking, we know not how creation happened and we probably never will. To cope with this lack of understanding we accredit creation to God. This allows us to have a semblance of understanding. That semblance of understanding defeats our fear of the unknown. Thus God serves as a coping mechanism for explaining that which there is not answer to. And if you believe in the principle of sufficient reason (which personally I don’t) that being a coping mechanism is God’s cause for existence. Therefore God exists.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn sections X and XI Philo and Demea catalogue human misery in order to later prove that God either does not exist or is not benevolent. I do not believe that this is a sound argument. In his argument, Philo makes three claims. He first claims that God is omnipotent and therefore capable of using his power to prevent the existence of evil within the world. Next, he claims that God is omnibenevolent so logically he a being consisting only of goodness would not create evil. Lastly, Philo makes the claim that God is omniscient and therefore knows of evil’s existence in the world, and therefore should be capable of preventing such evil. As a result of making such claims, Philo concludes that a God who possesses all of these qualities cannot possibly exist due to the obvious existence of evil within the world. In short, Philo claims that if God is so great and good as we believe, why does evil still exist?
I believe that this argument of theodicy fails due to the existence of free will. As we discussed in class, four worlds are capable of existing. Such worlds contain: both evil and free will, neither evil and free will, only evil but no free will, and no evil but free will. In order for free will to exist as it does in our world, evil must also exist in order to create the possibilities of both good and bad for an individual to be capable of fully making one’s own decisions. Therefore the possibilities of the first two worlds, each possessing one quality and lacking the other, are incapable of existing. A world without free will would mean the possibility of a world without evil; however this world would not be ideal due to its multiple restrictions and limits. Therefore God created a world in which free will exists, also requiring the existence of evil. God gave us free will because he cares about humanity and promotes the greater good. Free will guarantees the goodness of people by exposing them to both good and bad and allowing them to make their own decisions. I believe that due to the existence of free will, evil is necessary in order for God to create a world in which individuals have the possibility of choosing both good and bad.
Philo presents the following argument to show that God either does not exist or is not omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent:
ReplyDeletePremise 1: God is omniscient and he knows suffering and evil exist
Premise 2: God is omnibenevolent and wants to end all suffering
Premise 3: God is omnipotent and has the power to end all suffering
Premise 4: Suffering STILL exists everywhere
Conclusion: God does not exist as an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being.
This argument basically says that because evil and suffering exist, God must not have one of the qualities we think him to have, or he doesn't exist at all.
My biggest objection to this argument is that God's omnibenevolence does not require that he end all suffering. For one thing, God may have some higher benevolent purpose. In other words, all suffering may be for the common good. The purpose of this suffering may be "character development," or perhaps God recognizes suffering as necessary to be able to appreciate goodness. Thus, God can exist in all the 3 capacities we believe him to have and suffering can also exist.
Another way this objection may play out is that God may be forced to choose between free will and a world without suffering. (Free cannot exist if suffering does not exist--there is no way to guarantee that people would not choose suffering.) Ultimately, God may have decided that free will serves a greater good for the people than a world without evil ever could. Does this objection undermine God's omnipotence, though? Can an all-powerful God be limited in what kind of world he creates by the incompatibility of free will and no suffering? Shouldn't he be able to make them compatible?
Ultimately, I do not think this argument is successful at proving that God is not omnibenevolent or that he does not exist at all. Only if one's definition of God required him to end all suffering in order to be a God would this argument ring true. Even if we believe God must have all three of these qualities to be a God, this argument does not necessarily disprove these qualities.
Something I have not touched on that I think is pretty important, but also subjective, is that God must have all these qualities. In all the philosophical arguments we have looked it, we have attempted to prove God's existence, but only as a sort of creator. We simply do not know if God has to have all these qualities to be a God... we have never proved it. Leaping from the idea of God as a creator to God as an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent being is very big leap indeed. We can discuss this argument but in the end, I don't think these premises can stand at all since we have not been able to prove that God has omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence.
This question, the so-called “problem of evil” is a serious obstacle that must be overcome in order for Christianity’s key component of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God to exist. The argument goes along the lines of: “If God is omniscient, he knows about all the evil that happens in the world. If he’s omnipotent, he could stop it if he wanted to. And if he’s benevolent, he must want to stop all evil. Therefore, God must fall short in at least one of the three attributes.”
ReplyDeleteWhile this argument is very coherent and makes a strong case, I believe that it enforces too narrow of a restriction on what it means for God to be “benevolent.” Yes, God is aware of all the evil in the world, and yes, he could abolish all evil if he wanted to, but he does not want to, and I don’t believe that this means he is not benevolent. The main principle at stake here is free will, the ability for one to control their own course of action and exert the force they choose upon their surroundings. If God so chose, he could only let humans do good. There would be no conflict, no pain, no suffering in the world, and everyone would coexist perfectly. And we’d all be perfectly programmed robots. But God chose not to create this type of world, because he valued human reason and choice over perfection and complete harmony. And who are we to question whether this was right?
In the first Biblical creation story, God is said to have looked down at all he had made, including man, and say that it was good. Personally, I strongly believe in this fundamental human good. Sure, we all make mistakes and we all slip up, but overall, the good humans do far outweighs the evil. If God were to remove the choice each person has to do evil, then every good deed people do would become meaningless. Precisely what makes a noble, courageous act significant is the fact that had the person not done so, the world would not have been as great a place. If you take away the possibility of the person not doing the action, the action itself loses its meaning.