The Problem of Evil and Suffering

?
  • Created by: Gaynor
  • Created on: 14-02-18 12:43

Natural Evil

Natural evil is the apparent malfunctioning of the natural world, e.g. diseases and natural disasters.

1 of 14

Moral Evil

Moral evil is the result of human immortality, e.g. genocide, murder and ****.

2 of 14

The Problem of Evil

The monotheistic God of Christianity has the divine qualities of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. However, the existence of evil and suffering in the world provides a challenge to the loving God of classical theism.

3 of 14

Augustine

Augustine recognised this problem:

"Either God is not able to abolish evil or not willing; if he is not able then he is not all-powerful if he is not willing then he is not all-good"

"Where does evil come from them, seeing that God, who is good, has created all these things good?"

4 of 14

The Inconsistent Triad

The problem of evil can be viewed as an inconsistent triad. The three are logically inconsistent. If God is omnipotent, he is aware of the existing evil and suffering and knows how to put a stop to it. If God is omnibenevolent he will want to put a stop to it. Yet evil and suffering do exist.

5 of 14

David Hume

The atheist David Hume argued that there are only three possibilities:

1. God is not omnipotent

2. God is not omnibenevolent

3. Evil does not exist

Since we have sufficient direct evidence to support the existence of evil, if God exists he is either an impotent God or a malicious God; not the God of classical theism. Hume concluded that God, therefore, does not exist

6 of 14

Anthony Flew

Anthony Flew wrote that the biggest challenge to the believer is accepting that the existence of evil and suffering is a major problem that demands an adequate response. The problem faced by monotheists demands a solution, in which the nature of God is arbitrarily changed to suit different circumstances, but by the rational justification of God's right to allow evil and suffering to continue despite his ability to stop it. 

7 of 14

Qualification and Theodicy

Thomas Aquinas argued that God's goodness is infinitely different to human goodness, therefore, it is conceivable that God allows evil and suffering to exist as part of his greater plan of love. Different theodicies have thus developed - logical theories that justify the existence of evil and suffering usually on the basis that they are a necessary condition of God's greater plan.

8 of 14

Augustinian Theodicy (Soul-Deciding Theodicy)

Based on the narratives of Genesis 1-3, Augustine's theodicy argues that God created a perfect world without the existence of evil or suffering. "God saw all that he had made and saw that it was very good" - Genesis 1:31.

Augustine defined evil as the privation of goodness, just as blindness is a privation of sight. Since evil is not an entity in itself, God could not have created it. The existence of evil originates from free will possessed by angels and humans who have turned their back on God and settled for a lesser form of goodness, thus creating a privation of goodness as 'the Fall' in Genesis 3 explains. As a result, the state of perfection was ruined by sin. 

Natural evil - occurred because of the loss of order in nature, the penal consequences of sin.

Moral evil - derived from human free will and disobedience.

All humans are worthy of punishment of evil and suffering because we are "seminally present in the loins of Adam" deserving of punishment for original sin. God has the right to put a stop to evil and suffering since he is God and we are worthy of punishment. It is by his grace and infinite love, however, that we are able to accept his offer of salvation and eternal life in Heaven.

9 of 14

Criticisms of the Augustinian Theodicy

F.D.E Schleiermacher argued that it was a logical contradiction to make the claim that a perfectly created world went wrong since this implies that evil created itself out of nothing. Either the world was not perfect, to begin with, or God made it go wrong. If this is the case then God is to blame not man and the existence of evil is not justified.

If the world was perfect and there was no knowledge of good and evil, how could Adam and Eve have the freedom to disobey God if goodness and evil were not yet known? The disobedience of Adam and Eve and the angels implies that there already was knowledge of good and evil. Augustine's interpretation of the tree of knowledge, therefore, is questionable.

Augustine's view is also inconsistent with the theory of evolution which asserts that the universe began in chaos and is continually developing, not diminishing over time.

Augustine's view that every human is seminally present in the loins of Adam is biologically inaccurate and the question can be raised; is God really justified in allowing punishment of one human being for the sin of another human being?

10 of 14

Irenaen Theodicy (Soul-Making Theodicy)

Irenaeus argued that evil is the consequence of human free will and disobedience. However, unlike Augustine, Irenaeus believed that God was partly responsible for evil and suffering. Irenaeus argued that God created the world imperfectly so that imperfect immature beings could develop through a soul-making process into a child of God, in his perfect likeness. 

Irenaeus states that God could not have created humans in perfect likeness of himself because attaining the likeness of God requires the willing co-operation of humans. God thus had to give humans free will in order for them to be able to willingly co-operate. since freedom requires the ability to choose good over evil, God had to permit evil and suffering to occur.

Natural evil - has the divine purpose to develop qualities such as compassion through the soul-making process.

Moral evil - derived from human free will and disobedience.  

11 of 14

Criticisms of the Irenaen Theodicy

The idea that everyone goes to Heaven is not just, it is inconsistent with Orthodox Christianity and The Fall of Genesis 3. it also demotes Jesus' role from saviour to moral role model.

Is the magnitude of suffering really necessary for soul-making? e.g. the Holocaust.

D.Z. Philips in 'The Concept of Prayer' argued that the continuation of evil and suffering is not a demonstration of love from an omnibenevolent God.

12 of 14

Free-Will Defence

The free-will defence incorporates the notion of free-will underlined in the Augustinian and Irenaen theodicies. The free-will defence is based on the premise that moral evil stems from moral agents, and free agency is a necessary condition for human development. The goodness of free agency outweighs the evil derived from free moral agents.

Supporters of the free-will defence argue that divine intervention would compromise human freedom thus preventing human development. Swinburne used the example of death - death brings about suffering but is necessary to ensure humans take their responsibilities seriously.

13 of 14

Criticisms of the Free-Will Defence

Is the magnitude of suffering really necessary for human development?

Some argue that God could have created free agents without risking bringing evil and suffering into the world.

It would be unacceptable for a human being to argue that they were right in not preventing a crime, even if they were able to, simply because they wanted to preserve the free-will of the criminal.

14 of 14

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Morality resources »