The problem of evil has been a problem for
philosophy and philosophers from the time that philosophers and philosophies
began to exist. This can be seen in the ancient philosophers and across the
history of philosophy up to present day. Now, the idea of evil falls within the
branch of philosophy commonly referred to as ethics. For centuries now, philosophers
have attempted to obtain at a rational understanding of ethics. Beginning with
Homer, and even earlier, the struggle to rationally comprehend ethics, right
and wrong, good and evil, has been and continues to be obviously elusive, and
in some cases, plainly offensive. The cause for this struggle is really quite
plain. Human morality is an experience so pervasive in human experience that it
demands explanation. Hence, the constructive task of philosophy has an
unquestioned obligation to account for the human experience of morality that is
both, intelligible and intellectually satisfying.
We see in Homer an attempt to wrestle with
good and evil. But Homer places undue stress on the needs of the individual.
For Homer, even the hero has a primary selfish interest in serving the good of
others. It is this primary motivation that moves the hero to action, not
sincere care for those he is responsible to protect. What Homer misses is the
conflict that self-interest of individuals creates with other individuals and
eventually the society as a whole. Such competition is indeed the cause of much
evil and suffering in the world. Surely if we are going to do something with
evil, we must also find a way around self-interest.
The naturalists attempted to solve the human
dilemma by creating laws and comparing them to natural law. Just as natural law
ruled over nature, creating order and harmony, so the laws of the city would do
the same with its citizens, or so it was thought. However, this did not answer
the question as to why any individual should sacrifice his own selfish good for
the good of his neighbor. There seemed to be no positive, intrinsic reason for
why I should be willing to look out for another at my own expense. Inevitably,
the lack of such intrinsic motivation would leave the problem of ethics
unsolved. It is not the purpose of this paper to trace the entire history of
ethics in philosophy. But I do think it worth pointing out that the subject
with which this paper deals is indeed one that has a long and difficult record
over the course of the history of philosophy.
Philosophers are not the only group that has
attempted to define evil. Another group, Christian theologians, has also put
forth a theory of evil. This theory is a bit more interesting since its source
is claimed to be divine revelation. According to Christian theism, God has
revealed to human beings a precise definition of evil and has ensured that we all
may recognize it when we observe and experience it. Scripture informs us in Genesis
3:11 that the beginning of evil in the world is linked to man’s decision to do
exactly what God had commanded that he not do. In other words, it is wicked and
foolish to reject God’s divine command. In that same section of Scripture, the
serpent is cursed, along with man, because both disregarded God’s proscription
due to a fondness for their own respective agendas. This behavior is clearly
characterized in Christian Scripture as wicked and evil. The specific evil that
man engaged in at this event was his decision to eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, even though God had unequivocally expressed that
this particular tree was off limits.
This is considered the first act of evil
committed by man. The word for evil as it appears in the text is rāʿ. The Hebrew word rāʿ appears 299 in the Hebrew Scriptures. The essential meaning of the root can be seen in its
frequent juxtaposition with the root ṭôb.[1]
The Hebrew word tôb is the word
translated good. The word rāʿaʿ often designates experiences that entail
physical pain. However, in terms of moral evil, the verb very often denotes
activity that is contrary to God’s will. And hence, it is this definition of
evil that Christian philosophers and theologians denote when they talk about
evil. Evil, in Christian parlance, is that which is contrary to the nature and
will of God.
Since ethics deals specifically with the
rational understanding of morality in human experience, the existence of evil
poses different challenges for different philosophies. The basic
presuppositions of a particular worldview will determine to a large degree how
evil is defined and accounted for by that system. The issue each system of
thought must grapple with is accounting for morality while at the same time
remaining logically consistent with the other basic presuppositions offered up
by that particular philosophy. The intent of this paper is to discuss the
problems that objective evil presents to Christian theism. In addition, I aim
to show how two of the more common non-Christian arguments, that charge Christian
theism with inherent contradiction between two essential doctrines, or basic
presuppositions, miss their target.
Christian theism makes the bold claim that
God, as God, is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Moreover, God
created the world and all that it contains. In addition, Christian theism
claims that objective moral and, physical evil exists in the world as human
beings experience it. Immediately, the non-Christian thinker asserts that this
set of beliefs contradict one another. How could God, being omniscient,
omnipotent, and morally perfect, create a world that includes evil? This
approach to the problem of evil is what we might call the internal problem of
evil. The approach attempts to expose an internal contradiction within the
Christian system. It is this approach we are most concerned to treat in this
paper.
David Hume put forth what is probably the most
sophisticated philosophical dialogue in English when he penned Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
In this project, Hume alleged that the claim “God exists” and “evil exists” are
logically incompatible. Since we know that evil certainly exists, then it
follows that God does not exist. But is this claim, as Hume alleges, really
logically incompatible? Hume’s argument takes the shape of Epicurus as Philo,
in the Dialogues points out: “Is he
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?[2]
The Christian has an obligation to answer this charge. We are called to destroy
speculations that contradict the teachings of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). Rebellious
men must be silenced (Titus 1:11). The Christian must be able to silence the
ignorance of foolish men (1 Peter 2:15). Hence, the problem of evil and it’s
charge that it serves as a blatant contradiction in the Christian system must
be answered and if it is to be answered effectively, it can only be answered
biblically.
Hume contends that the only way out of this
contradiction is to fall into skepticism regarding the attributes of God.
Specifically, how can we say that God is benevolent in any sense of the word as
we understand it since we would never, as God has, allow for the kind of evil
that God obviously does. In this sense, God is benevolent in a way that is so
remarkably distinct from human benevolence that we cannot even begin to
understand divine benevolence. This move pushes the Christian into the grips of
skepticism and represents a stroke of brilliance on Hume’s part. How is the
Christian to respond? One response could be that the Christian redefine what he
means when he speaks about God. He could surrender divine power and goodness to
human freedom as some philosophers have attempted. This has proven ineffective
to say that least, not to mention that it creates more theological problems
than it solves. The Christian could change the argument and remove the logical
tension altogether. As it stands, the argument is as follows: If God were
omnipotent he would be able to destroy evil. If God were omniscient he would
know how to destroy evil. If God were morally perfect he would destroy evil.
Evil exists. Therefore, there is no God who is at the same time omnipotent,
omniscient, and morally perfect. Christianity is proven false. As one can see,
this argument represents a very serious challenge to the Christian claim about
the existence of God and evil. However, all one must do as a Christian, to
retain evil and validity in the argument is to change the conclusion. If we
insert “Therefore, God must have a morally sufficient reason for the existence
of evil,” we have preserved the Christian claim that God exists and so too does
evil. One must keep in mind that we are solving a logical problem in this
argument. That problem is that Christianity involves a contradiction. If we can
reshape the argument so as to avoid the supposed contradiction, we have
succeeded in refuting the claim that Christianity is contradictory. What then
do we do with Hume’s skepticism? Hume’s method would require complete and
perfect knowledge on the part of any human in order for any one to possess any
genuine knowledge at all. It does not follow that we must be able to attain a
perfect understanding for the existence of evil in the world in order to defend
God’s divine plan to include it without compromising His divine attributes. We
do not need to know the reason for divine action in order to accept the fact
that divine action is what it is and God remains what He has revealed Himself
to be. Revelation serves as the basis for human knowledge rather than
autonomous fallen logic. Scripture serves as our standard for what is true and
what is false rather than autonomous human reason. God is under no obligation
to reveal all His reasons for why His plan is what it is in order for us to
accept it and trust that it is wholly free from any irrational elements.
A softer approach to the problem of evil seeks
to justify rational belief in atheism based on the existence of evil in human
experience. This position asserts that, given the state of affairs as they are,
atheism is a rationally justifiable position. The argument proceeds as follows:
1) There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient
being could have permitted without thereby losing some greater good or
permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 2) An omniscient, wholly good being
would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could
not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil
equally bad or worse. Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent,
omniscient, wholly good being. My response is that (1) seems to me to require
omniscience on the part of the author. Simply put, how does the person making
this assertion really know that (1) is actually true. It seems that such an
assertion would have a seemingly insurmountable task in front of it, if it is
to show that (1) is actually true. Additionally, (2) fails to consider the
possibility that an omniscient, wholly good being could have a morally
sufficient reason for evil. A parent that disciplines their child may have a
morally sufficient reason for the discipline even though the child experiences
pain. Moreover, I may deprive my child of certain privileges for his own good
even though, in his mind, such restrictions are evil on my part. It does not
follow that I have to disclose my reasons to my child in order to avoid the
charge of being immoral. It has been said by proponents of this argument that
there can be no morally sufficient reason for the existence of evil. However,
such a universal negative is much easier to say than it is to prove. In fact,
to show that evil can have no morally sufficient reason one would have to be
omniscient. Hence, this argument also fails to show any logical inconsistency
within the Christian system given our insistence that we define our terms in
Christian parlance. Additionally, it fails to show that atheism has a rational
basis so long as it portends to accept the terms of good, evil, omnipotent, and
omniscience as they are defined within the Christian system. And this is
precisely what must be done with any internal critique. We conclude then that
this argument fails in both respects.
The problem of evil is a logical problem for
the Christian. It is a problem presented to the Christian that asserts that
Christianity involves unavoidable and unsolvable contradiction. As we have
seen, this is only true when we define the terms used to describe God and evil
using non-Christian definitions. When we take the argument at face value, using
Christian terminology, we readily see there is no contradiction at all.
In the end, the atheist thinks he has judged
God and satisfied his own mind by accusing and holding God accountable for the
evil that is present in the world. What he fails to realize is that for all his
work, it is the atheist who will stand at the final judgment and be judged for
the evil he has actually committed while existing in the world.
[1] G.
Herbert Livingston, “2191 רָעַע,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr.,
and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 854.
[2]
Baruch A. Brody, ed., Readings
in the Philosophy of Religion: An Analytic Approach, 2nd ed. (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, ©1992), 270.
No comments:
Post a Comment