AS Philosophy
Module 2
Philosophy
Of
Religion
Unit 4
The
Problem
Of
Evil
1
The Problem of Evil
History
The problem of evil was first discussed by the Greek philosopher Epicurus (371-270 BC). Since
then, many philosophers and theologians have wrestled with the problem, causing some - such as
the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) - to state that God does not exist (Sartre
actually called the idea that there was actually no God "a colossal joke").
Defences of God's goodness and omniptoence in view of this problem - called Theodicies - also
stretch back to the beginnings of Christianity. St Augustine (354-430) put the problem most
concisely:
"Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot then he is not all-powerful; if
he will not then he is not all good."
Types of Evil
For the purposes of the Philosophy of Religion the word "evil" has a broader definition than that
possessed by human or supernatural agents. So, although Hitler and Satan would undoubtedly be
included in such a discussion, evil also covers so-called "Acts of God" - such as earthquakes,
floods, famines, etc. - as well as other imperfections in the world and it's creatures. There are two
main types of evil:
1. Moral evil - This covers the wilful acts of human beings (such as murder, rape, etc.)
2. Natural evil - This refers to natural disasters (such as famines, floods, etc.)
Of these two types, we may further divide both of them into the following two classes:
1. Physical evil - This means bodily pain or mental anguish (fear, illness, grief, war, etc.)
2. Metaphysical evil - This refers to such things as imperfection and chance (criminals
going unpunished, deformities, etc.)
The problem itself arises because of certain qualities which religious believers grant to God, and
the consequences of these given certain observations about the world.
To illustrate these consider three qualities that most religious believers would not want to deny to
God: absolute goodness (omnibenevolence), absolute power (omnipotence) and absolute
knowledge (omniscience). Now, add to this the observation that there is evil in the world. Setting
aside for the moment the question of how a good God could create a world with evil in it, ask
yourself why such a deity does not do something to help combat such evil. Many theologians and
philosophers over the centuries have asked this question and we will now look at some of the
answers they have given.
Exercise
Try to think of 3 examples of each of the four types of evil.
2
Theodicy
In the book of Job in the Old Testament, Job himself is the victim of numerous misfortunes.
Although there is no apparent reason for any of these events - at least none known to Job - a
number of people seek to give possible explanations (these people are known as "Job's
Comforters"). Such an attempt to account for evil without altering the conception of God is
known as a Theodicy. So, in Job's case, the comforters give various possibilities as to why his
family should die, his animals be stolen and he himself should be afflicted with illness: they ask
if he has angered God by some act or thought; perhaps there is some sin that he is not aware of?
The thing to note about theodicy is that none of the main aspects of the problem change: God is
still all-good, omniscient and omnipotent; evil still seems to exist. The difference is, however,
that some reason is given to explain how all of these things can be true at the same time.
The Irenaen 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.
Irenaeus' view has been put forward in modern times by such philosophers as John Hick (Evil
and the God of Love, 1966) and Richard Swinburne. According to this view the pains and
sufferings of the world are meant by God to act as a means of producing a truly good person.
This view of suffering as a means to good is rejected famously by the Russian novelist Fyodor
Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov. One of the characters, Ivan, rejects this view on the
grounds that the suffering of one child can never be justified in terms of what good results.
Questions
1. Does this argument justify evil?
2. Can we judge any action only on its consequences?
3. Do the means justify the ends? What sort of good might the Holocaust justify? Would it be
worth it?
4. The idea of "soul-making" supposes that an individual may be given enough time to learn.
Where infants die, or children, how can we view their chances against someone who lives,
say, to the age of 80?
5. Does this view imply that some souls are more important than others?
6. Can the justification of soul-making be used when we can't prove if the soul exists or not?
3
The Augustinian Theodicy
St. Augustine proposed a solution to the problem by blaming it on the Fall of humanity after the
disobedience in the Garden of Eden. From this view, Man is responsible for evil by being led
astray by Satan.
This not only absolves God of creating evil but also allows Him to show the world His love by
bringing Christ into the world.
A modern advocate of Augustine's view can be found in Alvin Plantinga (God, Freedom and
Evil, 1974) who claimed that for God to have created a being who could only have performed
good actions would have been logically impossible.
This view was later criticised by Anthony Flew and J.L.Mackie, who both argue that God could
have chosen to create "good robots" who still possessed free-will.
The Free-Will Argument
Perhaps the most common theodicy is the so-called free-will argument - very similiar to
Augustine's argument - which goes something like this:
1. Evil is the result of human error
2. Human error results from free-will (the ability to do wrong)
3. If we didn't have free-will we would be robots
4. God prefers a world of free agents to a world of robots
5. Evil is therefore an unfortunate - although not unavoidable outcome - of free-will
6. For God to intervene would be to go take away our free-will
7. Therefore, God is neither responsible for evil nor guilty of neglect for not intervening
Questions
1. If Satan and his angels led Man astray, how can we account for the fact that Satan himself
exists? Isn't God here responsible for creating an evil being?
2. Are well-behaved robots better than ill-behaved free agents?
3. If God cannot intervene without harming free-will, does this mean that he cannot intervene
at all? Would this then make him not as powerful?
4. What would be the difference between a God who could not intervene and a God who did
not exist?
5. Does the fact that God sends Christ to redeem the world make up for the existence of evil?
Could God have expressed His love any other way?
4
6. Does the fact that evil exists still cause problems for these arguments?
Process Theodicy
Process theology argues that the reality of God is not fixed and that God himself is still
developing. From this point of view, God is "dipolar" - that is, has two "poles", one mental and
one physical. The physical pole is the material world itself, which acts almost as God's "body".
Because of this relationship, God is partly distinct and partly immersed in the world - just as we
are in our bodies. As a result, any suffering in creation is also undergone by God, and creation
itself is seen as a cooperation between God and all other beings. Whether this cooperation
actually takes place is thus up to humanity - in other words, God cannot force humans to do His
will, but can only influence them.
History
Process philosophy is the idea that reality is in a state of change and development. From this
point of view, no opinion of how the world is can always be true.
Although the idea can be traced back to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (lived around 500 BC),
the idea again became popular in the nineteenth century with the advent of the theory of
evolution.
However, the philosophy is now most commonly associated with the English philosopher, Alfred
North Whithead (1861-1947), and his book Process and Reality: an Essay in Cosmology (1929)
is considered one of the most important expositions of process philosophy.
The main application of Whitehead's position was put forward by his pupil, the American
philosopher Charles Hartstone (1897- ), whose main works include The Divine Relativity (1948)
and The Logic of Perfection (1962).
Questions
1. The view that God is part of the world and suffers with it an unconventional view of God
(theologians have argued for centuries that God is unchanging). This being so, would such a
changeable being be God at all?
2. If God is part of the world, why can't he just cause whatever he wants to happen?
3.
If reality is changing, does this mean that we can never really know anything - and therefore
never know God?
5