Evil And Suffering Example #2 Essay Example

while it is logically possible that such a God exist, it is not possible that He really does.

The world is full of so much evil. Provided that such a God indeed exist, why then would he allow pain and suffering to continue? There are many philosophers who tried to address the problem of evil. Among them are David Hume, J. L. Mackie, John Hick, William Rowe, and Marily Mccord Adams. David Hume, a prestigious philosopher stated, “"Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil? " (Rood). David Hume on one of his works made use of Philo to portray his own challenge regarding God’s existence.

Philo challenged the existence of God by saying that the world is full of pain and evil and if a powerful and truly malevolent God indeed exist, then He would surely not allow evil to continue its existence. In the Dialogues, he made use of the ancient reasoning regarding the existence of evil which seek to set up a negative conclusion. This argument is said to come from “Epicurus’ old questions” which up to now were still unanswered (Russell). What is at risk in the questions mentioned earlier is the probability of justifying God’s moral traits in the face of evil.

It is evident that should the believers fail to face this challenge, then the case for theism would start to crumble. There are certain ways on which a believer could resolve this problem. First, he could reject the reality of

evil and maintain that the evils we encounter in this world are necessary for mankind. Meaning to say that to remove the evil in this world would result to a greater ill for mankind. This kind of approach could be understood as that there is either no “real” evil in this world or that there are indeed evil in this world but they are necessary ones.

In the end, Hume contends that to say that God exist in one hand and say that evil exists on the other is begging the question since we know very well that evil exist in this world it only follows that God does not exist. Second, even if it could be compatible to say that God and evil exists at the same time, the existence of evil alone offers enough evidence to reject God’s existence. Mackie on “Evil and Omnipotence” gave criticism to the contention that God exists. He did this by asserting that fractions of the vital theological dogmas are not in accordance with each other.

He showed that the disagreement is problematic, and develops into actuality only for believers who believe that God is indeed all-powerful and benevolent. Mackie contend that the heart of the theistic beliefs should be altered so that the belief regarding God’s existence would be sensible. He even went on to argue that a prerequisite of God’s omnipotence should be laid out in order to assign this characteristic to anything. The problem regarding evil is classified by the disagreement of the five theistic beliefs. First, that God is omnipotent.

Second, that God is wholly good. Third, that evil exists. Fourth,

good is in opposition with evil. Fifth, there are no boundaries regarding what an omnipotent being is capable of doing. Mackie first regarded a variety of sufficient explanations, taking into observation that a denial of one of the abovementioned beliefs would end the problem. He went on to discuss deceptive solutions or that which are classified as a contention which discards one of the propositions only to restate it later on in the said argument in order to resolve the problem. : “Good cannot exist without evil” (Mackie) This particular argument advances the rational conviction that if evil is not present in the world it only follows that good would also cease to exist since good and evil complements each other.

Mackie discards this line of reasoning because it entails that God is restricted by logical requirements. He also contended that if one allowed the term good as an ontological standard, then only the slightest amount of evil is needed in order for good to exist which is contrary to the fact that there are more evil in this world than good. : “Evil is necessary as a means to good” (Mackie). This notion in turns opposes the fifth proposition since it entails that God is bound by informal rules. An omnipotent God could exist and could establish good without having the need to depend on the existence of evil. 3: “The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil” (Mackie). This particular argument maintains that 1st order evil, say substantial pain must exist as some kind of a requirement for the 2nd order good,

say compassion.

Mackie countered this notion because should this prove to be true then God would not be a compassionate God. If God is wholly good then He could create goodness without the need for evil. 4: “Evil is due to human freewill” (Mackie). Liberty is categorized as a 3rd order good. Thus, should we commit a wrong choice we could not blame God for it. Mackie, again rejected this idea since he claimed that it is possible for God to grant us freewill while ensuring that His children would always do the right thing or decision.

God’s being unable to ensure this thing entails an inconsistency with the perfect model of omnipotence and being completely good. Mackie then presented the Paradox of Omnipotence which characterizes two orders. The 1st order is the unrestricted power to act and the 2nd order is the unrestricted power to ascertain what power to act things ought to have. Mackie concluded that a truly omnipotent being could not have 1st and 2nd order omnipotence, thus, we could not characterize God as an omnipotent being in every sense of the word.

Moving on to John Hick, he tried to solve the problem of evil by the use of his “theodicy project”. This particular project originated from the fact that a great number of people still believe in God although moral as well as physical evil abounds in this world. This includes the assembly of a model which explains the world as it is presupposing the existence of an ideal God. This theory should be internally consistent with a religious practice (Christianity) and the world people lives in

should be exposed by a scientific investigation as well as the realities of moral as well as natural evil.

Hick does not believe in the Augustinian tradition because this particular tradition emphasizes the image that humans have plummeted from a perfect condition. It also tried to elucidate on the existence of moral and natural evil. This belief entails that in a world where freedom exist humans also holds the choice on whether he should commit a mistake or not. Hick contends that this belief is not possible because of the scientific evidence human beings did not really start out from a perfect condition, rather, humans began from the lowest form of life.

Hick also claimed that there is one other tradition which could be traced on Christian teaching. This tradition originated from the writer Irenaeus. This particular tradition reduces the significance of the genesis story regarding Eden and emphasizes that there are 2 phases of creation. First is that humans progressed with primeval notions on ethics and religion. Second, is that perfection lay not in the past, rather, it lies in the future. Hick also contended that it is necessary that humans be created at an “epistemic distance” from God so that humans could make use of their freewill.

It is necessary so that humans would be able to love God based on his own choice. He also agree with Mackie’s notion that it is possible for God to create humans with a stronger moral nature and not take away humans liberty in the process. However, God did not create humans with a stronger moral nature because of the fact that good

qualities which had been formed within a person by making his own decision is more valuable as compared with those virtues which were given on humans without the need for them to work upon it. Hick contended that real virtues are those which humans got by making the right decisions and avoiding temptations.

Hick proposes that the major trial humans need to conquer is the fight against selfishness. He argued that humans are born in a world were competition is everywhere and the need for survival is great. Hick stated that the core of moral evil is selfishness. He also maintained that humans have the capability of choosing an act which is selfless. A selfless act arises from humans fights against selfishness. Hick asserted that evil is necessary because if evil cease to exist the possibility for moral growth would not be present.

Hick also said that in spite of so many evil and sufferings in this world, humans still have to trust God for later on all humans would enter His kingdom. He also believe that “soul-making” theodicy necessitates that humans believe in the universal salvation of every human beings which would not take place in this material world but would happen in some kind of a transcendental realm (HICK). Evidential arguments from evil, like the one proposed by William Rowe, tries to illustrate that the existence of evil in this world inductively aids the belief that on omnipotent God does not really exist.

William Rowe used the evidential argument to support his claims and by far it is considered as the easiest to understand of all the evidential arguments there

is. In formulating his arguments Rowe believed that it would be best to center on a specific kind of evil that could be find in this world. Thus, Rowe selected “intense human and animal suffering” since this happens everyday, is in immense abundance in this world, and thus an evident case of evil.

Rowe, then went on to lay down his argument as follows: First there are certain cases of extreme pain to be found in this world which an omnipotent or omniscient God could easily stop without the need to lose certain good in the process or without the threat of evil becoming worse than ever. Second, an omniscient God would not permit intense pain or misery to occur unless He could not do so without in that manner losing greater good in the process or allowing certain evil which could be worse than the one avoided. Third, there really is no omnipotent and omniscient God (Trakakis).

Marilyn Mccord Adams arrived at a completely different conclusion while dealing with the problem of evil. According to her, philosophers usually hold the belief that only those things which yield happiness or pleasure should be considered as the goods God should endow humans. Adam stated that in addition to the abovementioned goods there also ought to be symbolic values or those values people have by virtue of those which they represent. She also believes that it is debatable that the best goods and worst evils are symbolic.

She claims that horrendous evils are as worst as they could get mainly because of their ability to humiliate, and humiliation or degradation is a symbolic value.

Adams made use of the honor/shame model. The main tenet in this model is the value of a person which made it a better model for dealing with horrors than the moral obligation model. In this model, Adam stated that there is a duality in honor. First, it came from a person’s own image as well as from the way a person is being perceived by others around him. She also maintained that honor could be divided into two parts.

The first being honor as virtue (excellence) while the second is honor of precedence (power). Shame should also be divided into two parts the first being positive while the second being negative. The positive sense, deals with a person’s sensitivity towards collective norms that enables him to decipher if he has violated a certain norm or not. The negative norm on the other hand, refers to an individual’s losing social status or his stake towards honor. Honor, according to Adams, ought to be upheld by an individual and when it is insulted, a reply is necessary or otherwise the honor would be at risk.

Honor also has a collective element: If a person is honorable it would easily reflect well on the group to which that person belongs, if a person is shameful then it would also bring about dishonor. Adam stated that God is the patron king and thus he has everything, this being so he does not need anything or anyone. However, God still build a relationship with mankind. God being the ultimate honorable person that he is not obligated to feel any sort of responsibility towards human. Humans, on the

other hand owe their allegiance to God.

In dealing with the symbolic evil two major questions ought to be considered. First, Are clients insignificant and second; is the divine patronage not the way we thought it would be? In considering the problem of evil with the use of the honor/shame model one does not utilize it in order to take the appearance of rationally probable honorably adequate basis why God allows symbolic evils in the quantities and of the forms and with the allocation that humans could encounter in the world.

Even though the honor code cast light on God’s rationales, it typically satisfies itself with some limited grounds why and adds it with elucidations of how God may justify Divine and client honor in spite of the evident damage of God’s name and in the face of client’s humiliation and shame. One could see the honor/shame model at work on the following examples. First, is on clientship. This is also known as earthly costs, heavenly rewards wherein any affront to a Christian is equivalent to a reward which is greater than the insult received.

Second, is on insulting clients. Here it was stated that God is a just God and since he is just he could not simply let go of a sin unpunished otherwise He would be viewed as a King who does not abide by the law of his kingdom. It was also stated that mankind could not compensate for the sins they have committed and that is basically the reason God sent an incarnate in order to reinstate his honor and to ensure the salvation of mankind. Adams

strongly believes in the sufficiency of the honor/shame model in order for humans to understand the presence of horrendous evils.

She believes that the model is suited to examine the profundity of what is wrong with horrors specifically its ability to humiliate by indicating that a person is worthless. The honor code is also said to understand the boundaries and foundation of human dignity. The said code, according to Adam, also finds exactly how human horror manifests on God. Honor, in this sense, is also viewed as a currency of those who are powerless and thus this is the only thing which a client could present to their patron. It is also some kind of a good which could be bestowed on an individual even if tangible profits are wanting.

In a sense, it is also a good which could be traded even if tangible needs were already provided for. These are mainly the reasons Adams used in justifying the presence of horrendous evils in this world. The problem of evil as one could see, revolves mostly on the claim of God’s existence in a world where evil is abundant. Seeing things as it is I believe that the issue lies on the claim that God is both omnipotent and all-good. Why then would an all-good and omnipotent being allow evil to exist in this world if there is something he can do about it.

To say that God exist and evil exist at the same time, to me, would lead only to either of the two conclusions. First, that God is not as omnipotent as we believe Him to be and

that no matter how much he wants to stop evil there is nothing he can do about its existence and second that God is not all-good and thus he allows the presence of evil without care to the destruction it wrought on mankind. For me, these are the only two rational conclusions to arrive at if the claim that God and evil exist at the same time is true.

The fact that evil is present in this world could not be challenge since it is ever present in humans daily life. However, the existence of God still continues to be a source of debates from the time of our ancestors up to now. The only rational way out of this dilemma lies on the two conclusions I have stated earlier (that is if people continue to insist that a God really exist in this world) or on humans acceptance that an omnipotent and a benevolent God does not really exist and that he is nothing but a mere fragment of our imagination.

No matter how hard it is we must accept the fact that an omnipotent and benevolent God could not coexist with evil. Humans portray God as someone who is all-knowing, good and merciful. If he indeed knows everything there is to know in this world then it only follows that he also knows that he would create sinners and evil in the process. Therefore, it only makes sense to say that God is responsible for all the crimes there is in this world, he is responsible for the sufferings of all of his people.

One could not convince me that

suffering is good because it takes away some of our sins nor could one convince me that suffering is the result of sins. If God is the one who created everything in this world then it only follows that he is the one who created sins. He could not tell me that he created sins and evils because he wants to test me or whatever because if he says that then it would only follow that he is not really an omnipotent, all-knowing and benevolent God. Why does he need to test me if he already knows what the outcome of my actions would be?

Also, it would only lead me to believe that he only created everything in this world for his own selfish reason – that of enjoyment. It is similar to that of a director who created a play or a movie as some sort of an entertainment. What kind of God would create people only to watch them suffer? Also, what kind of God would put his children in hell (as is the case with Christianity) once his children did something wrong? This series of thinking led me to conclude that whatever kind of God each religion tries to bring right into my face is a false God.