As many of you know, I have been involved in the study and analisis of the Problem of Evil for about a year. I have been assisted by Dr. Ulatowski (formally of Weber State University) in many of my pursuits. I would first like to give thanks to his patients with my arguments (that many times were wrong) and with my lack of clear thought. Nonetheless, I have finally attepted to provide a solution to -the vexing- Problem of Evil. I dont think that the solution that I have formulated is full -proof, at least not yet. However, I am anticipating that very shortly (with some more studying and work) I can eliminate the Problem of Evil. I know that this is a tall order, but I think it is a worthy pursuit. I will be posting l, some possible arguments that I feel are able to aid us in solving it….However, I will not be posting my specific argument untill I have further refined it, sorry.
The first argument that I would like to examin is the famous “Free will argument.” This argument can be unsrstood as:
1) X is free to perform or refrain from a choice Y.
2) X choses to commit Y
3. Y produces evil (E).
4. Thus, E is the result of X choosing Y and not because of God.
This argument is, however, not sufficient to refute the POE (problem of evil). The problem that is the result of inferring that X has some ability that an omnipotent God cant control is to, 1) limit the power of God. 2) demands and argument that god must have reason, or cannot stop X from doing Y; 3) is able to be proven false by counter example/ reductio. The previous 1-3 is exactly what J.L Mackie did in his work “Evil and Omnipotence.” As, we have discussed, Alvin Plantinga attempts to refute some of Makie’s objections, which I believe he does with great skill. However, there is a problem even with Plantinga’s claims…but before going there, let us list Plantinga’s argument.
1) God cant do the logically impossible
2) God cant actualize a possible world that possesses agents who are capable of moral good without making those agents capable of moral evil.
3) Thus, if God creates agent capable of moral good, then he must create those agents capable of moral evil. (1-2).
—So what follows is that if God allows agents to be able to bring about certain moral goods, then it must be the case that those agents must be able to bring about evils….This conditional rest upon the claim that such agents must be free in order to bring about certain moral good, because it is morally praisworthy to bring about a moral good without being compelled. The problem here is that do we have any reason to accept freedom as something that is NECESSARY. Perhaps, God should have just made agents not free, and thus, he would have not had to allow any evil at all….
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 1, 2008 at 9:18 pm
irishanglican
Wow, tall order…good luck! I remember when I was in my 40’s, and so full of it – mind just a go’in! Theodicy is profound! I am still thinking at 58, but the curve is a but harder..lol.
Again, God’s blessings!
Irish
May 2, 2008 at 10:18 am
john
Thanks Irish for your comment. I know it is a tall order, but nothing worth-while seems to be with out it.
May 2, 2008 at 8:11 pm
ReasonableCitizen
I enjoyed your post and wish you well. First, though , a definition of Evil is in order. What have you come up with?
Second, what is the Problem of Evil? You say “of” Evil and not Problem “with” Evil. Should I assume that your definition of Evil is a ‘natural evil’ in that it exists ‘in and of itself ‘, kind of like air?
After reading “Evil in Modern Thought” by Susan Nieman, I came to the conclusion that Evil does not apply to any natural disaster or random event. Evil is a result of Man’s level of maleficence, malice and morality.
I use these descriptions:
Malice is your intent or plan to harm others with action or inaction.
Maleficence is your use of force to carry out that intent or plan.
Morality is the acceptance/unacceptance of your actions by others and yourself.
If you are interested, I can send you some of my early thoughts on Evil. Reply back by email and I will send them. I was working on a Scale of Evil that would permit an understanding of the magnitude of Evil committed by Man. I took it to a point and then became disinterested. Let me know if you have any interest.
May 2, 2008 at 9:10 pm
irishanglican
“Evil is most emphatically not a mere absence. It is precisely a “presence”: the presence of something dark, irrational and very real…Thus hated is not a simple absence of love; it is the presence of a dark power which can indeed be extremely active, clever and even creative. And it is certainly not a result of ignorance. We may know and hate. The more some men knew Christ, saw His light and goodness, the more they hated Him. This experience of evil as irrational power, as something which truly takes possession of us and directs our acts, has always been the experience of the Church and the experience also of all those who try, be it only a little, to “better” themselves, to oppose “nature” in themselves, to ascend to a more spiritual life.
Our first affirmation then is that there exists a demonic “reality” : evil as a dark power, as presence and not only absence.” ~ Fr. Alexander Schmemmann, Orthodox priest
* I thought you might like this? He has more, he is perhaps you of the best writers, thinkers on this profound subject! Maybe outside your work perhaps? But still very interesting I think. By the way, I am an Anglican rector myself, but both catholic and evangelical. And certain reformed, but more under the Anglican Thirty Nine Articles.
Fr. Robert +++
May 2, 2008 at 9:11 pm
irishanglican
“one of your best..” brain fade
May 3, 2008 at 11:00 pm
john
There, I think, are many different types of evil. The philosophical problem of evil is concerned with both moral and natural evil. My focus here is to address the logical problem of evil. This ‘version’ consist of the conjunction of the following premisies:
1) God is all-good (and all-powerful)
2) Evil exist
This is a big ‘problem’ for the thiest. Evil does exists we can’t easily deny that. We also can’t easly deny that God exists. So, we need to come up with some type of “iron clad” proposition to calm the inconsistency of (1-2).
I don’t know, however, if this will be an easy thing to do because of how bold the athiest are in their positions and ideas of life, Diety, etc…so, for those reason all input is welcomed.
thank you,
john
May 5, 2008 at 3:25 am
ReasonableCitizen
I do not understand your quest.
There is sunshine and there is rain. One obscures the other at times and yet both exist in the world.
To establish a logical argument that God can exist and ‘Satan can exist as a result of God’s existence’ has no value that I can discern. It is like saying that rain can exist because of the sunshine. Ok.
One more thought and I will bow out: when developing your argument, if you use the word ‘God’ to identify a personage , should you not also use the word Satan to describe the other personage rather than the word ‘Evil’? Or do you think Evil is a ‘thing’ like rain and sunshine?
I get confused by the use of ‘God and Evil’ rather than ‘GOOD and EVIL’ or ‘God and Satan’.
May 5, 2008 at 3:45 am
irishanglican
ReasonableCitizen. It is called Theism and he is working on theodicy. In a Christian worldview.
May 5, 2008 at 3:57 am
irishanglican
I think? lol
May 5, 2008 at 8:45 pm
john
Good and Evil are not the subjects of discussion as put. I don’t attempt to argue for why evil and good are compatible. Moreover, I aim to avoid linguistic games. My concern is, as irishanglican has pointed out, is theism. The problem for Christians is that if there is an omni benevolent God that is all-powerful, then there must be some good reason why he would allow evil. If there is no good reason, then why should we assume that God is all-good, all-powerful, or even exists. This problem is the cornerstone of most atheistic claims. So, the focus isn’t on the good/evil dichotomy, but rather, how can the existence of God and of evil be compatible.
May 6, 2008 at 4:18 am
The problem of evil and modality « Praeter Necessitatum
[...] at Weber, has a nice post with some follow-up commentary on the problem of evil and modality (here). His work on the problem of evil has been developing swimmingly well, and I strongly encourage you [...]
May 6, 2008 at 12:06 pm
ReasonableCitizen
I understand what you are saying now. Thanks for the kindness of your reply.
I hope you are successful in your quest.
May 6, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Clark
Can’t we just add the premise that it is good to create free agents?
May 7, 2008 at 1:00 am
irishanglican
We don’t create moral or free agency, but we are created in it, to act from it. It is still part of God’s gift and theism. Thus this is the premise, that we are created BY God, moral and able agents.
May 7, 2008 at 1:04 am
irishanglican
This is not deism.
May 7, 2008 at 8:14 pm
john
Irishanglican,
That is intresting, but doesn’t God actualize certian states of affairs that allow for moral agency?
May 7, 2008 at 8:16 pm
john
Clark,
. I agree with you that we could add such a premise, but that premise will need some supporting. What would you say to support it?
thanks for the comment
May 7, 2008 at 8:32 pm
irishanglican
John,
In a Christian philosophy, God can only “actualize” the human spirit and soul. From the place of His demands and moral law. Each human being is responsible from that place within, alone between God and the person…I/thou! Martin Bubers work here is both philosophical and Judeo-Christian…Personalism.
May 7, 2008 at 8:38 pm
john
I see. That is interesting, and requires some thought. I will ponder that concept some more and see how this could be used in how I am attepting to argue contra the problem of evil.
May 7, 2008 at 8:42 pm
irishanglican
Sorry for me, philosophy is always a handmaiden for any Judeo-Christian truth.
May 7, 2008 at 9:02 pm
irishanglican
Evil, in my Christian presupposition, is always as the Orthodox say, negation. Though it is rebellion and hatred, it cannot stand the “light” of God’s love and moral power. Thus evil is its own error and deviation… and must finally run away and end in negation and final denial!
May 7, 2008 at 9:09 pm
irishanglican
In the end, evil has no real “ontology”.