Katana VentraIP

Problem of evil

The problem of evil is the philosophical question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.[1][2][3] There are currently differing definitions of these concepts. The best known presentation of the problem is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus. It was popularized by David Hume.

Besides the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is also important to the fields of theology and ethics. There are also many discussions of evil and associated problems in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[4][5][6] and evolutionary ethics.[7][8] But as usually understood, the problem of evil is posed in a theological context.[2][3]


Responses to the problem of evil have traditionally been in three types: refutations, defenses, and theodicies.


The problem of evil is generally formulated in two forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. The logical form of the argument tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of a god and evil,[2][9] while the evidential form tries to show that given the evil in the world, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and a wholly good god.[3] The problem of evil has been extended to non-human life forms, to include suffering of non-human animal species from natural evils and human cruelty against them.[10]

Definitions[edit]

Evil[edit]

A broad concept of evil defines it as any and all pain and suffering,[11] yet this definition quickly becomes problematic. Marcus Singer says that a usable definition of evil must be based on the knowledge that: "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil".[12]: 186  According to John Kemp, evil cannot be correctly understood on "a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus".[13][11] The National Institute of Medicine says pain is essential for survival: "Without pain, the world would be an impossibly dangerous place".[14][15]


While many of the arguments against an omni-God are based on the broadest definition of evil, "most contemporary philosophers interested in the nature of evil are primarily concerned with evil in a narrower sense".[16] The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, and is applicable only to moral agents capable of making independent decisions, and their actions; it allows for the existence of some pain and suffering without identifying it as evil.[17]: 322  Christianity is based on "the salvific value of suffering".[18]


Philosopher Eve Garrard suggests that the term evil cannot be used to describe ordinary wrongdoing, because "there is a qualitative and not merely a quantitative difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality".[17]: 321  Calder argues that evil must involve the attempt or desire to inflict significant harm on the victim without moral justification.[11]


Evil takes on different meanings when seen from the perspective of different belief systems, and while evil can be viewed in religious terms, it can also be understood in natural or secular terms, such as social vice, egoism, criminality, and sociopathology.[19] John Kekes writes that an action is evil if "(1) it causes grievous harm to (2) innocent victims, and it is (3) deliberate, (4) malevolently motivated, and (5) morally unjustifiable".[20]

Omni-qualities[edit]

Omniscience is "maximal knowledge".[21] According to Edward Wierenga, a classics scholar and doctor of philosophy and religion at the University of Massachusetts, maximal is not unlimited but limited to "God knowing what is knowable".[22]: 25  This is the most widely accepted view of omniscience among scholars of the twenty-first century, and is what William Hasker calls freewill-theism. Within this view, future events that depend upon choices made by individuals with free will are unknowable until they occur.[23]: 104, 137 [21]: 18–20 


Omnipotence is maximal power to bring about events within the limits of possibility, but again maximal is not unlimited.[24] According to the philosophers Hoffman and Rosenkrantz: "An omnipotent agent is not required to bring about an impossible state of affairs... maximal power has logical and temporal limitations, including the limitation that an omnipotent agent cannot bring about, i.e., cause, another agent's free decision".[24]


Omnibenevolence sees God as all-loving. If God is omnibenevolent, he acts according to what is best, but if there is no best available, God attempts, if possible, to bring about states of affairs that are creatable and are optimal within the limitations of physical reality.[25]

Defenses and theodicies[edit]

Responses to the problem of evil have occasionally been classified as defences or theodicies although authors disagree on the exact definitions.[2][3][26] Generally, a defense refers to attempts to address the logical argument of evil that says "it is logically impossible – not just unlikely – that God exists".[3] A defense does not require a full explanation of evil, and it need not be true, or even probable; it need only be possible, since possibility invalidates the logic of impossibility.[27][9]


A theodicy, on the other hand, is more ambitious, since it attempts to provide a plausible justification – a morally or philosophically sufficient reason – for the existence of evil. This is intended to weaken the evidential argument which uses the reality of evil to argue that the existence of God is unlikely.[3][28]

Secularism[edit]

In philosopher Forrest E. Baird's view, one can have a secular problem of evil whenever humans seek to explain why evil exists and its relationship to the world.[29] He adds that any experience that "calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world" can be seen as evil,[29] therefore, according to Peter L. Berger, humans need explanations of evil "for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces".[30]

That natural evils are the result of the , which corrupted the perfect world created by God.[99] Theologian David Bentley Hart argues that "natural evil is the result of a world that's fallen into death" and says that "in Christian tradition, you don't just accept 'the world as it is'" but "you take 'the world as it is' as a broken, shadowy remnant of what it should have been." Hart's concept of the human fall, however, is an atemporal fall: "Obviously, wherever this departure from the divine happened, or whenever, it didn't happen within terrestrial history," and "this world, as we know it, from the Big Bang up until today, has been the world of death."[100][101][102]

fall of man

That forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Nature produces actions vital to some forms of life and lethal to others. Other life forms cause diseases, but for the disease, hosts provide food, shelter and a place to reproduce which are necessary things for life and are not by their nature evil.[104]: 170 

[103]

That natural evils are the result of [105] Williams points out that all the natural laws are necessary for life, and even death and natural disaster are necessary aspects of a developing universe.[note 2]

natural laws

That natural evils provide humanity with a knowledge of evil which makes their free choices more significant than they would otherwise be, and so their free will more valuable or

[106]

That natural evils are a mechanism of divine punishment for moral evils that humans have committed, and so the natural evil is justified.

[107]

Evil and the Demonic: Mitchell writes that, given the belief in supernatural powers among all three monotheistic faiths, what do these beliefs have to do with evil?

The Politics of Theodicy: Does explaining the causes of evil and suffering serve as a justification for oppression by the powerful or the liberation of the powerless? : 59 

[30]

Horrific Evil: The Holocaust, child abuse and rape, extreme schizophrenia, torture, mass genocide, etc. Should one even speak of justification before such atrocities? What hope of restoration and healing can be given to survivors?

The Judgment of God: Many theodical discussions focus on "innocent" suffering and experiences of profound evil, while ignoring wrongs common to individuals, ideas, belief systems, and social structures. Can evil be understood as God's judgment upon sin and evil?

The Hiddenness of God: The divine hiddenness of God (deus absconditus) is sometimes considered a subset of theodicy. Why does God often seem not to openly, visibly respond to evil (or good) in an indisputable way?

Metaphysical Evil: What exactly is evil? What is its origin and essence?

[29]

and Robert M. Adams, eds. The Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. The standard anthology in English. Contains classic papers by recent philosophers of religion in the analytic tradition. Deals with both the logical problem and the evidential problem.

Adams, Marilyn McCord

Adams, Marilyn McCord. "Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God." Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999.

Adams, Robert M. "Must God Create the Best?" in "The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology". New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Adams, Robert M. "Existence, Self-Interest and the Problem of Evil" in "The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology". New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

. On Evil (De Malo), trans. Regan; ed. Brian Davies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.

Aquinas, Thomas

Beebe, James R. (2006). . In Fieser, James; Bradley, Dowden (eds.). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"The Logical Problem of Evil"

(2003). Is God to Blame?. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-2394-9.

Boyd, Gregory A.

(1908). "The Economic Basis of the Problem of Evil," Harvard Theological Review, 1(1), pp. 97111.

Carver, Thomas N.

. The Brothers Karamazov, 1881. Chapters "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor"

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor

Howard-Snyder, Daniel, ed. The Evidential Problem of Evil. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indian University Press, 1996. Probably the best collection of essays in English on the evidential argument from evil. Includes most of the major players on the topic.

(1982). The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-06-063902-0.

Mackie, J. L.

. Dialogues on Natural Religion (Parts X and XI), ed. Richard Pokin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1980.

Hume, David

. (1710). Theodicy.

Leibniz, Gottfried

Leibniz, Gottfried. (1765). "A Vindication of God's Justice...", ("Causa Dei") trans. Paul Schrecker and Anne Martin Schrecker. New York: MacMillan, 1965.

Murray, Michael (1998). . In Zalta, Edward N (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"Leibniz on the Problem of Evil"

. Theodicy in Islamic Thought (Princeton University Press, 1984)

Ormsby, Eric

(2000). "Faith in the Face of Evil (Appendix VI)". Kant's Critical Religion. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-1333-6.

Palmquist, Stephen

(1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bibcode:1974nane.book.....P. ISBN 978-0-19-824414-1.

Plantinga, Alvin

Plantinga, Alvin (1977). . Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-1731-0.

God, Freedom, and Evil

(1990). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" in The Problem of Evil, ed. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert M. Adams. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rowe, William L.

. The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza and the Fate of God in the Modern World. W.W. Norton, 2005.

Stewart, Matthew

(1992). Gottes Güte und die Übel der Welt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 978-3-16-145889-7.

Streminger, Gerhard

(1997). The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824070-9.

Swinburne, Richard

(2002). "The Problem of Evil". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Tooley, Michael

(2006). "Evidential Problem of Evil". In Fieser, James; Bradley, Dowden (eds.). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Trakakis, Nick

. (2006). The Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Inwagen, Peter

Wilson, William McF.; Hartt, Julian N. (2004). "Farrer's Theodicy". In Hein, David; Henderson, Edward (eds.). Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology of Austin Farrer. New York: T & T Clark International. pp. 100–18.  978-0-567-02510-4.

ISBN

Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D. (2006), , Infobase, ISBN 9780816075645

Encyclopedia of Hinduism

Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (1962). . Motilal Banarsidass (2014 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120800687.

Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya

Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (2000). A History of the Dvaita School of Vedānta and Its Literature, 3rd Edition. Motilal Banarsidass (2008 Reprint).  978-8120815759.

ISBN

Sharma, Chandradhar (1994). A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass.  978-81-208-0365-7.

ISBN

Sarma, Deepak (2000). . Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies. 13. doi:10.7825/2164-6279.1228.

"Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations"

Sarma, Deepak (2005). Epistemologies and the Limitations of Philosophical Enquiry: Doctrine in Madhva Vedanta. Routledge.

. (1759) Candide. Many editions. Voltaire's caustic response to Leibniz' doctrine that this is the best possible world.

Voltaire

Tattersall, Nicholas (1998). . Secular Web Library. Internet Infidels. Retrieved 12 April 2007.

"The Evidential Argument from Evil"

Project Gutenburg: Leibniz, Theodicy (English translation)

Appendix VI of Kant's Critical Religion, by Stephen Palmquist.

Faith in the Face of Evil