Jump to content

Problem of evil: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SmackBot (talk | contribs)
3,734,324 edits
m Date maintenance tags and general fixes
Ht686rg90 (talk | contribs)
1,198 edits
expanded, more correct
Line 3: Line 3:


{{ethics}}
{{ethics}}
In the [[philosophy of religion]] and [[theology]], the '''problem of evil''' is the question of why [[evil]] and [[suffering]] exist in the world. The question particularly arises in religions that propose the existence of a deity who is [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]] while simultaneously also being [[omnipotent]], and [[omniscient]]<ref name="Stanford">The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil| The Problem of Evil]", Michael Tooley</ref><ref name="IepEvidential">The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-evi.htm | The Evidential Problem of Evil]", Nick Trakakis </ref>; attempts to resolve the question under these contexts has historically been one{{Fact|date=May 2009}} of the prime concerns of [[theodicy]]. The problem is also relevant to [[polytheistic]] traditions involving many [[deity|gods]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ancient Babylonia—Wisdom Literature |url=http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaWisdom_Literature.htm |work=Bible History Online |accessdate=2007-04-19}}</ref>, and arises in other philosophical fields, such as [[secular ethics]]<ref>Nicholas J. Rengger, ''Moral Evil and International Relations'', in ''[[SAIS Review]]'' 25:1, Winter/Spring 2005, pages 3-16</ref><ref>Peter Kivy, ''Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud'', in ''[[The Monist]]'' (1980), 63</ref><ref>John Kekes, ''Facing Evil'', 1993</ref>, and scientific disciplines such as [[evolutionary ethics]]<ref>Timothy Anders, ''The Evolution of Evil'' (2000)</ref><ref>Duntley, J.D., & [[David Buss|Buss, D.M.]], ''The evolution of evil'', in ''The social psychology of good and evil'' (2004). New York: Guilford. 102-123. [http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/The%20evolution%20of%20evil.pdf Full text]</ref>.
In the [[philosophy of religion]] and [[theology]], the '''problem of evil''' is the question of why [[evil]] and [[suffering]] exist in the world. The question particularly arises in religions that propose the existence of a deity who is [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]] while simultaneously also being [[omnipotent]], and [[omniscient]]<ref name="Stanford">The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil| The Problem of Evil]", Michael Tooley</ref><ref name="IepEvidential">The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-evi.htm | The Evidential Problem of Evil]", Nick Trakakis </ref>; attempts to resolve the question under these contexts has historically been one{{Fact|date=May 2009}} of the prime concerns of [[theodicy]]. The problem is also relevant to certain [[polytheistic]] traditions involving many [[deity|gods]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ancient Babylonia—Wisdom Literature |url=http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaWisdom_Literature.htm |work=Bible History Online |accessdate=2007-04-19}}</ref>
There are also many discussions of "evil" and assoicated problems in other philosophical fields, such as [[secular ethics]]<ref>Nicholas J. Rengger, ''Moral Evil and International Relations'', in ''[[SAIS Review]]'' 25:1, Winter/Spring 2005, pages 3-16</ref><ref>Peter Kivy, ''Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud'', in ''[[The Monist]]'' (1980), 63</ref><ref>John Kekes, ''Facing Evil'', 1993</ref>, and scientific disciplines such as [[evolutionary ethics]]<ref>Timothy Anders, ''The Evolution of Evil'' (2000)</ref><ref>Duntley, J.D., & [[David Buss|Buss, D.M.]], ''The evolution of evil'', in ''The social psychology of good and evil'' (2004). New York: Guilford. 102-123. [http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/The%20evolution%20of%20evil.pdf Full text]</ref>.

But as usually understood the phrase the "problem of evil" refers to a religious context.<ref name="Stanford"><ref name="IepEvidential">


==Defining "evil"==
==Defining "evil"==

Revision as of 23:57, 5 May 2009

Template:Need-Consensus

In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the question of why evil and suffering exist in the world. The question particularly arises in religions that propose the existence of a deity who is omnibenevolent while simultaneously also being omnipotent, and omniscient[1][2]; attempts to resolve the question under these contexts has historically been one[citation needed] of the prime concerns of theodicy. The problem is also relevant to certain polytheistic traditions involving many gods[3]

There are also many discussions of "evil" and assoicated problems in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics[4][5][6], and scientific disciplines such as evolutionary ethics[7][8].

But as usually understood the phrase the "problem of evil" refers to a religious context.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). There are similar ideas in Neoplatonism and Jewish Kabbalah (see Tzimtzum) which see the world as consisting of several layers. Each layer is increasingly more removed from God and less perfect. The mathematical logician and member of the Baha'i Faith William Hatcher has made a similar argument using relational logic.[9]

A less well known approach has been that of the mathematical logician William Hatcher (a member of the Baha'i Faith), who uses relational logic to show that very simple models of moral value cannot be consistent with the premise of evil as an absolute, whereas goodness as an absolute is entirely consistent with the other postulates concerning moral value[10]. In Hatcher's view one can only validly talk about an act A being "less good" than an act B, one cannot logically commit to saying that A is absolutely evil, unless one is prepared to abandon other more reasonable principles.

As an opposition necessary by definition

The related concept of Yin and Yang (known as "Taiji") is used in Eastern thought to illustrate complementary opposing forces as an unchangeable and necessary law of nature. Such forces always exist and are opposite yet inseparable from each other by their very nature, because they can only be defined in terms of their opposite. In this dualism opposites are generally referred to as on opposite sides of an emptiness; thus, evil is an opposing force to good with a neutral equilibrium.

In addition, yin and yang are not only traditionally depicted as complementary, but comingling and incorporating the other. No force or object is perfectly yin or yang; the darkest night fills the sky with stars, while the brightest day creates that much more difference in the shade of a tree. Similarly, no action or person is perfectly good or evil; there is always some good inherent in evil, and some evil inherent in good.

A criticism of this thinking is that such dualism requires all opposites to be describable in an infinite spectrum[citation needed], with "zero" as an equilibrium point between opposing forces that can have infinite effect. In physics light and heat are usually described quantitatively, with darkness and cold being their absence as is argued in Contrast Theodicy. They have no positive limit, but do have a finite negative absolute. Thus, many physical concepts used as metaphors for good and evil and described as similar according to Taiji in fact have no negative, only a complete absence. The counter is generally a difference in the definition of a "force" in terms of affecting change[citation needed]. Good as a metaphysical force acts in a constructive manner, while evil acts destructively. Both affect change in society towards order or chaos. In creating opposite effects, they are defined as opposing forces[citation needed].

Ambiguous meaning

Another response to this paradox argues that asserting "evil exists" would imply an ethical standard against which to define good and evil. This argument is used in the Argument from morality for the existence of God.

Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of the Christian Science movement) regarded evil as an illusion. Consequently, she and her followers claim to have no philosophical problem with the concept of an almighty and wholly good deity. In regard to the question as to what caused or causes the illusion of evil, Christian Science responds that the question is meaningless, and furthermore that enquiring into the origin of the illusion of evil tends to reinforce it, since such an enquiry would strengthen the belief that evil is real. Mary Baker Eddy writes: "The notion that both evil and good are real is a delusion of material sense, which Science annihilates. Evil is nothing, no thing, mind, nor power."[11]

Theological resolutions

Main article: Theodicy § Resolution of the problem of evil

Theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/, from Greek θεός (theós, "god") and δίκη (díkē, "justice")), is the justification of the actions of one or more god(s)[12][13][14]. In the particular case of religions that believe in an omnibenevolent and omnipotent deity, one of the prime concerns of Theodicy is to rectify this belief with the existence of evil[2]. Several early arguments involved demons or a fall of man, but due to the subsequent increase in knowledge about the world, these are not now seen as very plausible.

An oral tradition exists in Judaism that God determined the time of the Messiah's coming by erecting a great set of scales. On one side, God placed the captive Messiah with the souls of dead laymen. On the other side, God placed sorrow, tears, and the souls of righteous martyrs. God then declared that the Messiah would appear on earth when the scale was balanced. According to this tradition, then, evil is necessary in the bringing of the world's redemption, as sufferings reside on the scale[citation needed]. This is a particularly significant part of Holocaust theology

Gnosticism refers to several beliefs seeing evil as due to the world being created by an imperfect god, the demiurge and is contrasted with a superior entity. However, this by itself does not answer the problem of evil if the superior entity is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Different gnostic beliefs may give varying answers, like Manichaeism, which adopts dualism, in opposition to the doctrine of omnipotence.

The consequences of the original sin were debated by Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo. Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint all of humanity and that mortal free will is capable of choosing good or evil without divine aid. Augustine's position, and ultimately that of much of Christianity, was that Adam and Eve had the power to change nature by bringing sin into the world, but that the advent of sin then limited mankind's power thereafter to evade the consequences without divine aid.[15] Eastern Orthodox theology holds that one inherits the nature of sinfulness but not Adam and Eve's guilt for their sin which resulted in the fall.[16]

Contemporary Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft provides several answers to the problem of evil and suffering, including that a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods, b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin, c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil, d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans 5, e) Suffering can bring people closer to God, and f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need.[17]

Secular ethics

Main article: Secular ethics

In ancient Egypt, Egyptian gods were thought of as being far removed from ordinary life, meaning that studies of the problem of evil took a secular form, focusing heavily on the relation between evil and people; that is, moral evil. It was thought the problem could be formulated in at least two distinct ways, as in the extant manuscripts of Dialogue of a Man with His Ba and The Eloquent Peasant.

The modern secular view of the problem of evil is an approach that completely excludes religious answers, viewing them as irrelevant[18]; humanists, for example, argues that moral values derive entirely from humanity. Typically, one of three main answers are given to the problem:

  • that there are people who freely and rationally choose to commit pure evil, for its own sake[19]
  • that there are people who freely and rationally choose to commit evil for some other goal[20]
  • that evil as a concept is a human invention, that doesn't really exist[21]

Buddhism

In Buddhism, the "problem of evil" is strictly non-theistic as Buddhism generally rejects the notion of a benevolent, omnipotent creator god, identifying such a notion as attachment to a false concept. For instance, in the Bhūridatta Jātaka the Bodhisattva sings:

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail![22]

David Hume

David Hume's formulation of the problem of evil in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:

"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?"[23]

"[Gods] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"

Gottfried Leibniz

Gottfried Leibniz

In his Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, the sceptic Pierre Bayle denied the goodness and omnipotence of God on account of the sufferings experienced in this earthly life. Gottfried Leibniz introduced the term theodicy in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal ("Theodicic Essays on the Benevolence of God, the Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil") which was directed mainly against Bayle. He argued that this is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created.

Imitating the example of Leibniz, other philosophers also called their treatises on the problem of evil theodicies. Voltaire's popular novel Candide mocked Leibnizian optimism through the fictional tale of a naive youth.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant argued for sceptical theism. He claimed there is a reason all possible theodicies must fail: evil is a personal challenge to every human being and can be overcome only by faith.[24] He wrote

We can understand the necessary limits of our reflections on the subjects which are beyond our reach. This can easily be demonstrated and will put an end once and for all to the trial.[25]

Victor Cousin

Victor Cousin argued for a form of eclecticism to organize and develop philosophical thought. He believed that the Christian idea of God was very similar to the Platonic concept of "the Good," in that God represented the principle behind all other principles. Like the ideal of Good, Cousin also believed the ideal of Truth and of Beauty were analogous to the position of God, in that they were principles of principles. Using this way of framing the issue, Cousin stridently argued that different competing philosophical ideologies all had some claim on truth, as they all had arisen in defense of some truth. He however argued that there was a theodicy which united them, and that one should be free in quoting competing and sometimes contradictory ideologies in order to gain a greater understanding of truth through their reconciliation.[26]

Evolution of evil

Main article: Evolutionary ethics

In 1986, Michael Ruse summarized the role of evolution as the source of ethical feelings:

Our moral sense, our altruistic nature, is an adaptation—a feature helping us in the struggle for existence and reproduction—no less than hands and eyes, teeth and feet. It is a cost-effective way of getting us to cooperate, which avoids both the pitfalls of blind action and the expense of a superbrain of pure rationality.[27][failed verification]

In applying science to metaethics, Ruse writes:

In a sense … the evolutionist's case is that ethics is a collective illusion of the human race, fashioned and maintained by natural selection in order to promote individual reproduction. … ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position.[28][failed verification]

If ethics is just an illusion, that logically leads to amoralism.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", Michael Tooley
  2. ^ a b The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "| The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  3. ^ "Ancient Babylonia—Wisdom Literature". Bible History Online. Retrieved 2007-04-19.
  4. ^ Nicholas J. Rengger, Moral Evil and International Relations, in SAIS Review 25:1, Winter/Spring 2005, pages 3-16
  5. ^ Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63
  6. ^ John Kekes, Facing Evil, 1993
  7. ^ Timothy Anders, The Evolution of Evil (2000)
  8. ^ Duntley, J.D., & Buss, D.M., The evolution of evil, in The social psychology of good and evil (2004). New York: Guilford. 102-123. Full text
  9. ^ Computers, Logic and a Middle Way
  10. ^ William Hatcher, Computers, Logic and a Middle Way
  11. ^ Eddy, Mary Baker, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, 1971, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, p. 330.
  12. ^ Concise English Dictionary, entry on Theodicy
  13. ^ Brooks Otis, Ovid as an epic poet (1970), page 132
  14. ^ John Alvis, Divine purpose and heroic response in Homer and Virgil, page 176
  15. ^ | Catholic Encyclopedia:Pelagius and Pelagianism
  16. ^ Orthodox Theology, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Part II "God Manifest in the World" [1]
  17. ^ Strobel, Lee (2000). The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. pp. 25–56. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  18. ^ John Kekes, Facing Evil, 1993
  19. ^ Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63
  20. ^ Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63
  21. ^ Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63
  22. ^ Ja, Book XXII, No. 543, vv. 208-209, trans. Gunasekara, V. A. (1993; 2nd ed. 1997). The Buddhist Attitude to God. Retrieved 22 Dec 2008 from "BuddhaNet" at http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha068.htm. For an alternate translation, see E. B. Cowell (ed.) (1895, 2000), The Jataka or Stories of the Buddha's Former Births (6 vols.), p. 110, retrieved 22 Dec 2008 from "Google Books" at http://books.google.com/books?id=BADEnh5f4jkC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22Bh%C5%ABridatta+Jataka%22&source=web&ots=-0KMXfCd6o&sig=JY5_oGXrabzqmuvXwW0VKpvRlvs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA110,M1. In this Jataka tale, as in much of Buddhist literature, "God" refers to the Vedic/Hindu Brahma.
  23. ^ Hume, David. "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". Project Gutenberg. Retrieved 2008-08-15.
  24. ^ See Kant's essay, "Concerning the Possibility of a Theodicy and the Failure of All Previous Philosophical Attempts in the Field" (1791). Stephen Palmquist explains why Kant refuses to solve the problem of evil in "Faith in the Face of Evil", Appendix VI of Kant's Critical Religion (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000).
  25. ^ As quoted in Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible?
  26. ^ Cousin, Victor (1856). The True, the Beautiful, and the Good. D, Appleton & Co. pp. 75–101. ISBN 9781425543303.
  27. ^ Ruse 1986, p. 230
  28. ^ Ruse 1986, p. 235

References

Encyclopedias

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Problem_of_evil&oldid=288163338"