Discussion:
Ø
God
allows the innocent to suffer (such as on September 11, 2001). He is not love.
Ø
God
creates sin. He is either not just or not perfect.
Ø
God
is not almighty because he could not stop sin and allowed sin to exist.
Ø
The
existence of evil and suffering proves that God is either not omnipotent or not
loving.
§
The
problem of evil and suffering is the most difficult question for Christianity
to answer.
A. Two kinds of evil: [1] abstract
evil – spiritual evil of sins such as pride, jealousy, and hatred, evil that we
actively commit, and [2] tangible evil – physical evil of pain and suffering,
evil that we passively suffer.
B. Because abstract evil (sin)
brought tangible evil (suffering), the former is the greater evil. Sin was
originated from the Fall of the devil, followed by the Fall of man in Eden.
●
The
choice of sin introduced death into the world (1Co 15:22), and man’s
relationship with God was changed for all time.
●
In
the Genesis account and throughout Scripture we see that the natural order of
the world changed as a consequence of man’s sin.
●
Ro
8:20-23 says that “creation was subjected to frustration” and that it is
“groaning” as it waits to be “liberated from its bondage to decay” through the
redemption of mankind. This seems to indicate that the Fall brought not only
the prevalence of moral evil — those evils that are direct results of selfish
human choices — but also the existence of natural evil — evils like diseases,
earthquakes and accidents.
C. It is important that all
Christians understand the problem of evil because:
(1) Apologetics: Christianity can
provide satisfactory answers to all questions of life, except one, the problem
of evil. This is exactly why atheists try to use this problem to argue against
the existence of God. Therefore, Christians must understand the problem and can
then respond to questions from non-believers.
(2) Evangelism: Evil is universal.
Everyone wonders why bad things happen to good people. Sometimes, it becomes
the main obstacle for people to accept the gospel. Christians need to know how
to help non-believers overcome this obstacle.
(3) Counselling: Evil is intensely
practical. Everyone experiences various kinds of pain and suffering. Suffering
is a disagreeable state of consciousness, including physical pain like sickness and injuries, emotional (psychological) pain like fear and anxiety, spiritual pain like doubt and despair.
Many feel helpless and angry about the existence of abstract evil in the world,
like cruelty, jealousy. Out of despair, a suffering person may turn to blame
God. Christians need to know how to answer the questions about evil in order to
help those who suffer.
D. How is the problem of evil used to argue against God?
► It is used to prove that there is no omnipotent loving God.
(1) Main Argument: The Bible teaches that God is perfectly loving (Ps 145:9,13; Jn 3:16) and is all powerful (Gen 35:11; Job 11:7; Rev 1:8). But the existence of both an omnipotent loving God and evil appears contradictory. The argument:
● If there is a perfectly loving God, He would want to eliminate evil.
● If there is an all powerful God, He has the power to eliminate evil completely.
● But evil exists in the world today, so there are apparently only 3 possibilities: [1] God is not perfectly loving, or [2] God is not all powerful, or [3] there is no God.
◦ Ps 145:9,13 The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made…. The Lord is faithful in all his words and kind in all his works.
◦ Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
◦ Gen 35:11 [God calls Himself Almighty] And God said to him, “I am God Almighty.”
◦ Job 11:7 [God is called Almighty] Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?
◦ Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
(2) 3 types of attacks on God:
(a) God is not perfectly loving. (Sadism)
● Argument: God is EITHER sadistic, acting as the supreme enemy of man [in Albert Camus (1947): The plague] OR does not care about the problems and tragedies of man [in Thomas Carlyle (1834): Sartor Resartus].
(b) God is not all powerful. (Finitism)
● Argument: God’s power is finite and limited, and He has insufficient power to defeat evil [in Harold Kushner (1981): When bad things happen to good people]. Or perhaps, God did not foresee evil when He created the world.
(c) There is no God. (Atheism)
● Argument: An all-powerful God could destroy evil, and would not allow innocent suffering. An all-loving God would destroy evil, and prevent innocent suffering. But evil is not destroyed, and there are innocent suffering in the world. Hence, there is not an all-powerful, all-loving God.
§ God created everything in the universe. But evil is not created because it is not a concrete thing. This question involves the metaphysical dimension of evil.
A. Evil is a condition but not a positive reality. It lacks any substance, thus it does not require the causal activity of God.
► Evil is not a thing or a substance that needs creation. Augustine describes it as a privation of goodness.
► “Privation” means a lack of something or an absence of something that should be there. For example, sickness can be considered a privation or lack of good health. Blindness is a lack of sight. Another good example is a hole in a piece of wood. It is a quality but not a thing.
B. Evil is not created by God
but is permitted by God. Then the next question is: why does God permit evil to exist? Theodicy is
the rational defence of the justice of God in view of the presence of evil.
Since God is all knowing (Isa 46:10), He knew evil will exist even before He
created the world. There are 3 explanations to why God permits evil.
◦
Isa
46:10 (God) declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things
not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my
purpose.’
► Evil comes out of human free choice;
free choice is a precondition for love.
C. Explanation 1: Evil is the
product of human free choice (by Augustine).
► God gave the world the power of free
choice. But with that freedom comes the capability of choosing wrongly and
actualizing (causing the existence of) evil. Man used this freedom to sin so
that evil came into the world.
► A perfectly loving God created the
world because of love. God does not need love, but if He is love, it is
understandable that He would want to love and to be loved. He would give love
by sharing His glory and goodness, and receive love by being worshipped by His
creation.
► Why didn’t God create a world that
has no free choice? He could not. Otherwise, human beings will become robots.
There is and can be no love without freedom. No one can be coerced into loving
another. Love includes the provision of a choice. Either love exists freely or
it does not exist at all. True freedom includes the possibility of choosing
wrongly.
► Evil is the corruption that arises
when created man turns away from the infinite good of the Creator to the lesser
good of the creatures, that is, the creature considers its own finite good more
important than the good offered by the Creator. Pride is the beginning of all
sin, the ultimate source of privation.
► God would desire to destroy evil and
He has the power to do so. But it would be impossible to destroy or annihilate
evil without also doing away with the moral universe and free choice.
D. Explanation 2: Temporary evil is
permitted for the goal of eternal good (by Aquinas).
► Greatest way theodicy of Aquinas:
temporary evil for eternal good. God permits evil because this evil world is
the best possible way to the best possible world. God deliberately permits evil
to exist in this world in order to produce the best end result.
► Evil is temporary; both sin and
suffering will eventually be eradicated. Innocent suffering that has not
apparent justification in the present may still be ultimately justified. Even
God Himself suffered for the ultimate good.
► Augustine says: “God can bring good
even out of evil.” (Isa 55:9)
◦
Isa
55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
E. Explanation 3: Evil is the
precondition for greater good.
► The existence of good depends on the
existence of evil. For example, a healthy body requires often painful exercise.
Patience cannot be produced without tribulation, nor mercy without tragedy.
Courage is possible only where fear is a reality. (Jas 1:2-3)
► Jas 1:2-3 Count it all joy, my
brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing
of your faith produces steadfastness.”
► Analogy in aesthetics: Contrasts
heighten beauty, for example, dissonant chords in a musical work make
subsequent harmonious chords sound sweeter. We would not have noticed the
goodness of God without the contrast of evil. For example, the concepts of
great and small are relative. If there is no small thing, then all large things
will not be regarded as large.
► However, this should only be used as
a supplementary reason because of circular reasoning. Just like Hegel’s thesis
and antithesis, where will it end?
○
first-order
good (1) of pleasure and happiness
○
first-order
evil (1x) of pain and disease
○
second-order
good (2) of benevolence and sympathy
○
second-order
evil (2x) of malevolence and cruelty
○
third-order
good (3) of human freedom.
F. Why couldn’t God create a world that has no evil?
► No, otherwise there will be not be a moral world. This question involves the moral dimension of evil.
► A moral world is one that distinguishes right from wrong. Without free choice to commit wrong, there is no moral world. The word “moral” relates to the exercise of self will.
► In creation, God had 4 alternatives:
(1) God could have chosen not to create any world at all. [No World]
(2) God could have chosen to make a world without free creatures in it. [Amoral World]
(3) God could have brought about a world where creatures were free but would never sin. [Morally Innocent World]
(4) God could have created a world where men are free and can sin. [Morally Fallen World]
► Love as the objective:
● God did not choose alternative (1) because as a God of love, He created the world to share His love.
● God did not choose alternatives (2) because an amoral world includes no free choice and no free choice means no love.
● God did not choose alternatives (3) because in a morally innocent world, the creatures are not allowed to choose evil. It is coercive love but love must be persuasive, not coercive. Forced love is not really love.
● Freedom is an absolute essential to a truly moral universe. Love cannot be programmed. Love is personal and subjective. No amount of impersonal and objective programming can produce a true loving response.
► God chose alternative (4), a morally fallen world because:
● It is a greater good to at least have the opportunity to achieve the highest virtues and pleasures even though those virtues are not always attained by everyone. (“maximum possible opportunities for ultimate satisfaction”)
● This world is the one where the greatest number of persons are given the maximal eternal joy and where the freedom of all creatures is respected.
§ Man is the cause of most sufferings. This question involves the physical dimension of evil.
A. Most sufferings are caused by man:
(1) directly from our own free choices, e.g. abuse of one’s body such as smoking
(2) indirectly from the exercise of our freedom, e.g. poverty from laziness
(3) directly from the free choices of others, e.g. child abuse
(4) indirectly from the free choices of others., e.g. improper prenatal care
(5) a necessary by-product of other good activities, e.g. accident in physical exercise, flood caused by rain
B. Some sufferings are caused by evil spirits:
(6) malevolence done by evil spirits, e.g. Job’s sufferings, possession by evil spirits (Mt 17:14-15,18)
◦ Mt 17:14-15,18 And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him and, kneeling before him, said, “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly. For often he falls into the fire, and often into the water.”… And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly.
C. Some sufferings are brought by God for beneficial purposes:
(7) God-given warnings of greater physical evils, e.g. toothaches, chest pains
(8) God’s warning about moral evils; alerting men to danger, thereby promoting the avoidance of moral evil (such as the catastrophes in OT Prophets)
D. Some are natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, plagues):
(9) natural occurrences after the original perfect world order was destroyed and the environment was corrupted as a result of sin; may not be initiated by God
E. Why doesn’t God use His power to prevent sufferings?
► God does not miraculously intervene and prevent all physical evil from occurring because:
(1) Continual divine interference would disrupt the regularity of natural law and make orderly life impossible.
(2) The necessary divine intervention may be so frequent that there is no more human freedom and responsibility.
(3) In a world of constant divine intervention of evil actions, all moral learning would cease. The development of various virtues through real life experience will not be possible.
(4) On the other hand, God is intercepting some evils by placing good influences in the world (such as the Holy Spirit, the Bible, Christians, and the moral law). Occasionally, God will directly intervene through miracles when necessary.
A. No one is completely innocent.
► The description of “innocent people” is only relative, not absolute.
► We commit numerous explicit sins but also unnoticed sins. Some common unnoticed sins include self-centredness, I-need-it-right-now mentality, using evil means to achieve selfish ends, giving excuses for wrong deeds, neglecting rightful duties.
► We may have a feeling of unfairness when experiencing sufferings. Yet we also need to remember that we have hurt others many times in the past, sometimes unconsciously or unintentionally.
B. Some apparent innocent suffering may have a cause, for example, children may suffer because of the sins of the parents (Ex 20:5; 34:7; Nu 14:18; Dt 5:9), such as infants with AIDS, or handicapped newborns because of the mother’s addiction to tobacco, alcohol, or drugs.
◦ Ex 20:5 I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.
◦ Ex 34:7 …visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.
◦ Nu 14:18 The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.
◦ Dt 5:9 I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.
C. Yet, we have to admit that some innocent suffering has no apparent justification and that we do not have a satisfactory answer at the present. However, there may be a justification in the future. (Job 42:3) Ultimately, we have to trust God’s sovereignty.
SUPPLEMENT
Supplement to Q.29: Propositions about God (Kreeft & Tacelli)
(1) God exists. (denied by atheism)
(2) God is all-good. (denied by pantheism)
(3) God is all-powerful. (denied by modern
naturalism, process theology)
(4) Evil exists. (denied by Idealism, New Age)
Biblical
theism: affirms all 4.
Supplement to Q.29 to 32: Summary of book written by Geisler
Norman L. Geisler (1978): The
roots of evil. [Kwing’s comments in square brackets]
|
Arguments Against Biblical
Theism |
Arguments for Theodicy |
|
In this book, various philosophical options are proposed to answer the
apparent contradictions between the existence of evil and God. An analysis is
made of such systems as illusionism, dualism, finitism, sadism, impossiblism,
atheism, and theism. Biblical theism is then evaluated for its ability to answer
some of the major questions in the areas of metaphysical, moral,
and physical evil. |
|
|
CHAPTER 1 The dilemma of evil The basic dilemma of evil is discussed and illustrated in current
works of literature. |
|
|
·
“The plague” by Albert
Camus (novel): ·
Either there is no God,
and man is left to struggle in futility, or if there is a God, He must be the
supreme, evil enemy of man. |
·
Theodicy is a rational defence of the justice of God
in view of the presence of evil. |
|
·
“Sartor Resartus” by
Thomas Carlyle (essay): As the professor looks out upon the masses of people
beneath his window and sees them huddled and struggling, he finds himself
becoming more and more removed from their problems and tragedies. ·
God is detached and
isolated from men. |
[ Thus, there are 3
possibilities: 1. There is no God. 2. God is not loving. 3. God does not care (deistic God).] |
|
CHAPTER 2 Philosophical options concerning evil One group of philosophical options seeks to resolve the dilemma of
evil by dealing with the basic nature of evil. Illusionism suggests that evil
is an illusion; dualism suggest that it is eternal. |
|
|
Illusionism: ·
Suffering is an illusion. ·
All material reality is an
illusion. Our senses cannot be trusted. Evil is a false perception. It is not
a real entity; it is the “error of the mortal mind”. |
1. Where did the illusion
originate? If it is an illusion, why do all experience it from the moment of
birth? 2. Whey does evil seem to
be so real? 3. There is no practical
difference between viewing pain or evil as illusion or viewing it as actual
reality. Regardless of how it is viewed, the experience is the same. [But
experience depends on viewpoints.] |
|
Dualism: ·
Good and evil are
opposites. ·
But a thing cannot be the
source of its opposite. ·
Hence, both good and evil
must have existed as eternal opposites. ·
Good and evil also are
substantial and real. ·
Therefore, both good and evil are eternal, but
opposite realities. |
1. Not every opposite has a
first principle. 2. Evil can be real without
being a substance or thing. Blindness is real but is not a real thing. It is
the lack of something. Another example is a hole in a piece of wood. |
|
Process Theology: ·
Evil and suffering are unavoidable realities in the growth process of
God. ·
One pole of God is the
world (God’s body), and the other pole is God’s mind. God is related to the
world as a mind is to the body. ·
God is experiencing
ongoing process of growth. ·
God is finite and is in
the process of struggling with evil. ·
The outcome is not
certain. The triumph of good over evil really depends on man’s cooperative
interaction with God in this epic struggle. |
1. But then there is no
guarantee that the battle of good evil will ultimately end in victory for
good. 2. Why does God, who cannot
overcome evil, bother to engage in such a useless project? 3. How can such a strange,
dualistic combination of opposites as good and evil be absorbed into the
nature of God? 4. How could one worship a
finite God? 5. How could the
panentheistic God (“all‑in‑God”) be considered morally worthy
when He allows the sum total of human misery in order to enrich His own
nature? 6. Why does God engage in
such a wasteful project in His efforts at self‑character building? 7. How can a better world
be achieved if so few human are aware of their important responsibility? 8. Since we do not
experience the triumph of good over evil, how would we know it has even taken
place? |
|
CHAPTER 3 Philosophical
options concerning God A second group of philosophical options affirms the existence of evil
and questions the nature of God. Those offered and analyzed are finitism,
sadism, impossiblism, and atheism. |
|
|
Finitism: ·
God’s power is finite and limited. ·
To struggle against evil
in the world would be to aid God now in His struggle against evil. ·
Adherents claim that this
is a better system since it encourages social action. |
Attacks from nontheists: 1. Why did God create a
world if He knew He could not control the evil in it? 2. What evidence is there
(empirical or historical) to show that good is really winning out over evil? 3. How can a finite God assure
us of the final triumph of good? Attacks from theists: 1. How can God be finite
when every finite being must be caused? Only an infinite God in sovereign
control of the universe can really guarantee the defeat of evil. 2. History proves that the
fight against evil is futile. |
|
Sadism: ·
God is not all loving. ·
Descartes hypothetically
proposed that behind the world there is a malevolent demon who totally
deceives men. ·
Serious sadism leads
naturally to atheism. |
1. Ontological: We would
know that God was morally imperfect only if there were an ultimate moral
standard beyond God by which moral imperfection could be measured and found
wanting. By definition, the ultimate moral standard beyond this “sadistic
god” would be the real God. 2. Activities of a sadistic
God are incompatible (contradictory) with one another. He would have to be
both creating and destroying the world at the same time. (Charles Hartshorne) |
|
Impossiblism 1: ·
The future can be foreseen
only where there is a necessary order of causes and effect. ·
But a necessary order of
causes and effects is contrary to human free choice. ·
Hence, in a world of free
creatures it is impossible to foresee evil. ·
It is impossible
for God to foresee evil. Logical derivation: ·
What ever God foresees
must come to pass, since God cannot be wrong. ·
If God foresees that a
murderer will kill his victim, then the murderer must kill his victim. ·
But if the murderer must
kill his victim, he is not truly free. ·
However, free choices
demand that he be free to kill or not to kill. ·
Therefore, it is
impossible for God to foresee what the murderer would do, and it is
impossible to foresee any evil. |
1. If God is eternal rather
than a temporal being, He is not limited by time (which is a finite
dimension). He simply sees all things ‑‑ past, present, and
future ‑‑ in one “eternal now”. 2. God could know what a
murderer will do without determining that the murderer must do it. 3. Impossiblism fails to
explain why God continues to allow evil in the world. |
|
Impossiblism 2: ·
The only way to destroy
evil is to destroy free choice. ·
But to destroy free choice
is itself an evil. ·
Hence, God would have to
do evil to destroy evil. ·
But God cannot do evil; it
is contrary to His nature. ·
Hence, God cannot destroy
evil. ·
It is impossible for God to destroy evil. |
·
If it is possible in the
Christian heaven to have freedom without evil (man will freely choose not to
sin), why can’t we conclude that men could be free and yet avoid all evil in
this world? ·
Hence, impossiblism fails
to establish its claim that a state of sinlessness is logically incompatible
with free choices. |
|
Atheism 1 (Russell): ·
If there is a God, then He
willed moral law. ·
If he willed it
arbitrarily, then He is not essentially good. ·
If He did not will it
arbitrarily, but willed it according to some ultimate standard beyond
Himself, then He is not God. ·
In either case, the
traditional God of theism does not exist. ·
Hence, there is no God. |
·
Aquinas: God’s essential
nature could be moral and hence it could provide the source for moral law. ·
Duns Scotus: The divine
privilege of God (to sovereignly will what He chooses) includes moral law. |
|
Atheism 2 (Bayle): ·
An all-powerful God could
destroy evil. ·
An all-loving God would
destroy evil. ·
But evil is not destroyed. ·
Hence, there is not an all‑powerful, all‑loving
God. |
1. It would be impossible
to destroy (annihilate) evil that has occurred without also doing away with
the moral universe and free choice. 2. Evil will be ultimately
destroyed in the future. |
|
Atheism 3: ·
An all-loving,
all-powerful God would not allow innocent suffering. ·
There is innocent
suffering in the world. ·
Therefore, there is not an all‑loving, all‑powerful
God. |
1. Suffering of some type
will occur in a world where there are morally free agents. It would be
impossible for God to act in these situations without interfering with
someone’s free choice. 2. Suffering that has not
apparent justification in the present may still be ultimately justified. |
|
Atheism 4: ·
No unjustified suffering
is compatible with God’s existence. ·
There is unjustified
suffering in the world. ·
Therefore, God does not exist. |
1. It may be necessary for
God to allow innocent suffering in order to give men full moral freedom.
Suffering may be justifiable in view of the whole plan in the long run. 2. Suffering may be part of
a larger plan for good (eg. dissonant chords in Beethoven No.9). 3. Evil may have a purpose
in this world. First‑order evils may be the necessary condition of
second‑order good. Patience cannot be produced without tribulation, nor
mercy without tragedy. |
|
Atheism 5 (Camus): ·
If evil is necessary as a
condition for a greater good, then theists cannot work against evil without
working against the greater good God ordained. ·
But it is right to work
against evil and suffering in the world. ·
Hence, theism is wrong, and there is no God. |
1. This premise confuses
the permission of evil with the promotion of evil, eg. loving parents
allowing their child to fall in order to learn to walk. 2. The Bible admonishes the
promotion of good in the world and the relief of suffering (Lk 10:30‑37). 3. Boomerang effect (C.S.
Lewis): one must imply God in order to deny God. To complain about
unjustified evil in the world, one must also suppose an ultimate standard of
justice beyond the world. The only possible route to condemn God would be to
accept His revealed standard of justice and then maintain that He failed to
live up to it. In his attempt to press
the case and disprove God by the existence of evil, the atheist must imply
what he wishes to deny. ·
An all-powerful God can
defeat evil without destroying free choice. ·
An all-loving God will
defeat evil without destroying free choice. ·
Evil is not yet fully
defeated. ·
Therefore, God will fully defeat evil in the future. |
|
CHAPTER 4 The theistic explanation of evil Two types of theistic options are proposed, and biblical theism is
selected and applied to the metaphysical and moral problems of evil. |
|
|
·
But the present world can
be improved, for example, one less murder, one less cancer victim. If the
world is improvable, then it is not the best. ·
The evil and suffering
would then be redefined as good. |
Greatest world theodicy
(Leibnitz, St. Augustine) ·
Evil is a necessary
ingredient in life just as an ugly piece in a mosaic is part of the total
beauty of a whole work of art. ·
This world (ie. a part or
the whole of human history) is “the best of all possible worlds”. ·
God is the best of all
possible beings. ·
The best of all possible
beings cannot do less than His best, since it is evil for God to do less than
His best. ·
God’s nature as best
demands that He make the best possible world (if He wills to make one). ·
This world is the world
that God make. ·
Therefore, this is the best of all possible worlds. |
|
|
Greatest way theodicy
(Thomas Aquinas): ·
The present world is evil.
However, this evil world is the best
possible way to the best world. ·
There is no better way for
all-loving, all-powerful God to defeat evil and produce a greater good than
for Him to permit this present evil world. For example, a healthy body
requires often painful exercise. ·
Evil may be a precondition
for greater good. |
|
The problem of evil can be explained in 3 dimensions: ·
metaphysical dimension ·
moral dimension ·
physical dimension |
|
|
Metaphysical Dimension ·
God is the author of evil. ·
God is the author of
everything in the world. ·
Evil is something in the
world. ·
Therefore, God is the
author of evil. |
Augustine: ·
God is the author of
everything in the created universe. ·
Evil is not a thing or substance; it is a privation or lack in things. ·
Therefore, it does not
follow that God created evil. ·
“Privation” means a lack
of something or an absence of something that should be there. For example,
sickness can be considered a privation or lack of good health. Blindness is a
lack of sight. Evil could be the lack of good (but blindness of man but not
blindness of a rock). |
|
|
Answer 1: ·
God is good and the author
of all good. ·
Whatever God created is
good like Himself. ·
Everything that God made
is good and there are no evil things. ·
The evil that exists does
not exist in and of itself but only as a corruption or privation of good
things. |
|
|
Answer 2: ·
When what we call evil is
not present in a thing, then the thing is better. ·
But when all of what we
call good is taken away, then there is nothing left at all. ·
If after the evil is
removed, the nature remains in a purer state, and does not remain at all when
good is taken away, it must be good which makes the nature of the thing what
it is, while the evil is not nature, but contrary to nature. ·
No nature as far as it is
a nature is evil; but to each nature there is no evil except to be diminished
in respect to good. |
|
·
God is the cause of corruption. |
Answer 1: ·
God is the supreme and
incorruptible good. God cannot be less than absolutely perfect. Since God is
infinite and without composition, He cannot be torn apart or decomposed. But
every created thing (creature) is composed and is therefore by nature
decomposable. It can be destroyed or deprived. However, God is not the author of creaturely corruption. |
|
|
Answer 2: ·
Metaphysical evil is no
thing and therefore needs no cause. ·
The ultimate solution to
the metaphysical problem is moral. Free
choice is the cause of the corruption of the good world that God made. [Free
choice means self‑caused actions.] ·
God gave the world the
power of free choice. ·
But with that freedom
comes the capability of actualizing evil. |
|
·
What then is the cause of
evil? |
·
Evil is the corruption
that arises when a good but potentially corruptible creature turns away from
the infinite good of the Creator to the lesser good of the creatures. ·
Evil occurs when the mind
being immediately conscious of itself, takes pleasure in itself to the extent
of perversely imitating God, wanting to enjoy its own power. The creature
considers its own finite good more important than the Creator. ·
Pride is the beginning of all sin, the ultimate source of privation. |
|
Moral Dimension ·
Why did an absolutely good
God make creatures with free choice when He knew they would choose evil? |
|
|
Necessitarianism: ·
God was
forced to or needed to create. ·
Plotinus (neoplatonist):
creation was necessarily connected to God as rays are to the sun. ·
Spinoza: creation was a
necessity of the divine nature. |
·
God did not create because
He needed to do so for His own self‑fulfilment or for other alleged
needs. He did not create because He was lonely and needed fellowship. ·
The cause of creation is God’s free choice. |
|
·
What then is the purpose
of creation? |
·
God does not need love, but if He is love, it is understandable that He
would want to love (share His
glory and goodness) and to be loved (to be worshipped). [to give and receive
love] |
|
·
Why would God create a
world He knew would turn against Him and would bring upon itself and others
untold human misery and woe? |
Alternatives: 1. God could have chosen
not to create any world at all. [No World] 2. God could have chosen to
make a world without free creatures in it. [Amoral World] 3. God could have brought
about a world where creatures were free but would never sin. [Morally
Innocent World] 4. God could have created a
world where all will be saved. [Universally Saved World] 5. God could have created a
world where men are free and do sin. [Morally Fallen World] |
|
CHAPTER 5 Moral options: the worlds that might have
been Various types of possible worlds are proposed as better moral
candidates than the present world we inhabit and these possible worlds are
evaluated. |
|
|
Alternative 1. No World |
·
In order to make a
comparison, there must be something that two or more things have in common.
There is no common element between nothing and something. ·
The theistic theodicy only
claims that the present world is the best way to a morally better world. ·
No world is not better
morally than the present world, since a nonworld has no moral status. |
|
Alternative 2. Amoral
World (a world of robots who cannot do evil) |
·
It is not meaningful to
say that an animal world is morally better than a human world because an
animal world is, in a moral sense, nongood or not‑good (ie. the absence
of morals). There is no way to say a world of non‑moral creatures would
have been morally better. |
|
Alternative 3. Morally
Innocent World |
a. It is possible that no
such world would ever have materialized. Not everything that is logically
possible actually happens. b. It may not be possible
without tampering with or violating human freedom, to produce a free world
where men never choose to sin. ·
Love is persuasive but not
coercive. Forced love is not really love at all. ·
Freedom is an absolute
essential to a truly moral universe. Love cannot be programmed. Love is
personal and subjective, and no amount of impersonal and objective programming
can automatically and inevitably produce a loving response. c. The highest goods are
dependent on the precondition of evils. Where there is no tribulation,
patience cannot be produced. Courage is possible only where fear of evil is a
reality. ·
If God created a world
where evil never occurred, He could not produce the greatest good. |
|
·
Pain and evil make some
people better people, but they also make others bitter. |
·
It is a greater good to at
least have the opportunity to achieve the highest virtues and pleasures even
though those virtues are not always attained by everyone. (“maximum possible
opportunities for ultimate satisfaction”) |
|
Alternative 4. Universally
Saved World (universalism) |
·
Love is not coercive. Love
allows the loved to respond freely. ·
Sartre’s play “No Exit”:
the door of hell is locked on the inside by man’s free choice. [ The play is not about this. It is about
hell as being “other people”. The characters actually tried to get out.] ·
God will save as many as
He can -- all those who desire to do His will freely (Jn 6:37;7:17) |
|
Alternative 5. Morally
Fallen World |
·
This world is the one
where the greatest number of persons are given the maximal eternal joy and
where the freedom of all creatures is respected. [but what about the person
in hell described in Lk 16:23‑24,28] |
|
CHAPTER 6 Explanations for physical evil Biblical theism is applied to the physical problems of evil. |
|
|
Physical Dimension ·
Why are there many
physical evil in the world that do not appear to be the result of any free
choices? eg. floods, earthquakes, hurricanes |
|
|
Camus’s play “The Plague”: ·
Either one must join the
doctor and fight the plague God sent for man’s sin, or else he must join the
priest and not fight the plague. ·
But not to fight the
plague is inhumane. ·
And to fight the plague is
to fight against God who sent it. ·
Hence, if humanitarianism is right, then theism
is wrong. ·
Humanitarianism is right,
and it is right to work to alleviate suffering. ·
Therefore, theism is wrong. |
a. Those who suffer through
natural disaster are not more wicked (Lk 13:3-4). b. The plague is viewed as
the curse of sin on the whole fallen world; man brought on himself by his own
free choice (Gen 3:14; 5:12; 8:19-20). c. To work against unjust
suffering is to remove the effects of the Fall, not against God. d. Evil is the ultimate
cause of physical evils. The problem can only be solved with God’s salvation. |
|
McCloskey: ·
The theist is morally
obligated to promote the greatest good. ·
But according to theism,
the greatest good cannot be achieved if suffering is eliminated. ·
Hence, the theist is morally obligated to promote
suffering. |
a. Evils are only permitted
but not actively promoted. b. The Bible admonishes the
promotion of good in the world and the relief of suffering and affliction
(Lk 10:30-37). c. God does not have to
promote or produce the suffering, since it is already present in sufficient
quantities to achieve the greater good. |
|
·
Existence of unjustified
suffering: ·
There are many occurrences
of unjustified suffering in the world. ·
But even one instance of
unjustified suffering shows there is no perfectly just God. It would appear that God has allowed an
injustice. ·
Therefore, there is no God. |
a. The question is not
whether the suffering people are innocent (admittedly, they may have been
personally blameless) but whether their innocent suffering is justifiable. b. Not all immediately
unjustified suffering will be ultimately justified. The injustices of this
life may be justified in the next life. |
|
·
The burden of a theistic
theodicy is to show (a) how 100% of the suffering in this world can be
justified, (b) how all suffering is connected with free will and is necessary
for the opportunity and attainment of the greatest good achievable. [ The perfect world order
and the environment were destroyed as a result of sin and the Flood.
Disasters are natural occurrences, and may not be God’s design.] |
Some physical evil comes to us: 1. directly from our own
free choices. eg. abuse of one’s body
such as smoking 2. indirectly from the
exercise of our freedom. eg. poverty from
laziness 3. directly from the free
choices of others. eg. child abuse 4. indirectly from the free
choices of others. eg. improper prenatal
care 5. a necessary byproduct of
other good activities. eg. accident in
physical exercise, flood caused by rain 6. the result of the
choices of evil spirits. eg. Job’s sufferings,
evil spirits (Mt 17:14‑15) 7. God-given warnings of
greater physical evils. eg. toothaches, chest
pains 8. used by God as a warning
about moral evils; alerting men to danger, thereby promoting the avoidance of
moral evil. C.S. Lewis: “God
whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our
pairs: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” 9. permitted as a condition
of greater moral perfection. eg. patience from
tribulation (Ro 8:28; Jas 1:3‑4) 10. occurs because higher
forms live on lower ones eg. one life form is
sacrificed for another life form in order to provide food energy for the
survival of the higher form. |
|
·
Why doesn’t God
miraculously intervene and prevent all physical evil from occurring? |
1. Evil men do not really
want God to intercept every evil act or thought. But God is intercepting
some evil actions by the influences for good He has placed in the world (such
as the Holy Spirit, the Bible, Christians, and the moral law). Only rarely
does He need to intercede through miraculous action. 2. Continual interference
would disrupt the regularity of natural law and make life impossible. 3. It is probable that
chaos would result from continued miraculous interventions. The necessary
intervention may finally grow in proportions that would effectively remove
human freedom and responsibility. Undoubtedly God would be frequently caught
in dilemmas. For example, should God prevent Jesus from the cross? 4. In a world of constant
divine intervention of evil actions, all moral learning would cease. There
would be no potential for moral progress or achievement. |
|
|
·
All physical evil is
either a consequence, a condition, or a concomitant of free choice. Physical
evil is not desired by God but is used by Him to maximize the opportunity for
attaining the greatest good. |
|
CHAPTER 7 Concluding remarks about evil Some concluding remarks are made about the existence of evil and its
place in the ultimate plan of God in the universe. |
|
|
|
·
There is the assured hope
that God will destroy and annihilate evil in the future. ·
More than just hope,
Christianity provides immediate satisfaction and power (in the present life)
to deal with the sinful nature of man. |
|
|
·
God is God and man is man.
God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts. ·
Evil is a reality but not
a “thing”. It is not something created by God; it is the result of losses
sustained through wrong choices. ·
This world (with evil and
suffering) is the best way to the best of all possible worlds. |
|
APPENDIX 1. What about
those who have not heard? |
|
|
·
What happens to those who
have not heard anything about God and the way they might be saved? |
1. God never intended hell
for man. God is holy and loving and wishes that every person would come to
repentance (Ex 34:6‑7; Jonah 4:10‑11; 2Pe 3:9). 2. The very nature of God
prevents Him from being unfair (Gen 18:25; Ps 7:11; 9:18;
1Pe 1:17). 3. Men are not in total
spiritual darkness (Ro 1:18‑21; 2:15). 4. Anyone who wishes to
establish a relationship with God will receive the necessary information on
which to make a decision (Heb 11:6; Ac 8:30‑31). 5. The responsibility for a
decision concerning salvation is in the hands of each person. |
|
APPENDIX 2. Objections to
theism concerning evil [This chapter is not too
convincing.] |
|
|
·
Eternal punishment should
not be given for temporary sins. |
·
A lifetime is long enough
to make a lifetime decision. The Bible stresses the significance of decisions
made in this life (Heb 2:3). ·
An omniscient God knows
that the lost will never change his mind; otherwise, He would never have let
him go there in the first place. |
|
·
It would be better for God
to annihilate men rather than to allow them to suffer consciously forever. |
·
God is not a dictator who
destroys everything that is against Him. Further, man chooses to oppose God.
Nietzsche made it clear that he would have chosen conscious suffering apart
from God. |
|
·
One could not possibly be
happy in heaven knowing that a loved one is suffering in hell. |
·
If the happiness of the
good were dependent upon the will of the wicked, then those evil forces could
“blackmail the universe”. |
|
·
Why would God create men
whom He knew would reject Him and go to hell? |
·
Love always involves risk
(the risk that love will be rejected). God took that risk since it is better
to offer good even knowing that some will reject it, than not to offer it at
all. |
|
·
How can it be said that
evil is defeated if so many people lose and go to hell? |
·
The victory is in the form
of: (a) good triumphs over evil in the lives of all who have reached heaven,
(b) evil is permitted and defeated under various conditions, (c) evil is
separated from the rest of the universe. |
|
·
If hell is what some
prefer, then hell must be desirable. |
·
Hell is not what men want
(desire), but it is what they will (decide to do). |
|
·
What if someone changes
his mind after he gets to hell? |
·
God, in His infinite
knowledge, knows that more opportunities would not help. “They will not be
convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” (Lk 16:31) |