'There is no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil'
Dictionary result for colourism
- the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
The existence of moral evil and natural evil causes a great amount of debate amongst philosophers, especially as it questions the nature of God. Moral evil is caused by human beings through actions whilst natural evil is caused by natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.. There are many arguments that can be proposed, whether it's in favour of the statement or not.
For example, many individuals would argue that if God really was omnibenevolent , omnipotent and omniscient. Then why would he allow evil to exist? St Augustine argued that the existence of evil is the result of the Original Sin. Whilst Irenaeus would have a different approach and argue that the main reason as to why God would allow evil to exist is because there's a purpose for it. He will still reach the same conclusion as Augustine and agree that you can find a satisfactory answer. However despite these arguments, it is in my belief that it can still be argued that there is no satisfactory answer when it comes to the problem of evil.
St Augustine would state that you cannot blame God for the existence of evil. This is because he argued that the disobedience of the angels, which led Adam and Eve to sin is the reason as to why the existence of evil came about. One of Augustine's main argument was that everything God made was perfect. It was his belief that as God is a perfect being, it meant that everything God had created would be perfect as the nature that we are surrounded by reflects himself. Even so, not everybody would agree with Augustine's argument. Many would argue that Augustine took the Genesis account literally and then interpreted this account, in order for it to fit his theory. This means that that everybody has different interpretations of the Fall account, which makes Augustine's theory pretty weak as it's not solid evidence to support his theodicy. Which is why it can be said that it is not a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil.
There are also many other arguments which reject the idea that there is a satisfactory to the problem of evil. For example, some would argue that if the world was really created in the state of perfection, then it couldn't have the ability to go wrong. However, because there is the existence of evil, there are flaws in His creation and therefore you would and can question the nature of God. Philosopher John Mill would agree with the argument and would further with this idea by stating that if God was really meant to be perfect, then He would have been able to design a perfect creation. But it is evident that through all the evil and suffering that exists in the universe, that this is an imperfect creation. Which is why John Mill would conclude that from a flawed universe, you can only infer a flawed creator. Hence why we could once again, come to the conclusion to that there is no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil.
Irenaeus however, had a different approach to try and prove that there is a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus did not deny the idea that God allows evil and suffering to have a place in the world. As briefly mentioned in the introduction, he argues that there is a purpose for the existence of evil and suffering. This is because he believes that without being able to experience evil, you wouldn't be able to appreciate the good.
Philosophers John Hick and Richard Swinburne would agree with this approach as they would both argue that God made us humans into the 'image' of himself, allowing us to have to free will. Irenaeus believes that without free will, we wouldn't be able to become a better version of ourselves and by having free will, we will be able to choose to have a loving relationship with God or to even compete with Him. Immanuel Kant would also agree with this, reinforcing the argument by stating that without free will we wouldn't be able to morally act in order to do good.
But of course, not everyone would agree with these arguments. Modern philosophers such as D.Z Phillip would re-raise this idea of questioning the nature of God if he would willingly design a world with so much evil and suffering.
Now, what's my conclusion? I strongly believe that there is no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. The problem of evil is so complex and there are still so many arguments and theories about it. But I think it'd be so hard to come to a conclusion. There are too many interpretations as to what the problem of evil really is and how it came about.
Personally, because I am an atheist, I don't believe that God has anything to do with it, not only because I believe that there's not enough proof to prove the existence of God but also because it goes back to this idea that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God shouldn't want to create a world full of evil and suffering. It goes everything that God is described as in religious scriptures. I also believe that when it comes to moral evil, we can only have ourselves to blame and nobody else. By not being able to take responsibility for our actions is where it all goes wrong and it's just an endless cycle of wrong doing, evil as well as suffering. All human beings are capable of doing evil things and making suffer but there are many factors which leads to certain actions and decisions to actually carry out anything evil or make others suffer. Also, people have different interpretations as to what evil and suffering actually is.
At the end of the day, due to the fact that we are constantly evolving, there can never be a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys! I hope you enjoyed reading this post. I know its waffly and a tad repetitive, I tried to fix it all up but even though I'm still not satisfied, I believe this is the best it's going to be. This was an old essay that I wrote whilst I was studying Religious Studies during my A-Levels from around 3/4 years ago and I decided to re-write it, whilst changing bits and bobs because it's a question that is so interesting and also I miss RS and doing debates about things like this.
Please don't hesitate to leave comments (or msg me) about your opinions or questions :) and I hope that everyone is looking after themselves as well as staying safe x
Sweena :)
Comments
Post a Comment