Evil? - No Problem
In sections X and XI, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument fail? What about the possibility that suffering is part of some great good like free will or character development (a theodicy)?
Philo's use evil to disprove God is a sound argument. If God is truly all powerful, all knowing, and always good he has all the skills in his arsenal to predict everything evil that will happen and the ability to stop it. But, since evil exists there must not be this God or He is not benevolent at all. The idea of suffering as a tool to help people in the future is an interesting response to this argument. Yes, sometimes suffering and overcoming challenges can help a person grow but this does not answer some of the extreme cases of evil. If someone is brutally tortured and killed how does that benefit them in anyway? Their great pain and suffering will never help them in the future or make them stronger because they are dead. Additionally, the suffering argument does not address natural disasters. When a raging hurricane destroys an island nation and kills thousands of people how does that benefit the inhabitants? Also, the idea of free will is a controversial response to this argument. Humans possessing free will basically takes the blame of of God's shoulders. If the humans are the ones doing all the evil how could it be God's fault? How could he know they were going to be evil? Well, he does. Since God is all knowing he does know that by giving humans free will they will choose evil. By this argument, God has effectively introduced evil into the world. Disproving his benevolence or his existence entirely.
ReplyDeleteIf God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent why is there still evil in the world? I believe that the problem regarding the problem of evil is a sound and well thought-out point. Along with a few other argument such as the theory of revolution, it is one of the most difficult arguments for theists who believe in a traditional "tri-omni” God. In a debate between Richard Dawkins, known as the most famous atheist in the world, and Cardinal Pell, a cardinal of the Catholic Church, an audience member posed this exact question to Pell. In response Pell simply stated that it was a very good question that he would ask God when they met. This argument appears sound enough to leave even a Cardinal of the Catholic Church stumped. The Bible, one of the most versatile books allowing for countless interpretations to fit nearly everything science or atheism has to throw at it, is unable to fully answer this question. It is clearly a very good argument. However do I think it disproves God?
ReplyDeleteOne objection to this is the idea that only through evil can virtue be brought out. In essence this objection states that the loss caused by evil is balanced out by an even greater gain. Without evil, no one would realize the goodness in the world. One could even argue there would be no good because everything is good. Similarly, if one were to live at a pleasant constant 70 degrees for their whole life, would they know what hot or cold is? I would argue that they would realize that what they are living in is what many would consider the perfect weather. Similarly, someone who knows only perfection would find it perfect. It would just be normal and nothing in that world would be beyond just normal.
Another objection derives from the Bible. God gave humans the ability of free will as shown when Adam and Eve had the option of eating the forbidden fruit. God’s gift of free allows humans the ability to choose and it is the failure of man that results in evil.
To summarize the argument between Philo and Demea, Philo uses the argument that if God were truly benevolent (and all the other omnis as well), then there are issues with human suffering being a part of this world. He argues that no just/good God would let innocent humans suffer, and therefore either God is not benevolent OR God does not exist. In this case, especially if one views God as omnipotent/omniscient as well as omnibenevolent, God should be able to do something and should be required to stop human suffering if he was truly omnibenevolent. I believe that this argument is sound because the counter argument is that suffering is good for human nature, however if one were to look at the depression/suicide/gun related incidents/sexual harassment that have been all over the media lately, I can safely agree with Philo that there should be nothing like this of the sort. If we can agree that human suffering (such as being killed, raped, etc.) is unpleasant and especially undeserved for human beings, then why do these things exist if God is supposed to be all good (and if we take the Christian views of all powerful/all knowing that emphasize this clear disparity between God being good and human suffering)? You can argue that to have free will you need to suffer, but I doubt anyone could argue that someone should have the power to kill/rape/molest/etc another human for the sake of ‘character development’. Even arguing for free will, if someone has the OPTION and has the WILL to kill/rape/molest/etc then how could God be considered “all good”? It may be fair for one to suffer for character development but it is NOT fair and not good to be able to inflict pain upon another person for the sake of character development. In most cases this would actually erode character development and therefore at the very least, there should not be a way to inflict suffering upon another human if God were to be all good.
ReplyDeleteThis argument is indeed sound, as no benevolent and omnipotent god would permit such suffering to exist. Suffering is the one unconditional bad, and no-one’s life is completely free from it. If I could choose one thing to eliminate from life, I would choose evil and suffering in a heartbeat (and I feel quite confident that others would as well). If god were truly good, he would realize the misery of those he had created, and desire to end it. Moreover, if he were all-powerful, he would be capable of ending the suffering of humans and animals. However (obviously), suffering persists. Hence, there are two possibilities for why this could be; both make the traditional conception of god an impossibility. First, god is malevolent, and is capable of ending suffering but does not care to. Second, he is not omnipotent, and desires to end suffering but is incapable of doing so. The only redeeming argument would be to show that there is some greater good to suffering; however, I find these arguments to be ineffective.
ReplyDeleteThe first theodicy argues that suffering is necessary for free will; we require free will because we do not wish to be robots, but in possessing this free will, we acquire the capacity for evil. In other words, we have two options: no evil and no free will, or evil and free will. As people generally desire agency, evil and free will is the more desirable option. However, this argument is inherently flawed. Evil and actions that cause it manifest themselves in bodily acts, whether they be cognition or physical movement (including speaking, violence, etc.). There are countless bodily acts that god could have bestowed upon us that he did not- we cannot fly, read minds, etc. However, one cannot argue that solely because we cannot choose to fly we do not have free will. The act of hitting another human, or willing negative things towards them are physical acts that god easily could have made humans without. Our free will would not suddenly disappear overall because of a few prohibited actions. Furthermore, there is the simple question of weighing priorities. Should we really value our ability to rape as more important than preventing the unimaginably large suffering caused because of rape? Appealing to free will misunderstands how god could have formed humans (he could easily take away our ability for evil if he were all-powerful), and shows an immoral level of callousness towards victims of suffering.
The second theodicy, which argues that character development outweighs the negatives of suffering, is equally flawed. Firstly, it is simply false. People that go through suffering, while they might become more thankful for their surroundings, never escape the harms that suffering brought into their lives. The death of a child does not help parents to develop virtue, but traumatizes them. Parents who have gone through the death of a child experience “depressive symptoms, poorer well-being, and more health problems and… marital disruption.” (Journal of Family Psychology). Rape and sexual assault does not help people ‘develop their character;’ instead, they are depressed, anxious, fearful, and feel unable to live a fulfilling life. (American Journal of Psychiatry). Bullying doesn’t help kids grow in confidence and confront their bullies; rather, it increases self-harm, chances of suicide, anxiety and depression, psychosomatic illness (headaches, colds, stomachaches, sleeping problems), and extended problems in work and school relationships. (Archives of Disease in Childhood). Suffering does not cause character development; it ruins the life of the person who had experienced it. With mild suffering, if the negatives are small, one’s character can only develop marginally; this does not provide a rationale for allowing suffering to exist as a whole. So, if suffering is not helping the victims or their families, whom is it helping? The person who caused the suffering? We cannot argue in good faith that the potential character development of a murderer outweighs the suffering of the victim and their family. With natural disasters, the suffering will still continually affect the victims, and helps no-one. Essentially, suffering will not lead to more happiness or virtue in the end. If one wants to argue that one could not know happiness without suffering, this is nonsensical as well. First, consider the Hawken community, most of which has never known extreme suffering. The student body is happy when things go their way- even if they have not suffered beforehand. Even if they have received good grades for their entire life, each ‘A’ still makes them happy. Suffering is not a prerequisite to happiness. Or, think of your least favorite food. If the argument of ‘suffering is necessary for happiness’ is true, perhaps you would choose to eat this least favorite food before you eat something you actually enjoy. Because, if you don’t have the perspective of something you dislike, how could you enjoy your favorite dish? This proves the argument to be counterintuitive- people avoid what they dislike, and seek out what they enjoy, because enjoyment is not contingent on having experienced something one dislikes. Thus, suffering is not necessary for enjoyment, and thus does not have a purpose in life.
DeleteSources:
C. C. Nadelson, C C. et al. "A follow-up study of rape victims.” American Journal of Psychiatry. 1982 Oct; 139(10): 1266–1270. doi: 10.1176/ajp.139.10.1266
Rogers, Catherine H. et al. “Long-Term Effects of the Death of a Child on Parents’ Adjustment in Midlife.” Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43) 22.2 (2008): 203–211. PMC. Web. 10 Nov. 2017.
J. M. Santiago, J. M. et al. “Long-term psychological effects of rape in 35 rape victims.” American Journal of Psychiatry. 1985 Nov; 142(11): 1338–340. doi: 10.1176/ajp.142.11.1338
Wolke, Dieter, and Suzet Tanya Lereya. “Long-Term Effects of Bullying.” Archives of Disease in Childhood 100.9 (2015): 879–885. PMC. Web. 10 Nov. 2017.
Philo and Demea conclude that if god is a benevolent and omnipotent being, then he is able to prevent evil and suffering. The duo goes on to say that if God is omnibenevolent, he is willing to prevent suffering. Lastly, they say that if God is omniscient, he knows our suffering and knows how to prevent it. But the two think to themselves and decide there in fact exists much evil and suffering in this world and that God must either not exist or he is not benevolent. I believe this is a sound conclusion because like Philo and Demea have noted, God is viewed amongst his followers as a good and benevolent higher power who advocates for kindness and peace. Yet there exists much evil in the world, which, leads me to believe there is a God, but one who is not necessarily concerned with the superficiality of evil and suffering in the world. I believe God is focused perhaps on the greater scheme of things, such as how he is to successfully operate the world. To God, successful operation may mean controlling the weather, for instance, and not preventing evil. I believe it simply depends on God’s motives and wishes, which humans will never know for certain. Also, I believe it is a possibility that God is allowing evil in the world to toughen us for a dark future. Perhaps God knows that a world war is approaching and he wishes to prepare us for war. Though this in a sense would make God benevolent, in that he is looking out for our well-being.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Philo's argument against god's existence or benevolence at first sounds like a solid argument, but it overlooks some deeper and very important things such as free will. Philo's reasoning suggests that if god is all powerful and benevolent, then there should be no evil. This is not necessary the case. In order for there to be no evil in the world, we cannot have free will. Here, I will examine 4 different worlds: A world with evil and free will, a world without evil and free will, a world with evil and without free will, and a world without evil and with free will. A perfect world without free will where everyone has control over themselves simply cannot exist because humans are fallible. If the flawed humans have control over themselves, then they will inflict suffering on themselves and others. A world without free will and with evil is simply unacceptable because not only, is there evil in the world, the people would not even have the freedom to control their own self. A world without evil and without free will sounds fair at first, but people won't have the ability to do what they want. God would be controlling the human race like a dictator running a puppet show. God chose the best possible scenario where we have free will, and as a consequence, evil. This world is better than a world without free will and evil because we have the freedom to do what we want and although there is evil in this world, there is much more good. Philo's argument does not prove that god is unbenevolent or nonexistent because it overlooks the possibility that the world he created is the most perfect possible balance between free will and evil.
ReplyDeleteI think Philo’s argument does not quite prove God does not exist or that he is not benevolent. Philo argues that since people claim that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, there should be no way evil would be allowed in the world. Because since God is omnibenevolent, he is all good and wants to prevent bad, and since he is omniscient, he is aware of all of the suffering in the universe. And since he is omnipotent, he has the power to stop all evil in the universe. Philo’s argument is that since there is evil in the universe, there’s no way God can exist. However, I don’t quite think this argument proves whether God exists or not. There are two different things I can think of that can cause this argument to fail. One argument is that maybe God wants us to suffer so we can learn things. Suffering can be a way for people to learn and become better people which may be God’s plan. An example of this is like when we were younger and if we hit someone. We may suffer because the teacher and our parents would yell at us and get mad, but we would learn not to hit other people which would make us better people. Also, people could just argue that maybe God is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or omniscient which would cause Philo’s argument to not work.
ReplyDeleteThe traditional perception of God – that of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being – dominates modern religious thought. All major monotheistic religions feature an all-powerful and all-knowing God, and most maintain him to be all-compassionate as well. However, one single, simple, and universally-understood idea seems to undermine this notion completely: human suffering. With a God that fits the description above, it appears that human suffering would have no reason to exist. Yet everyone knows that suffering does indeed exist – this is a universal and undeniable truth. The existence of suffering cannot be attributed to God’s lack of awareness of it; God is all-knowing, and thus must be aware of the existence of suffering. Moreover, the elimination of suffering cannot be claimed to be beyond the power of God, as God is all-powerful. Therefore, if God is aware of suffering and has the power to eliminate it, the only explanation for not doing so would be if he is not benevolent. Thus, Philo seems to prove that if God does indeed exist, he cannot be benevolent.
ReplyDeleteThe solution to this riddle is derived from an important clarification of what it means to be all-powerful. God, no matter how powerful, cannot do the logically impossible. The famous illustration of this is the boulder analogy: God cannot create a boulder so large that even he cannot lift it. If he could, he would not be powerful enough to lift the boulder. Either way, a contradiction to God’s unlimited power is reached. Thus, knowing that God cannot do the logically impossible, proving that suffering must indeed exist is sufficient proof that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is compatible with human misery. I believe the explanation is free will: in order to create a species with free will (although whether humans even do have free will is another debate), suffering among that species must exist. The free will of the species dictates that is has the ability to inflict suffering upon itself. If we accept that a world with both free will and suffering is better than a world with neither, we must accept that the “tri-omni” God can still exist.
I also wish to contend with the notion of suffering entirely. Suffering, I believe, is necessary for us to understand the value of happiness. This is because all qualities we assign to objects and perceptions are relative. I cannot know what it means for something to be big, I can only know what it means for something to be big with respect to other things. If I had only seen elephants in my life, I would not know that an elephant is big. Only the awareness of squirrels, cats, chipmunks, etc. allows me to comprehend what it means for elephants to be big – they are bigger than other things I have perceived. The same holds true for hot and cold, fast and slow, bright and dark, and – most importantly to this discussion – pleasurable and painful. Without an understanding of pain, I cannot know what pleasure is. If I lived my whole life in pleasure, I would be accustomed to it; I would not truly appreciate and understand it. Therefore, while we all agree that suffering is terrible and that we should try to minimize it, the existence of free will and happiness necessitate suffering. Thus, Philo’s critique does not sufficiently disprove God’s existence and benevolence.
I do not believe that this argument is 100% sound. They argue that suffering cannot exist if God exists, because God is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent. However, the argument assumes that we all have the same definition for God. If we believe that God does not have all of these qualities, then the argument falls through. For example, if I believe that God is not omniscience, then my definition of God will lack the ability to know everything, meaning that He will not know of all that evil that happens around the world. If He does not know about this evil, then God is not malignant because he wants to be, but because he is incapable of stopping this evil. This same concept can apply to any of God’s abilities: if we believe God to lack any divine power, then it is not God’s fault for not stopping evil, because God is working at his best to reduce the total amount of evil that affects us.
ReplyDeleteAnother flaw in Philo’s and Demea’s argument lies within the concept of knowing what it truly means to be without suffering. If we are to take their definition of God to be true, then at first glance, it seems that God truly is an evil being who does not care about us. This would be a satisfactory response to disprove God, but evil is actually necessary for us to have free will. This means that we either have evil and free will, or we have neither, but no middle ground. If this middle ground existed, we would have the possibility of having a world with free will and no evil, and a world where we have no free will and evil. The latter world will prove to be truly miserable for obvious reasons, but the first world seems like an ideal situation, but in reality it is not. Living in a world that gives us the ability to have free will, without the pressures of evil, prevents us from understanding what it truly means to have free will. If there was no suffering, then there is no way to actually tell if we are currently suffering or if we are having the time of our lives, perplexing our ideas on what it truly means to have free will. Now establishing that there is no middle ground, but only the extremes, we will see that God has created the most ideal scenario where we have free will, but also have evil. If evil and free will do not exist, we would basically become robots. Considering this theodicy, we can easily see why God would allow evil to exist.
In parts X and XI, Philo and Demea elucidate human suffering, and how that effects the truth of God. The God referred to is the Christian God, who is all loving (omnibenevolent), all knowing (omniscient), and all powerful (omnipotent). Throughout the history of humanity, we have seen evil and suffering. Why is there evil and suffering? The answer to this question proves difficult to find. No argument so far has been deductive. There has always been doubt in the conclusion. If God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, then a few questions arise: “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?” (Hume 63). Philo’s argument that because God is known as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then evil and suffering should not exist, is a sound argument. If God is truly perfect, he would have created a perfect world. Since suffering and evil exist, God does not. Hume explains that if someone, with no understanding of God, were to appear on earth, he would never come to the conclusion that God is all loving, all powerful, or all knowing (Hume 68). That is a strong objection to prove at least that our conception of God is false. A God that is Omni-everything should produce a world without suffering and pain.
ReplyDeleteThere are some objections to Philo’s argument. Humans have limited knowledge. Theists often say that atrocities or misfortune are all part of God’s, “greater plan.” The evil and suffering that occur could be because of the greater good that free will causes. That is one argument, that our free will is so beneficial, that it outweighs the suffering that sometimes occurs. Another objection to the argument is that the evil and suffering that takes place is to prevent greater future suffering. To me, that is not a very good objection. Humans have no idea how the future will play out. We cannot say for certain that human suffering will benefit us long-term. If evil and suffering never existed, then there would be no need for it now to prevent future evil and suffering. However, we also do not have the knowledge to prove that it is not bit benefiting us. Either way, so far, no arguments prove to be deductive, no arguments prove for or against God’s existence. Potentially, they can prove that our idea of God is wrong, but so far, they have proven whether or not He exists.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn sections X and XI, Philo and Demea have an intriguing discussion regarding God and evil. Their conversation can be summed up like this:
ReplyDelete1. If God is omnibenevolent, he is willing to prevent evil!
2. If God is omniscient, he knows all evil and knows how to prevent it!
3. If God is omnipotent, he is able to prevent evil!
4. If God exists, there is NO evil!
5. There is evil (LOTS!)
6. God does not exist! (Hume 61-3)
There are many counterarguments that can be applied to this. One is known as the Argument of Virtue, where perhaps God allows just enough evil in the Universe in order to develop good traits in his creation. Another is the arguments of Free Will, where the most benevolent thing to do as God is to allow his creation to choose between good and evil. All of these counterarguments stem from one fallacy in the Problem of Evil argument; the definition of a trait due to omnibenevolence in premise one.
Perhaps omnibenevolence is something beyond human comprehension—something that only an omniscient being could know—or not. Most would argue that letting a child scrape his/her knee on the ground on the concrete in a playground after doing something incautious is relatively safe and can develop positive traits in order to avoid such evil in the future—the Argument of Virtue. It would be unwise on the parent’s part to attempt to stray only a few feet behind their child the entire time in order to catch the child; this only hurts the child in the long run since they never learn to be cautious—this is certainly now benevolent. This also begins to touch on another common Argument of Free Will. Take a parent for example; most would argue that the best thing a parent can do for a child is to give advice, but never force a child to follow a career path that they will never gain a passion for. Parents who do this hurt their child because it takes away their freedom to make convoluted decisions—again, this is not benevolent.
If humans already have a grasp of true benevolence that accounts for ‘the big picture’, who is to say an omniscient and omnibenevolent God would not know what is best for his creation?