Rs Unit 11

Religious Studies Revision 1 Philosophy of Religion: Unit 11. The Problem of Evil

Introduction •

Moral evil – caused by humans e.g. murder

•

Natural evil - occurring naturally in the world e.g. an earthquake

•

Consequence of evil = suffering, e.g. Holocaust – death of 6 million – extreme suffering for those involved

•

Suffering is often unjust – does not discriminate – innocents often caught up

•

Evil and suffering poses a problem for religious people because it is a challenge to their faith

•

How can an omnipotent, benevolent God allow His creation to suffer without rescuing us?

•

Many use this argument as a reason why they do not believe in God.

•

It is specifically a problem for upholders of the God of Classical Theism; other religious outlooks accepting variety of Gods of assorted character and authority do not have this problem because the existence of evil can be attributed to tensions between different Gods.

•

So there is the following dilemma for classical theists:

•

Yet still evil continues to exist; therefore there are two options:

1. God lacks either omnipotence or benevolence or 2. He does not exist.

•

David Hume set this dilemma out in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion – he concluded only two of the three (omnipotence, benevolence and evil) can exist alongside each other – so either God is not omnipotent, not benevolent, or evil does not exist.

•

Clearly evil exists in the world – its effects are felt too widely to dismiss it – so God must be either impotent or malicious. This entails the death of the God of Classical Theism. God therefore does not exist, Hume concludes.

•

This position is supported by an argument in Aquinas’ Summa Theologica which suggests God’s existence in the face of evil is logically impossible –

•

If one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed – but the name of God means He is infinite goodness – therefore if he existed, there would be no evil discoverable – but there is evil. So God does not exist.

•

But Aquinas was a theist unlike Hume, and so said God’s goodness is a different concept to our own – and suffering may be part of His plan.

•

Numerous religious thinkers have therefore constructed theodicies to explain this reason.

Augustine’s Theodicy •

St Augustine based his arguments on the Bible, especially the accounts of the Creation and the Fall in Genesis.

•

His theodicy rests upon two major assumptions:

•

1) Evil did not come from God, since God’s creation was flawless

•

2) Evil having come from elsewhere, God is justified in allowing it to stay.

•

Augustine’s argument, briefly, is as follows:

•

God is perfect and made a perfect world. He cannot be blamed for creating evil, since evil is not a substance but a deprivation; it makes no sense to say God created a deprivation

•

Evil comes from angels and humans who chose deliberately to turn away from God. E.g. Adam and Eve – the fall. Also Revelations 12:7-9 – expulsion of Satan and some other angels – misuse of free will.

•

Everyone is guilty because everyone was seminally present in Adam, who along with Eve abused his free will; therefore everyone deserves to be punished.

•

Natural evil is a fitting punishment and came about because the human action destroyed the natural order; moral evil followed in the damaged environment

•

Therefore God is right not to intervene and put a stop to suffering ; He saw we would abuse free will and he made a plan for the redemption of humanity through Christ; those who turn to him will be saved.

Critisisms of Augustine’s Theodicy •

Contradicts modern evolutionary theory, according to which we are developing and changing rather than having fallen from a perfect state.

•

Even if God was not directly responsible for the fall of humanity, he foresaw it would happen and planned to redeem humanity through Christ; so why did he let it happen in the first place? He has to take some responsibility. It can be argued God created humans to be morally perfect through love rather than obedience and that without free will we would be robots void of emotion; but is free will really worth the suffering? E.g. the Holocaust?

•

A benevolent God would not ‘waste’ human beings and would surely forgive everyone in the end – redemption for all, not just some?

•

Schleiermacher argued there is a logical contradiction – how can a perfectly created world go wrong, as evil would then have created itself out of nothing, which is logically impossible. Either the world was not perfect to begin with or God allowed it to go wrong.

•

In a perfect world where there is no knowledge of good and evil, how could there be freedom to obey or disobey God, as good and evil would be unknown; that Adam and Eve chose to disobey suggests there was already a knowledge of evil, which could only have come from God.

•

The whole of humanity is being punished for the wrongdoing of two people; is this truly just?

•

Hell is part of the design of the universe, it appears – so God must have anticipated the world would go wrong – and accepted it.

•

Inconsistency in God’s goodness.

•

In conclusion, it is not a particularly good theodicy.

Irenaean Theodicy

•

St Irenaeus – bishop of Lyons in France.

•

Saw the world as a difficult environment in which the human spirit is refined – by the pressure of suffering.

•

The world is a ‘vale of soul-making’.

•

Moral evil is a weakness – human immaturity.

•

God created the universe as it is in order for human beings to develop.

•

God created evil but with good reason; Genesis 1:26-27, God made human beings in his image (potentially like God) but we must GROW into his likeness (actually like God).

•

The human experience is all about striving towards perfection, which can only result from human free choice.

•

No one can become genuinely loving, morally mature or ‘perfect’ unless given free will and the opportunity to become imperfect; Peter Vardy used example of a king falling in love with a peasant; he could force her into marrying him, he has that power, but it would not create genuine love on her part; she must acquire that herself.

•

The ultimate purpose of creation: the production of fully mature ohuman beings living in love and charity, so reflecting the life and character of God himself.

•

Irenaeus also believes everyone will turn to God and be saved, ultimately. Evil will finally be overcome by human maturity.

•

To say God should not have allowed evil to happen is in fact saying God should strip humans of their humanity – being human entails having freedom – with God intervening to stop every evil act there would be no freedom to commit evil.

•

John Hick was a supporter. Goodness developed by free choice is infinitely better than readymade ‘goodness’ of robots.

•

Three things are required to enable the development towards human perfection to take place:

•

Humans had to be created imperfect. This gives them the freedom to go against God; a perfect

•

being

already

in

God’s

likeness

would

never

disobey

Him.

Humans had to be distanced from God. This way they could decide for themselves whether or not to follow His laws; Hick called this an ‘epistemic distance’ – a distance in the dimension of knowledge. If God’s presence was too imminent, humans would be overwhelmed by knowledge of his expectations, and would not obey God of their own volition

but

instead

because

he

is

overlooking

their

every

move.

•

The natural world could not be a paradise. If there was no potential for humans to cause harm, we would not be free. Every possible action would result in happiness. Humans would be automatons. Courage, honour, love etc. would all be impossible. There would therefore be no way to develop into God’s likeness as these qualities are essential to such development. The counterfactual hypothesis (examines what would happen if a situation had been brought about contrary to what is actually the case) establishes that God’s purpose wouldn’t be possible in a world completely free from suffering and evil. John Hick concluded that while our world is not ‘designed for the maximisation of human pleasure and the minimisation of human pain, it may nevertheless be rather well adapted to the quite different purpose of ‘soul making’.”

•

Everyone is destined for Heaven (once moral maturity has been reached) firstly because horrific suffering occurs during life, and if life was to end at death, God’s original purpose would have been frustrated and the suffering would have been needless; Heaven is a supremely good future justifying the extent of the suffering.

•

Secondly because many ‘evil’ people are just victims of the system – brought up badly, cannot be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, a just God ensures no one is overlooked.

•

Criticisms of the Irenaean Theodicy Heaven for all = unjust? Where is the incentive for us to develop? Others do wrong and still get to Heaven in the end! It also contradicts religious texts e.g. the Bible (Parable of the Sheep and Goats) and the Qur’an, which promise punishment for the unrighteous.

•

The counterfactual hypothesis indicates the process of soul-making could not take place in a paradise; but does our world need to contain suffering to this extent and severity? E.g. the Holocaust? Why 6 million Jews dead, why not 4 million?

•

Love can never be expressed by allowing any amount of suffering – DZ Phillips. Especially considering the magnitude of suffering.

•

Role of Jesus in atoning for human sins = unclear. It may be argued the example and teachings of Jesus point the way to salvation, therefore making him the Saviour, it still doesn’t apply an atoning role to his death – which is an important part of Christian theology.

Process Theodicy •

Developed by AN Whitehead and expanded in 20th century by David Griffin.

•

God is not omnipotent, and so did not create the universe.

•

The universe is an ‘uncreated process which includes the deity’.

•

So God’s part in the world is bound by natural laws.

•

His role in creation was limited to starting off the evolutionary process; this process led to the development of humans who exert their own influence on the world – God therefore no longer has total control as we can choose to disobey God.

•

God created the world from imperfect matter, explaining the current imperfections – suffering, evil.

•

He suffers with us, unable to control evil and help his creation. God is described by Whitehead as ‘the fellow sufferer who understands’.

•

Justification for God setting off the evolutionary process: the quantity and quality produced by the universe outweighs the evil; this universe is preferable to no universe.

Criticisms of Process Theodicy

•

Removes the stumbling block of why God does not put an end to suffering; the simple answer is that he cannot.

•

God suffers with us – this is encouraging – God can relate to us. Makes him seem more loving than ever.

•

No certainty that God will triumph in the end. Therefore may encourage some believers to join in the fight against evil; does not encourage inertia, unlike for example Irenaeus’ theodicy.

•

But – it denies the God of Classical Theism, therefore is not a theodicy at all?! Is such a being of limited power worthy of worship?

•

Lack of certainty may feel some with despair. What’s the point, if God can’t guarantee anything?

•

Unfair on those who do have to suffer – they would disagree that this universe is better than no universe, surely!

Monism •

Alters the concept of evil rather than of God (process theodicy).

•

Argues that evil is not a reality; if everything is good, evil must be a mere illusion in our minds.

•

We would recognise evil as good if we saw the whole picture.

•

Spinoza said we make mistakes when assessing things – firstly we assess them in terms of usefulness to us; this bias blinds us to the true value of something. Secondly we assume there are general norms to which humans and animals conform – so we consider a shrivelled tree and sinful man to be defective. We should instead accept that everything has a unique value.

•

Leibniz – this world is the best of all possible worlds – God could not have chosen any other – so evil must be an illusion. Why would God allow the illusion of suffering? Because the world could not have been created truly perfect, as only God, the uncreated being, can be perfect.

•

Monism not widely supported though – the Bible repeatedly demonstrates the genuine reality of evil. It is real enough for those who believe it is making them suffer.

•

It is also dangerous in that it trivialises evil – so why shouldn’t we all be ‘evil’?! It’s just an illusion after all...!

Religious Studies Revision 2

Philosophy of Religion: Unit 11. The Nature of Religious Experience

Near-Death Experiences Raymond Moody gives nine features of an NDE:

• • • • • • • • •

Hearing strange sounds (SOUNDS) Sense of peace and painlessness (PEACE) Out-of-body experiences (OBE) Sense of passing through a tunnel (TUNNEL) Sense of rising rapidly into the heavens (RISING) Seeing ‘people of light’ – meeting with deceased friends and relatives (PEOPLE) Vision of a ‘being of light’ (e.g. Jesus) and a feeling of being loved (JESUS) Life review (REVIEW) Reluctance to return (RELUCTANCE)

Kenneth Ring – model of five stages of NDE – first being the most common, last being the least common:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A sense of peace at the time of death

•

One effect of NDES: often, an unshakable belief in the afterlife and banishing of the fear of

A sense of separation from the body A sense of entering into darkness Seeing a bright light A sense of entering the light

death. •

Moody describes this belief as the change from seeing life after death as an abstract possibility to a fact of one’s own experience.

•

John Davey said most people bring back an absolute certainty their eventual physical death is simply entry into a mode of further existence; the glimpse of which is scarcely comparable to anything in ordinary life

Sceptical View of NDEs •

Physical and mental explanations may account for NDEs

•

E.g. Rise in blood pressure in the inner ear can create a sensation of rising and floating – a person experiencing cardiac arrest would be susceptible to this with the resulting halt of blood flow.

•

Some say NDEs are the result of a chemical reaction within the brain during the dying process.

•

As the eyes deteriorate they produce the sensation of bright light that forms part of the NDE.

•

Tunnel effect and a sensation of being out of body = also caused by chemical reactions.

•

Psychological explanations too – e.g. NDEs are the mind’s defence mechanisms for guarding against fear of imminent death, creating a positive, attractive image of death to enable people to cope with the stress of dying.

•

We cannot prove there is an afterlife as a result of NDEs therefore.

•

Gallup: ‘You can’t subject them to a scientific test – in order words, you can’t kill people off and then bring them back.’

•

Also, being nearly dead is different to being actually dead.

•

Hume rejected belie in LAD and any reported experiences – we cannot prove any state of existence which no one has ever seen and which is unlike anything ever seen.

•

All NDEs prove is that a certain person w/ their own particular background, beliefs, attitudes, in an extreme physical and mental state, will experience something which can be classified as a near death experience.

•

Proves nothing about life after death or the truth of any religion. Only proves itself.

Sympathetic View of NDEs •

Above arguments tend to assume life after death is not a meaningful reality; but it might well be. Just because we’ve not experienced it doesn’t make it impossible.

•

To what extent can NDEs be said to be like death itself? If a religious believer accepts the afterlife as a reality, they will probably be happy to accept NDEs as a glimpse of LAD.

•

Agnostics and atheists have reported having NDEs similar to those experienced by religious believers.

•

Research by Moody and Ring shows most of these people interpret their NDEs as glimpses of the afterlife and become more spiritual (though not necessarily religious) afterwards.

•

People from different religions claim to see different religious figures though.

•

Hick argues that believers experience during a rel. Exp. The ‘Universal Spirit’ (God) and that their experiences are filtered or conveyed through the cultural constructs of their own religious tradition.