Monday, November 4, 2013
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)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Philo uses the Argument of Evil to argue that God does not exist. His argument states that: 1) If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (God has the power to prevent suffering and evil, God has knowledge to prevent suffering and evil, and God wills to prevent suffering and evil), it follows that there is no evil. However, there is evil and suffering in the world. It is not the case then that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and especially omnibenevolent. Therefore, God does not exist. Philo’s argues that if God is this Supreme Being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, it is not in God’s character, nor in his nature to cause the suffering and unhappiness of beings on the Earth. However, evil and suffering are not necessarily separate and independent things from God; rather, suffering and evil can be considered as all part of God’s plan for a greater good, and intentionally placed to help develop the character and virtues of humans on Earth, and to ultimately make life on Earth meaningful. According to Philo, since God is omnipotent, God should have the power to prevent all suffering and evil. One can agree with Philo that indeed God should have the capacity to conquer evil, and he does unless God has a good reason to allow evil’s existence. This good reason is the idea of suffering as a part of a greater good, an essential component in the development of one’s moral character and virtues. This idea, called theodicy, permits God’s compatibility with evil and vindicates God, arguing that virtue, morality, and the discovery of meaning in one’s life ultimately cannot develop without evil and suffering's existence. Such as the phrase “you learn from your mistakes”, it is only applicable and relevant if humans have the capacity to stumble and sometimes fail. If you asked anyone on the street about the hardships and individual struggles faced during their lifetime, they will all say that those experiences, no matter how terrible or unhappy, have made them stronger, more courageous and compassionate people. For example, if someone is mourning the loss of a dear friend or family member, or someone has realized that they have cancer or some other chronic illness where their time here is limited, the ability to fight, move on, persevere, and ultimately cope with the suffering is what constitutes the great character of the individual. Enduring sad and hurtful experiences instills irreplaceable virtues such as courage, dignity, self-esteem, love, and compassion in the individual that can only come from human suffering, and leads ultimately to a healthy, meaningful existence on Earth, for if all of life's events happened smoothly with no obstacles or barriers to overcome, how easy and trivial life would be. Would God want that for anyone?
ReplyDeleteIn sections X and XI, the argument posed is that because human misery exists, God does not exist. In this argument, God is defined to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, just as many religions see him to be. The arguments goes like this: if God is omnibenevolent, he should have the power to remove all human misery, if God is omniscient, he should have the knowledge to dispel human misery, and if God is omnibenevolent, he should desire to end human misery. Thus, because it is clear that human misery exists in our world, God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It is possible for him to be two out of the three characteristics, but in that case, he is not God as most religions define him to be.
ReplyDeleteOne major objection to this argument is the free will theodicy. This counter argument claims that misery exists because God wills it to, but he does this for good reason, and his doing so does not violate his omnibenevolence. In this argument, there are four worlds to consider: one with free will but not evil, with free will and evil, without free will and with evil, and one without free will and without evil. This theodicy claims that out of these four worlds, the one with both free will and evil is the best option. It’s obvious that the worlds without free will are undesirable, as that removes any meaning to life. However, the fault with this theodicy is the fact that it claims the world with free will and evil to be superior to the world with free will that lacks evil.
The reasoning behind their choice is that without evil, there is no ability to choose between right and wrong. Without this possibility, people will not go through moral development; thus, in the world without evil, everyone is undeveloped in a moral sense. However, I have to question this type of defense. If God is omnipotent, why can’t he simply create humans that are morally developed without the presence of evil? Is he unable to do so, thus making his power finite? Or, in a world with free will and without evil, what is the use of moral development – it means nothing when there is no misery. So, I believe that Demea and Philo (with the help of Epicurus!) have constructed a solid argument against the existence of God.
In these sections the arguments that are used to explain God's existence or non-existence are all referring to three things; omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. These three things are what the characters in the book use to define God. The argument specifically used is saying that if God is all good and he does not want bad things to happen, why is there misery? The arguments in my mind makes sense because if God was supposed to be all good, all knowing, and all powerful, why would bad things happen to people since his job is to make the world a better place. Perhaps bad things happen because god may not be all these things. Perhaps he isn't all knowing so he didn't know that the man would rob the bank. Or perhaps he isn't all powerful so he couldn't stop the murderer from killing the victim. Or perhaps he isn't all good and just wants bad things to happen to people. Either way, bad things happen in the world and people still believe there is a God. Another common argument for why these bad things happen is that maybe it is part of a larger scheme that is all good in the end. Perhaps the man needed to rob the bank because the bank was actually going to do something bad with the money. Perhaps it is good God didn't stop the murderer because the victim was going to become a dictator. Either we don't know how things are supposed to turn out so perhaps God's actions are done for a reason. So in conclusion, the argument that God does not exist can be made by stating that bad things happen and there is no god to stop them. But it can also be said that maybe he has the inability to stop them or chooses to let them happen in the end for a greater good. Either way I am not sure whether to believe that there is a God who would let bad things happen, or whether there is no God at all.
ReplyDeletePhilo’s argument that God does not exist because human misery does exist is not sound because God is not directly responsible with human misery. This is because the misery and evil of humans is due to the human’s actions, which God did give us the capability for but we act on those capabilities. This argument fails because God created humans as imperfect thus making misery inevitable, therefore misery does not disprove God but it actually proves his existence. God made the world imperfect because then creatures could learn from their mistakes and live with a purpose. Suffering builds character which is why God created us in a way where we can endure hardship.
ReplyDeleteGod created humans in a way that makes them self-aware and therefore they can learn from their mistakes. If God had made a society with no evil or suffering then the rest of the human makeup would be not needed such as that of self-awareness. Human suffering serves a purpose therefore the suffering does not disprove God. God intended for creatures to suffer in order for them to learn. A utopian society would leave no room for improvement or growth therefore suffering serves an extremely important role in our universe. In contrast to what Philo argues, suffering in evil do not disprove God; in fact they prove God’s existence as a benevolent being.
An argument people often use to disprove god is if god exists, why do bad things happen to good people? The fact of the matter is that one clause does not disprove the other. We can have both in our world, and just because bad things happen to good people does not mean god is all caring. For an example, if my friend asks me to edit his history paper for a better grade, I have two options. I can say yes, do it for him, have him hand it in and receive a good grade. The problem with this is: what happens when he goes to college and I am too busy to help him with his papers? Because I did it for him, he won’t know how to proof read and edit. In the long run, it is bad for him. The second option would be for me to say no, and not do it. In this scenario, he edits it, turns it in and gets a bad grade this time. However, the benefit is that he has practiced editing his paper. He might get a bad grade right now, but he will be much better off when he goes to college. The truth is that suffering promotes growth and development. People tend to grow from their failures, not their successes. Fear and disappointment are often the catalysts for many great things. If god wishes to see us grow as individuals, he must introduce suffering into the world. That is, development is important. Just because there is suffering in the world does not mean that god does not exist. If we can prove in another way that god is all caring, this argument does not debunk that argument because this argument does not hold true. Sometimes things need to get worse before they can get better.
ReplyDeleteAfter developing the catalogue of human misery, Philo lays out an argument for the impossibility of the existence of God in a world wrought with unhappiness.
ReplyDelete1. There is suffering/evil in the world
2. If God is omnibenevolent, God wills to prevent suffering/ evil
3. If God is omnipotent, God has the power to prevent suffering/evil
4. If God is omniscient, God has the knowledge to prevent suffering/evil
5. If God exists, there is no suffering/evil
6. It is then not the case God is all three omni's
7. Conclusion: God does NOT exist
The primary objection lies in the possible falsity of Philo’s second premise. Perhaps, as Demea suggests, there is some divine reason for human suffering, and God remains omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent while tolerating the existence of evil in the world. It can be argued that the existence of evil is a consequence of God’s allowance for human free will or as a necessary component for human character development.
Imagine four possible universes God could create. First consider a universe in which evil exists without free will. God, being omnibenevolent, would never will this world into creation; therefore it can be removed from the running. Next consider a universe with free will and no evil. This is impossible, as it’s accepted that free will cannot exist without evil. Finally, God is left with two ulterior choices. He can create a universe in which humans have free will yet evil exists as a consequence, or a universe where there is no free will and no evil. Of these two remaining worlds, we can only guess that God saw free will as a divine good, and the existence of suffering a necessary consequence.
Alternately, the soul-making theodicy argues that evil must exists so that humans can develop character. If there is no evil or suffering in the world, then we would essentially be fully grown babies. The principle goes that one can't develop virtue without evil, can't be generous if no one needs for anything, and can't learn work ethic if given everything.
Between these two objections to Philo’s second premise, although neither is sure, his argument somewhat falls apart. Although I believe Philo’s argument makes more direct logical sense, the arguments of free will and the soul-making theodicy are valid responses which damage the basis of Philo’s argument for the non-existence of God, and render it unconvincing yet not certainly false.
For the purposes of sustaining God's existence, he must be omnipotent or else the general thesis of God's abilities would fall apart. Therefore we must arrive at the conclusion that God either doesn't exist or is not benevolent. The proof according to Epicurus is all around us - evil exists. Since God is omnipotent, we conclude that he is capable of dealing with evil. We also are compelled to believe that if one is benevolent, they will do everything in their capacity to deal with suffering and in the case of God we are led to believe that if God is benevolent evil should not exist as God would deal with it. However, the elimination of evil is clearly not the case. Human beings clearly suffer on a daily basis with issues like human trafficking, murder, and anything else that fills the long list of issues plaguing humanity. Therefore clearly God must not exist or lack benevolence.
ReplyDeleteWhile the argument laid out above is fairly solid, there are some potential objections. One of the more compelling counter arguments is the idea of free will. With free will comes the ability to decide between immoral and moral decisions and thus for free will to exist, immorality must be an option at times. While the argument made in class that you can still make decisions even with immoral options removed, I find it far more compelling that free will requires all options to be made available. Interventionist removal of options runs against the point of free will and freedom isn't freedom unless it is total. Therefore, under the model of free will, evil must exist for the sole purpose of enabling free will. The argument to justify that a benevolent God can still allow for evil is that there is a greater good found in free will that is worth sacrificing the security of zero evil.
My only qualm with the argument for free will is that some humans are given zero chance in the world and are doomed from birth to suffer from the immorality of others. Children born into slavery are merely victims forced to play a role in the immoral decisions of others. I believe under a benevolent God, while morality is an choice made on a regular basis, everyone should be given the option to be an actor in the decisions of their life and thus I don't completely buy the idea that free will solves the problem of evil. As long as people are forced to be spectators to the decisions of others, I can't fathom a benevolent God that would allow such a scenario since the free will argument must be extended to everyone which clearly isn't the case.
According to Demea, the natural theologian, there is a classical God that possesses three main qualities - omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. However, Philo notices a major flaw; the fact that evil exists in the world. He believes that according to this theory of Demea, no God would allow evil so long as He possessed these qualities. His reasoning is as follows: if there is evil in the world, then either 1) God is not powerful enough to stop it (not omnipotent) 2) God does not know how to stop it (not omniscient) or 3) it is not God’s will to stop evil (not omnibenevolent, maybe even malevolent). This means that God does not exist (since you need God to be at the very least all powerful and all knowing) or God simply is not benevolent. This argument is not entirely sound, unless you assume that evil in the world should be accepted as it is on face (just evil for evil’s sake). However, one must recognize that there are many causes of evil. Often, “acts of evil” can actually be attributed to some other human, rather than celestial origin. Even things like natural disasters are evil only because human foolery leads us to build houses, for example, in a dangerous area. Was the San Francisco earthquake evil, or was it just human’s being ignorant? Even if one were to argue that a truly good God would prevent all of this, they must look past the mere illusion of evil. Our definition of “evil” could simply be a byproduct of maintaining ideals, such as virtues and free will. Therefore, God could actually be acting in the best possible manner, by giving us these assets. This affirms Cleanthes’s view on the situation, and makes it so the problem of evil, as proposed by Philo, is not as drastic as it seems.
ReplyDelete