Introduction
The problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world. It is also the one serious objection to the existence of God. More people have abandoned their faith because of the problem of evil than for any other reason. It is certainly the greatest test of faith, the greatest temptation to unbelief. And it’s not just an intellectual objection. The problem can be stated very simply: If God is so good, why is his world so bad? If an all-good, all-wise, all-loving, all-just, and all-powerful God is running the show, why does he seem to be doing such a miserable job to the work of His hand? Why do bad things happen to good people? Evil has been categorized into Natural as well as Moral evil. This paper reflects the analysis of various perspectives of the problem of evil presented by different biblical scholars, Philosophers as well as contemporary theologians.
Arguments for the Natural Problem of Evil
The problem of natural evil is a specific form of the problem of evil. This problem of natural evil reconciles much with the existence of God. Griffin
The free-will defense
This response argues that natural evil is caused by the fee will of created agents. This, an alternative response to the problem of natural evil, is associated with St Augustine
Natural evil is a punishment for sin
Another attempt that has been developed in responding to the problem of natural evil is advocating evil as a punishment for sin inflicted upon us by God. Davis, an Associate Professor of Religion at Claremont Men’s College in his book; put forth that, “We cannot complain about natural evils, on this view, because we deserve all that we get. Natural evil, unpleasant though it may be, belongs in the world; it makes the world more just”[3]. However, the chief difficulty with this view is that nature is a crude instrument of retribution; it often smites hardest those that have sinned least. “The argument may succeed in casting some doubt on the supposition that God would eliminate all sufferings; God’s benevolence and His justice may exist in tension, and a benevolent God may sometimes will just punishment”[4]
Good cannot exist without evil
There have been arguments that contemporary theologians have put in place in wrestling with the idea of God’s existence in relating to problem of natural evil. Griffin
Some biblical scholars hold the idea that evil is necessary in order for certain types of good to exist. French Roman Catholic thinker Pierre Teilhard de Chardian put forth that in this scenario, evil will continue to grow alongside good, leading eventually to catastrophic finale[6]. “Specifically, the existence of evil opens up possibilities for bravery, for compassion, and for mutual dependence”[7]. It has been concluded that when people are put under the universe without battling with evil, their adoration and appreciation of God and God’s nature respectively could not be effective and efficiency. When he maintained his stand in Process theology, Whitehead pointed out that God’s transcendence refers to the inexhaustibility, enduring faithfulness of purpose and ability to utilize even evil for good ends[8]. A world without suffering would lack such good, and would therefore be inferior.
Arguments for the Moral Problem of Evil
The moral arguments wrestles with the following presuppositions: If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. If God were omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil.
The formal moral arguments
In relating the problem of moral evil to God’s existence, different thoughts have been developed. This formal moral argument dwells much on the existence or nature of morality to imply the existence of God. “Morality consists of a set of commands; it does not describe the way the world is, but rather prescribes the way the world ought to be; it tells us what to do. Morality is prescriptive. Just as carried things cannot exist without a carrier, and popular things cannot exist without admirers, so prescriptions cannot exist without a prescriber[9]. In agreeing to this, David Hume, an eighteenth century philosopher argued that there must be a commander of morality, a being that issued the commands that constitute morality. This being, however, is not a human being. For a command only carries as much authority as does its commander, but the authority of morality exceeds the authority of any human being[10].
“The authority that issued the commands that constitute morality must therefore be an ultimate authority. The only ultimate authority, however, is God. The existence of morality therefore depends on, and so demonstrates, the existence of God”[11]. In this case the moral arguments advocates the idea that Moral evil exists because God is the one who cause moral evil as He works morally through human beings. In his doctrine of God, Schleiermacher pointed out that God is the all determining reality, the ultimate cause of everything both good and evil the one who acts but not acted upon. He further suggested that sin is ordained by God as that which makes redemption necessary[12].
The argument from imperfection
Most Scholars have advocated the idea that moral evil is the results of the imperfection of human beings. The argument responds to the moral evil by ignoring God’s existence. Peter Van Inwagen, said; “Since God does not exist the world is imperfect. Had it been that God who is so called perfect exist, the human being could have been perfect hence no moral evil”[13]. In contrast, Moltmann in his book Theology of Hope argued that God exist but because of evil and suffering in the world, He is not the ground of this world and not the ground of existence[14], but the God of the coming kingdom which transforms this world and our existence radically. The goodness of a creator is proportional to the goodness of that which He created. For instance a carpenter who makes a fragile table with uneven legs is a bad carpenter. A carpenter who makes a strong and beautiful table is better. The argument advocates that if God exists then the world would be perfect, and that the world is not perfect, then it must also be accepted that God does not exist.
Responses to the Moral problem of evil
The first step in answering the problem of evil is this: We have to get clear on what this thing “evil” actually is. Based on the arguments it sounds like if God created all things, and evil is a thing, then God created evil. St Augustine St Augustine
That loss of good is called evil. That’s why in Genesis 1 we read “it was good” many times. From the creation account we discover that God didn’t create evil. But something did happen which resulted in the loss of good. It seems that the fall of human account spilled out the spiritual evil which gave birth to physical evil. In his recent article, a contemporary theologian, Peter Kreeft, pointed out that; “God is the source of all life and joy. Therefore, when the human soul rebels against God, it loses its life and joy. Now a human being is both body as well as soul. We are single creature. So the body must share in the soul's inevitable punishment”[17]. Satan would be the first example of an independent a source of evil. Inwagen argued that, “Adam and Eve did not get Satan’s evil; they initiated their own. Satan influenced them. It is not that Satan did something bad and passed that stuff on to them, because evil is not stuff. When we make a shadow, we don’t do it with shadow stuff, but by blocking existing light”[18].
In the same way, evil doesn't cause our actions. In fact, it's the other way around when it comes to moral evil. Our actions are what cause evil or the loss of goodness in us, and that loss of goodness does have an impact on future actions, giving us a predisposition to cause further evil. God did not create Adam and Eve with bad stuff in them. What He did was to create them with a capability to make a choice which at the end enabled them to rebel against Him. Feinberg one of the contemporary theologians argued that, “morally evil actions ultimately stems from human desires”[19]. This does not mean that the desire is in of themselves evil.
In James 1:13-15 the author describes how in a concrete case temptation arises and how that temptation leads to moral evil. With our desires we draw away and enticed to the point where they lead us to choose disobey God. God's solution to the problem of evil is his Son Jesus Christ. The Father’s love sent his Son to die for us to defeat the power of evil in human nature: that's the heart of the Christian story. The Cross is God's part of the practical solution to evil. This relates to what Niebuhr pointed out in relating the cross with evil. “The event of the cross stands as the climax of the Biblical revelation of God’s sovereignty over our history. It discloses the divine love, which is able to overcome the evil of human heart. The cross declares that because of the power of the sin, love lives in history as suffering love”[20]. Our part, according to the same Gospel, is to repent, to believe, and to work with God in fighting evil by the power of love
Response to the Natural problem of evil
The natural problem of evil is attributed as the result of the fall. As a result of us inherit a positive disposition toward sin. Thinkers of Process theology like John Cobbs advocated the idea that evil is a by-product of the process, even a necessary part of the world’s movement of God. According to the bible two results are relevant to the handling of natural evil. God told Adam and Eve that if they disobey Him they would die. (Gen. 2:17-18). When they disobeyed, God confirmed that they would die. Today people die because the race fell into sin. Again Genesis account says that because of the fall there are negative consequences for the natural order.
Mankind must work harder to grow crops, for thorns and thistles infest the land. (3:17-19). Rick Rood an apologetic and New Testament scholar and a theologian asked questions, “Who is to say we have to know all God's reasons? Who ever promised us all the answers? Animals can not understand much about us; why should we be able to understand everything about God?”[21] Daniel Howard wrote; “It is important first to recognize that we live in a fallen world, and that we are subject to natural disasters that would not have occurred if man not chosen to rebel against God. Even so, it is difficult to imagine how we could function as free creatures in a world much different than our own design”[22]. Certainly, God is capable of destroying evil but not without destroying human freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function. “God wants His human creatures to be able exercise freedom in order to function in this world. But the exercise of freedom requires natural order that is predicable; hence God forgoes performing miracles on some occasions so as to maintain that regularity and order ness”[23].
POSITIVE SIDE OF EVIL TO HUMAN RACE
We noted that when suffering strikes, it is neither unnatural to experience emotional pain, nor unspiritual to express it. On the other hand different theologians and Biblical writers have agreed that there’s a positive side of evil. Hegel agreed with traditional theology that the fall was evil. But it was likewise positive as the necessary first step towards the making explicit of unity between God and humanity[24]. But we also noted that when suffering strikes, human beings are quick to reflect on the character of God and on the promises He gives to those who are enduring great trial. Joseph gave evidence of having learned this truth when after years of unexplained suffering due to the betrayal of his brothers; he was able to say to them, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Though God did not cause his brothers to betray him, nonetheless God was able to use it in furthering His good intentions. “This is the great hope we have in the midst of suffering, that in a way beyond our comprehension, God is able to turn evil against itself”[25]. And it is because of this truth that we can find joy even in the midst of sorrow and pain. The apostle Paul described himself as "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing" (2 Cor. 6:10). And we are counseled to rejoice in trial, not because the affliction itself is a cause for joy, but because in it God can find an occasion for producing what is good. For one, suffering can provide an opportunity for God to display his glory that is to make evident His mercy, faithfulness, power and love in the midst of painful circumstances (Jn. 9:1-3). Suffering can also allow us to give proof of the genuineness of our faith, and even serve to purify our faith (1 Pet. 1:7). As in the case of Job, our faithfulness in trial shows that we serve Him not merely for the benefits He offers, but for the love of God Himself (Job 1:9-11).
Severe trial also provides an opportunity for believers to demonstrate their love for one another as members of the body of Christ who “bear one another's burdens” (1 Cor 12:26; Gal. 6:2). Bonhoeffer a prominent figure in Secular theology argued that being a Christian does not give license for immoral or indulgent lifestyle. However to be a Christian means sharing in the sufferings of God in the life of world. God’s suffering means living a true disciple- becoming vulnerable in service to the world[26]. Carson
Conclusion
As we have seen evil is real, and no one is immune from it. However, God’s existence should not be denied for the sake of justifying evil. God, perfectly good and all-powerful, created the best of all possible universes. There is no shortcoming in creation that makes suffering and evil necessary. Rather, suffering enters the world because of evil, and evil enters the world because of an act of will, a choice. People suffer because of disease and natural disaster; some because other people harm them; and people suffer because they are punished for wrongdoing. All are the result of freely chosen sin‚ personal and corporate. Though a lot of arguments have been said, God’s nature remains the same. God also is able to bring something good from evil and He can also teach us a lesson from evil.
Bibliography
Boyd, Gregory A. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Intervarsity, 2003
Carson, D.A. How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil. Grand Rapids
Davis, Stephen T. Encountering Evil; Live Options in Theodicy; Louisville
Feinberg, John. S. The Many faces of Evil; Theological systems and the problem of evil, Grand Rapids ; Michigan
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology; An Introduction to Biblical doctrine; Intervarsity press, 1994
Grenz, Stanley
Hume, David. Philosophy and problem of evil: Retrieved from http//:www.evilworld.com on 2 March 2010
Howard, Daniel. The Evidential Argument from Evil; Indianapolis , Indiana University
Inwagen, Peter Van; Christian Faith and the problem of Evil; Grand Rapid, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co. 2004
Plantiga, Alvin: Electronic Journal, Where is the Freedom of God. Grand Rapids
Kreeft, Peter. Making Sense Out of Suffering: Ann Arbor , MI
Rood, Rick: Theodicy: Retrieved from http://www.philosophyofreligion.com on 4th March 2, 2010
[1] Griffin Philadelphia
[2] Griffin
[3] Davis, Encountering Evil; Live Options in Theodicy; Louisville
[4] Ibid,p.129
[5] Griffin
[6] Grenz, J. 20th Century Theology, God and the World in a Transitional Age; Downers Groove, Intervarsity Press, 1992, p. 134
[7] Feinberg, The Many faces of Evil; Theological systems and the problem of evil, Grand Rapids ; Michigan
[8] Grenz, p.137
[9] Plantiga : Electronic Journal, Where is the Freedom of God. Grand Rapids
[11] Hume
[13] Inwagen; Christian Faith and the problem of Evil; Grand Rapid, Michigan; Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co. 2004,p. 39
[14] Grenz p.179
[15]Feinberg, p. 182
[16] Plantiga, p.29
[17] Kreeft, p.49
[18] Inwagen, p. 52
[19]Feinberg, p.194
[20] Grenz, p.109
[21] Rood: Theodicy: Retrieved from http://www.philosophyofreligion.com on 4th March 2, 2010
[22] Howard, The Evidential Argument from Evil; Indianapolis , Indiana University
[23] Grudem, Systematic Theology; An Introduction to Biblical doctrine; Intervarsity press, 1994, p.247
[24] Grenz, p.37
[25] Grudem, p. 230
[26] Grenz, p. 153-154
[27] Carson Grand Rapids
No comments:
Post a Comment