Introduction The problem of evil has been a major concern in the human race with various attempts being made to reconcile the belief in God with the existence of evil in this world. The Christian conception of God as supremely good and powerful has made the problem of evil to be very difficult simply because such a being will make the world a better place than it is by preventing evil from causing pain and suffering to humanity. Both Christianity and Judaism face a great challenge to solve the issue of evil and its existence because of the impact of evil that the holocaust caused on millions of people. Scholars have devoted their time to account for the horrifying events that took place during the holocaust by examining different theodicy
Free-will is arguably the greater good; we would not be humans without it and we would not be a good creation without choice over our own actions. In protection of that greater good, God does not, and should not, get involved in dealing with moral evil and the suffering caused by it. Doing so would subvert our free-will, and ultimately take away our free-will. Since we have the choice whether to do good or evil, God should not be blamed for the actions that humans make. Following from this, God can still be omniscient (God knows that there is evil in the world), omnipotent (God has the ability to stop evil) and omnibenevolent (God does not want evil to exist, but ultimately allows it for our ability to have free-will).
This coincides with my next argument in that God has created a world that allows for both good and evil, and along with this, he gave humans the ability to make their own choices. God allows humans, who are not all-powerful and not necessarily wholly good beings to have the decision to make between being good and being evil. I am a firm believer in this hands-off approach that God may have taken during his creation because free will allows people to ultimately choose their own path in life, and while allowing the possibility for evil to occur God himself remains both wholly good and all-powerful. Without free will it would be unclear as to what makes humans unique individuals; free will allows for the understanding that humans can be themselves and choose their outcomes ultimately resulting in them deciding their lives. Unfortunately, free will along with good and evil go hand in hand.
A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.
William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.
In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).
Another Milestone that effects the way we define the notion of “Good and Evil” is largely based on our religion. Therefore, the way we see right from wrong, heaven and hell, light and darkness, Good vs. Evil and God and the Devil comes from the moral criterion that we attempt to apply to our worldviews. However, given the conspicuous contrasts amongst religions, ranging from Christianity to Islam to Judaism. Many people believe that due to the simple fact of religious diversity, this provides the basis to discredit any assumption of moral truths. Some religions define evil as “the result of human sin” or that “Evil is the result of a spiritual being who opposes the Lord God”
It is part of many religious traditions that bad things do happen in the world. And independently of that, denying this premise seems very implausible. It is very implausible to say that rape, murder, torture of innocent people is not a bad thing. c. mystery reply People who hold this "solution" say things like, "God works in mysterious ways; who are we to judge God?"
A theodicy attempts to explain why a just and good God would ever allow the existence of evil on earth. The Free Will Theodicy states that the reason that God would not prevent suffering is that “the suffering of the innocent is justified by the existence of free will”. This theodicy also claims that there are natural evils (such as accidents, diseases, etc.) and moral evils, and that moral evils only exist due to humans misusing their sense of free will. According to the play Macbeth by William Shakespeare the awareness that a deed is immoral is what makes fulfilling the deed evil. Nothing an animal does can be seen as cruel because their actions are purely instinctual, mankind is unique in that we have free will and sense of right and wrong, which means that we are the only species capable of true cruelty or evil.
Open Your Eyes Good versus evil is a battle as old as mankind. Every second of every day, the score changes. Sometimes, good is winning. Other times, evil. But at the end of day, good always prevails.
Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. First, I begin with Swinburne’s views on the kinds of evils. According to him, there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure
Theodore Dalrymple is a British doctor who worked for the NHS (National Health Service) until retirement. Most of his writings come directly from his experience in his field and more often than not he writes about the situation in which low-class citizens are living in. This is the case for “The Frivolity of Evil”. The author main concern in this essay is to answer to the question “why do people commit evil?” and how it could be, eventually, prevented or even suppressed. Theodore claims that, while at the beginning he thought that “in the absence of the worst political deformations, widespread evil was impossible”, he soon found himself to be wrong.