Top-Rated Free Essay

Why Does God Allow Evil?

Powerful Essays
Adam George
Philosophy 101
Fall 2009

“The Problem of Evil” Many people dispute the true intentions of God, himself, since the beginning of mankind. Opposing and concurring arguments can be just as primitive. Regardless of personal perspective on any indefinite theory, it is undeniable that the controversy between good and evil will inevitably exist. Two dominant philosophers discussed in “The Problem of Evil” are Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and David Hume. Both of these authors discuss interesting motives from both sides of the issue: why and why not God should allow evil. What makes Leibniz’ perspective credible is his prestigious accomplishments. Leibniz is the son of a professor of law, and has countless achievements in a wide variety of subjects. These subjects include: law, science, theology, calculus, etc. He takes his work and philosophies seriously. In the topic of “God Can Allow Evil”, Leibniz defends God and his decision to allow evil. He justifies God in response to many common questions. Leibniz denies the fact that God didn’t choose the best world he could because even though there is evil, there is also an ulterior motive. With out a world with bad, an evaluation of good could not be determined. “I have wished to justify this denial by showing that the best plan is not always that which seeks to avoid evil, since it may happen that the evil is accompanied by a greater good” (Leibniz 74). Another quotation to make his point more clear is “That an imperfection in the part may be required for a greater perfection in the whole” (Leibniz 74). Leibniz disputes that there is more good than evil in humans because the quantity of evil does not surpass the quality of good. “God is infinite, and the devil is limited; the good may and does go to infinity, while evil has its bounds.” (Leibniz 75) Also, he illustrates that in a comparison toward the blessed and the damned, and the happy and unhappy; the proportion of degree is more than the number of people. In relation to intelligent and non-intelligent, you can not base them off the same structure because the number of good (ignorant or not) over powers the worth of evil. Leibniz condones human freedom despite predetermination and necessity. He does this by stating that although there is determination, it is not followed by a necessary consequence. “These voluntary actions and their consequences will not take place no matter what we do or whether we wish them or not; but, through that which we shall do and through that which we shall wish to do.” (Leibniz 76) He feels that if there is a such thing as an absolute necessity, it serves no purposes for praise or blame. Leibniz advocates voluntary actions are needed to make another action exist. It is necessary for Leibniz to claim that God could prevent evil but chooses not to because God, himself, would then commit sin or an unreasonable act. God would commit sin because it is believed that everything he does has purpose. He permits man to sin in an expectation of a greater good resulting from it. “But that the divine consequent or final or total will tends toward the production of as many good s as may be put together, the combination of which becomes in this way determined, and includes also the permission of some evils and the exclusion of some goods, as the best possible plan for the universe demands.” (Leibniz 78) God is not responsible for cause of evil; however does produce all that’s real says Leibniz. He elaborates his theory by saying that imperfection comes from limitations. He explains that God made the soul obdurate, how you perceive God’s impression is based upon the amount of your soul’s resistance not by supplying man with evil. If God was not free, or absent of sin, he would therefore be imperfect, as Leibniz puts it. And if god was determined to be imperfect the world would either tend to evil or be indifferent. This is impossible to Leibniz (as stated in an earlier rebuttal), because good always exceeds evil. Although Leibniz theories are undeniably respectable, they are also debatable. David Hume displays in “A Good God Would Exclude Evil”. He is a profound writer, specifically regarding philosophy, and also was a historian. “A Good God Would Exclude Evil” is a direct counter response to Leibniz’s “God Can Allow Some Evil”. Hume explains that a person not previously exposed to the acknowledgement of God, or his powers, would question God’s true intention in regards to evil. He believes that this man would be left to gather information, he himself, through observation and experience to make a conclusion. “He may be fully convinced of the narrow limits of his understanding, but this will not help him in forming an interference concerning the goodness of superior powers, since he must form that inference from what he knows, not from what he is ignorant of.” (Hume 84). He defends this by stating that even though man would be skeptical; such a great being such as God would disappoint him through the evidence obtained. Hume describes four circumstances that evoke evil in sensible creatures. Hume describes the first circumstance by questioning the reason of pain. He states that pleasure is understandable, but doesn’t understand the necessity of pain. “If animals can be free from it an hour, they might enjoy a perpetual exemption from it, and it required as particular a contrivance of their organs to produce that feeling as to endow them with sight, hearing, or any other senses.” (Hume 85) This means if creatures can live without pain, and misery a like, why can’t they be bared with a gift of immunization? He references senses to make it clearer that a superior being gave us these gifts, so why wouldn’t the absence of pain be plausible. The next circumstance is in what occurs as a result of these evils. Hume believes that God should eliminate the laws of nature. If man had perpetual free will, the course of nature would not exist. “A being, therefore, who knows the secret springs of the universe might easily, by particular volitions, turn all these accidents to the good of mankind and render the whole world happy...?” (Hume 86) Hume is questioning why an absolute God would let accidents happen; why couldn’t God just create a happy world. He also questions why bad things happen to good people. The third circumstance is directed towards what, specifically, influences misery in all creatures. Hume answers that it is all species inadequacies, and the realization of extinguishment. He is irritated that all species are not formed perfectly. “Every course of life would not have been so surrounded with precipices that the leas departure from the true path, by mistake or necessity, must involve us in misery and ruin.” (Hume 87). He challenges why God is so perfect, yet we, his creations, are so defective. The last and final circumstance has to do with earth’s nature. He wonders why nature has such natural disasters: droughts, floods, etc. Hume refers to the world as a machine in this last explanation. “But at the same time, it must be observed that none of these parts or principles, however useful, are accurately adjusted as to keep precisely in those bounds in which their utility consists...” (Hume 88). What this means is why can’t nature be perfect? Why is it necessary to make the worlds entities defective as well? David Hume closes with over view and reassurance that in a world without these four circumstances our world would be ideal. “The whole presents nothing but the idea of blind nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children.” (Hume 89) The term “whole” is referring to the world, humans and creatures a like, and how it’s filled with unnecessary inadequacies preventing us all from ultimate happiness. “Blind nature” is in regards to the susceptibility or creatures. How we all go along with nature, and never question why, we just settle.

Two excerpts I found interesting in Leibniz’s explanation “God Can Allow Some Evil” are: Why God did not choose the “best” world, and why there is more good than bad in the human race. I find myself to agree completely with Leibniz’s explanation on why God can allow evil. By reading this specific excerpt I discovered that you can’t determine good without evil, the same way you can’t distinguish beauty if there was nothing ugly. The duality of it all intrigues me, because this concept does not just apply to bad and good, but many things in life. More specifically significant things like joy/pain, love/hate, light/darkness, wet/dry etc. Without one you can not acknowledge the other. I was enlightened by such a simple, yet complex concept. I also agree that evil is necessary in extreme efforts to create a greater good. I say that solely because we recognize bad things, we seem to dwell on them. A million bad things can occur, but it takes only one good thing to alter that foundation. The second except I found appealing was how immeasurable amounts of evils could occur, but the only entity significant is that of which is good. I found this interesting because I applied it to my everyday life, and it holds true. It only takes one thing, one person to make your day. Then the fact that you’re overwhelmed with joy can be contagious to others. Just because you had bad luck all week, all it takes is one day to make it all seem worth it. The last topic I found alluring was in David Humes “A Good God would Exclude Evil” When in the first circumstance, he brings up a very captivating point: Why is pain necessary? This intrigued me because I, along with Humes, don’t understand the reason for pain. If God granted us with such grant things as seeing, why would he condemn us with something as unfavorable as pain? I know this contradicts what I said to believe with Leibniz. However, I am baffled in his choices. I am confused because there is no duality to senses. I found this literature to be very enlightening in both spectrums... However I don’t feel inclined to choose either side, but much rather feel entertained by impressed by the knowledge and competence each author exudes.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    The Problem of Evil

    • 2698 Words
    • 11 Pages

    The Problem of Evil coined by Epicurus states that: “Either God wants to eradicate evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can but does not want to he is wicked. If God can eradicate evil, and He wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?” This problem has long bothered many theologians and philosophers, even St. Thomas Aquinas stated that it is a major objection to the existence of God. Undoubtedly, evil exists and its mere existence is so evident that it would be preposterous to deny it and since we cannot deny its existence, we must then try to prove that its existence would not oppose the existence of God. In this paper, I will try to explain the problem of evil through our free will, and the causes and consequences that are brought by natural evil then I will also attempt to enumerate the root causes of evil and the possible purpose of its existence. On the first part of this paper, I will explain that moral evil is just a byproduct of our wrong choices and it will be followed by the relation of natural evil to the design of our world. Writings of post-modern philosophers were mainly my guide in conducting this research because their studies are applicable and relevant in our modern world, and the books that I referred to were compilations regarding the existence of God and not primary texts of ancient or medieval philosophers.…

    • 2698 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson decides that God is either evil or both good and evil. Hick believes that the world is the grounds for soul-making and indirectly defends God in the face of evil. Hick’s argument is stronger than Johnson’s. I believe that evil exists in order to teach humans virtue that God has created. I also believe, like Hick suggests, that God, the universe, and His creations are inherently good, and that evil comes from the corruption of the good.…

    • 2241 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    One of the main arguments used by non-believers against the existence of God is the presence of evil and suffering in the world. The term ‘evil’ is often used to describe something that is morally wrong. Philosophers make a distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from human actions that are morally reproachable, and Natural evil results from the malfunctioning of the natural world, which produces entities such as disease and famine.…

    • 745 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The problem of evil is a significant and enduring philosophical and theological debate. A question is often raised and discussed: if God is both all-loving and all-powerful, then how can evils-including natural evil and moral evil---exist in our world? In response to the charge that the evils of the world are incompatible with God's omnipotence and perfect goodness, the word"theodicy" is coined to deal with the problem of evil. Usually it is an attempt to show that it is possible to affirm the omnipotence of God, the love of God, and the reality of evil without contradiction. Two of the most well-known and most frequently discussed theodicies are the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy.…

    • 1488 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Our time on earth is really just a preparation for our time in Heaven and the difference between good and evil is our own ability to accept that our choices will ultimately determine our eternal destiny. “Good and evil, when they are full grown, become retrospective” (69). “There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him” (…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Today the news is filled with coverage on various natural catastrophes and other related causalities that people face daily. Anyone can look into their lives or even their neighbors and see the presence of misfortune that surrounds our world. This problem has brought up the issue of God’s existence in religious philosophical discussions. For centuries, many have tried to dismiss the existence of God on the basis of the existence of evil. Let’s consider where God has been placed in people’s lives throughout our history. For the Greeks and Romans gods were thought to personify wisdom, war, and other actions that human beings took (Spitzer 5). As knowledge continued to progress god was thought to live in heaven, beyond the realm of the planets. He was believed to have created life thousands of years ago. Soon as human knowledge progressed even further we’ve learned about the Big Bang, DNA, and evolution (Spitzer 14). It seems that the more humans know, the further back God gets pushed. Often, it appears as if humans use God as a placeholder for the unknown, but as we learn more, he gets redefined. Philosophers question whether or not there can be a wholly good God that would create such a world where evil exists. This pursuit is known as the problem of evil. “According to the ‘problem of evil’, the extent of evils in the world seems to conflict with the existence of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God. Theodicy is a study where theists are able to get together and make their arguments disclosing information on the compatibility between God and evil. This seems to be one of the most perplexing problems theists have to face. In today's…

    • 2572 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    |Evil is justified by free-will – that is to say that it is worth it. |If we chose to disobey God we must have had knowledge of evil which can only have come from God. |…

    • 274 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Contemporary coverage of the news bombards us daily with the presence of evil. Whether it is national headlines or the world news, it is evident that evil exist in our world today. The presence of evil can present conflict despite of your personal worldview. For many centuries, the presence of evil in the world has been the basis of intellectual debate and many scholars as well as theologians have tried to develop theories as to why evil exist. Regardless of whether you may be an atheist, agnostic, a pantheist or a Christian, the presence of evil in the world presents challenges in several ways. The presence of evil and how we comprehend it sets the foundation for our commitment to a specific worldview.…

    • 1038 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    t Augustine 354-430 CE, developed a theodicy in order to tackle the ‘Problem of Evil’, the seeming contradiction between God being omnipotent, omnibenevolent and there still being evil in the world. As a Christian, he believed that God had made everything that exists, and that at the moment of creation, everything was perfect, because ‘God saw all that he had made, and it was very good’ Genesis 1: 31. He therefore concluded that ‘evil is not a substance’; it is merely ‘Privatio Boni’ or privation of good, because he thought that ‘things which are liable to corruption are good’, otherwise they cannot be corrupted.…

    • 585 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Probably the most powerful reason against the existence of The Classical God of Theism (hereafter referred to as God) is evil and suffering in the world. The problem of evil is an ‘a posterori’ argument, established from experience based on empirical senses. It is also synthetic as evil and suffering can be seen around us daily. There are a number of possible reasons for the problem of evil and why it causes a problem for religious believers, making it an inductive argument also. In his book Philosophy of Religion John Hick defined evil and suffering as “physical pain, mental suffering and moral wickedness”…

    • 650 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The explanation for why someone or something is evil can not be easily defined, as the answer may vary based on a person’s psychological thought process or intellectual reasoning. The justification of this paper is to discuss Peter Van Inwagen and his philosophical response to the argument from evil, as well as his free will defense theory for the answer to this complication. I will carefully evaluate the two standard objections to his solution and offer my personal opinion of rather or not he offers a successful resolution for this universal problem.…

    • 321 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The proposed solution to be discussed and Mackie’s response to it is the claim that ‘evil is due to human free will’ and as such it cannot be attributed to God. Evil should instead be attributed to the free actions of individuals, the power of which has been endowed upon them by God. While it is acknowledged that there exists evil in the world, as a result of some human free will, it is claimed that freedom of will is a more valuable good than any resultant evil. Through God allowing such freedom, He has satisfied His ‘wholly good’ requirement.…

    • 485 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Summary: James Rachels addresses the conflicts of evil in his book “Problems from Philosophy” by providing various forms of logical problems. The author points out the different possible explanations to why evil would exist. The first major idea Rachels makes is that perhaps pain is essential to caution people of danger. He goes on to suggest that this would not account for why some people are born with deadly diseases. Another idea he makes is that evil helps people appreciate the good in life. One would not be able to distinguish the good in life if evil did not exist. However, this does not explain why the world needs so much evil to exist, instead of letting a few bad things happen occasionally. The third idea the author makes questions why bad things happen to good people. Rachels suggests maybe those bad things that occur in life are…

    • 998 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Evil and Suffering

    • 6401 Words
    • 26 Pages

    “If Only there is No God then there is No Problem:” A Theological Reflection On the Mystery of Evil And Uniqueness of God…

    • 6401 Words
    • 26 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    John Hick discusses in his essay The Problem of Evil, the objections to the belief in the existence of God is the presence of evil in the world. He begins by posing the traditional challenge to theism in the form of the dilemma: That if God was perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil, and being all powerful, is able to perfectly do so as he will its. He then proceeds to present some views regarding this issue, giving insights from three point of views, that of contemporary Christian Science, the Boston Personalist school, and the theologian Augustine. The first opinion takes evil as an illusion, as a construct of the human mind. The second confers upon God finity, God as a struggling ruler, making do with what he can. The third hold the rational that Evil is merely the corruption of the good, the going wrong of something primarily good.…

    • 2551 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays