structure for 'Religion'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

29. Religion / D. Religious Issues / 3. Problem of Evil / a. Problem of Evil

[reasons for the existence of evil]

20 ideas
There must always be some force of evil ranged against good [Plato]
     Full Idea: The elimination of evil is impossible, Theodorus; there must always be some force ranged against good.
     From: Plato (Theaetetus [c.368 BCE], 176a)
The lists of good men who have suffered and bad men who have prospered are endless [Cicero]
     Full Idea: Time would fail me if I tried to list all the good men for whom things have turned out badly. So it would if I tried to mention all the wicked who have prospered.
     From: M. Tullius Cicero (On the Nature of the Gods ('De natura deorum') [c.44 BCE], III.80)
Irenaeus says evil is necessary for perfect human development [Irenaeus, by Davies,B]
     Full Idea: Echoing Irenaeus, John Hick argues that the existence of evil is necessary for the perfect development of human beings. Hick understands evil in the light of God's desire not to coerce people into accepting him.
     From: report of Irenaeus (works [c.190]) by Brian Davies - Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion 3 'Notable'
     A reaction: I don't suppose I could opt out of perfect development? If I endure the evil, can I be guaranteed that my development will be 'perfect'. Oh, and could I just check what is meant by 'development'?
God can do anything, but he cannot do evil, so evil must be nothing [Boethius]
     Full Idea: 'There is nothing that an omnipotent power could not do?' 'No.' 'Then can God do evil?' 'No.' 'So evil is nothing, since that is what He cannot do who can do anthing.'
     From: Boethius (The Consolations of Philosophy [c.520], III.XII)
     A reaction: A lovely example of the contortions necessary once you insist that God must be 'omnipotent', in some absolute sense of the term. Saying that evil is 'nothing' strikes me as nothing more than a feeble attempt to insult it.
If you could see the plan of Providence, you would not think there was evil anywhere [Boethius]
     Full Idea: If you could see the plan of Providence, you would not think there was evil anywhere.
     From: Boethius (The Consolations of Philosophy [c.520], IV.VI)
     A reaction: This brings out the verificationist in me. See Idea 1467, by Antony Flew. Presumably Boethius would retain his faith as Europe moved horribly from 1939 to 1945, and even if the whole of humanity sank into squalid viciousness.
God does not exist, because He is infinite and good, and so no evil should be discoverable [Aquinas]
     Full Idea: If one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the name God means that He is infinite goodness. If therefore God existed there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
     From: Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologicae [1265], Ia,Q02,Art3,Ob1)
     A reaction: This is not, of course, the opinion of Aquinas. I love the way he states the opposition's arguments so lucidly. The modern problem usually talks of God's omnipotence, rather than infinity. His formulation allows that there might be undiscoverable evil.
It is part of God's supreme goodness that He brings good even out of evil [Aquinas]
     Full Idea: As Augustine says, God would not allow any evil to exist in his works, unless he were to bring good even out of evil. It is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He allows evil to exist and out of it produces good.
     From: Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologicae [1265], Ia,Q02,Art3,Ob1rep)
     A reaction: Are God's powers so limited that He could not have achieved an equal amount of good without having to indulge in some evil first?
Evil is a negation of good, which arises from non-being [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: The cause of good is positive, but evil is a defect, that is, a privation or negation, and consequently, it arises from nothingness or nonbeing.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (Dialogue on human freedom and origin of evil [1695], p.114)
     A reaction: He goes on to illustrate his idea from mathematics. He is modifying Augustine's view that evil is an absence of good, by adding nonbeing as the driving force behind it. Doesn't sound very persuasive to me.
God only made sin possible because a much greater good can be derived from it [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: We must believe that God would not have allowed sin nor would he have created things he knows will sin, if he could not derive from them a good incomparably greater than the resulting evil.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (Dialogue on human freedom and origin of evil [1695], p.115)
     A reaction: Why 'must' we believe this? Do we have to imagine all the genocides shrinking to insignificance once we grasp the wonderful goods that can be derived from them? The end justifies the means. Genocide is actually a good thing. Hm.
How can an all-good, wise and powerful being allow evil, sin and apparent injustice? [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: There is this question of natural theology, how a sole Principle, all-good, all-wise and all-powerful, has been able to admit evil, and especially to permit sin, and how it could resolve to make the wicked often happy and the good unhappy?
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (The Theodicy [1710], p.098), quoted by Franklin Perkins - Leibniz: Guide for the Perplexed 2.IV
     A reaction: His answer is, roughly, that there is an unavoidable trade-off, which humans cannot fully understand. Personally I would say that if there is a God, the evidence for his benevolence towards humanity is not encouraging.
Being confident of God's goodness, we disregard the apparent local evils in the visible world [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: Being made confident by demonstrations of the goodness and the justice of God, we disregard the appearances of harshness and justice which we see in this small portion of his Kingdom that is exposed to our gaze.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (The Theodicy [1710], p.120), quoted by Franklin Perkins - Leibniz: Guide for the Perplexed 2.IV
     A reaction: Hm. If this locality is full of evils, and the rest of it is much better, how come we are stuck in this miserable corner of things? God is obliged to compromise, but did he select us to get the worst of it?
Particular evils are really good when linked to the whole system of beings [Berkeley]
     Full Idea: Those particular things which, considered in themselves, appear to be evil, have the nature of good, when considered as linked with the whole system of beings.
     From: George Berkeley (The Principles of Human Knowledge [1710], §153)
     A reaction: This wildly contradicts the rest of Berkeley's philosophy, which is strictly empiricist, and rests wholly on actual experience. What experience does he have of the 'whole system of beings', and its making evil into actual good?
The Creator created the possibilities for worlds, so should have made a better one than this possible [Schopenhauer]
     Full Idea: The Creator created not only the world, but also created possibility itself; therefore he should have created the possibility of a better world than this one.
     From: Arthur Schopenhauer (Parerga and Paralipomena [1851], XII:156)
     A reaction: This is explicitly a response to Leibniz's claim that the Creator selected the best of all possible worlds from the available options. The Euthyphro Question hovers here: must the Creator accept what is possible (the platonic view), or create possibility?
Belief that an afterlife is required for justice is an admission that this life is very unjust [Mill]
     Full Idea: The necessity of redressing the balance [of injustice] is deemed one of the strongest arguments for another life after death, which amounts to an admission that the order of things in this life is often an example of injustice, not justice.
     From: John Stuart Mill (Nature and Utility of Religion [1874])
     A reaction: It certainly seems that an omnipotent God could administer swift justice in this life. If the whole point is that we need freedom of will, then why is justice administered at a much later date? The freedom seems to be illusory.
Evil comes from good just as often as good comes from evil [Mill]
     Full Idea: If good frequently comes out of evil, the converse fact, evil coming out of good, is equally common.
     From: John Stuart Mill (Nature and Utility of Religion [1874], p.117)
     A reaction: Mill surmises that on the whole good comes from good, and evil from evil, but the point is that the evidence doesn't favour the production of increased good.
No necessity ties an omnipotent Creator, so he evidently wills human misery [Mill]
     Full Idea: If a Creator is assumed to be omnipotent, if he bends to a supposed necessity, he himself makes the necessity which he bends to. If the maker of the world can all that he will, he wills misery, and there is no escape from the conclusion.
     From: John Stuart Mill (Nature and Utility of Religion [1874], p.119)
     A reaction: If you add that the Creator is supposed to be perfectly benevolent, you arrive at the paradox which Mackie spells out. Is the correct conclusion that God exists, and is malevolent? Mill doesn't take that option seriously.
A combination of great power and goodness would mean the disastrous abolition of evil [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: A high degree of power in the hands of the highest goodness would entail the most disastrous consequences ('the abolition of evil').
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Writings from Late Notebooks [1887], 11[122])
     A reaction: This goes with Mackie's claim that the actual existence of evil is proof that an omnipotent and benevolent God can't exist (Idea 1472).
Is evil an illusion, or a necessary contrast, or uncontrollable, or necessary for human free will? [Mackie, by PG]
     Full Idea: Perhaps evil is an illusion, or it is necessary for good to exist, or in humans it is required because we have free will, or God lacks the full power to control it, but none of these looks convincing.
     From: report of J.L. Mackie (Evil and Omnipotence [1955], §B) by PG - Db (ideas)
The propositions that God is good and omnipotent, and that evil exists, are logically contradictory [Mackie, by PG]
     Full Idea: There is a contradiction between the propositions that God is wholly good, God is omnipotent, and evil exists, and one of them has got to give way (assuming good eliminates evil, and omnipotence has no limit).
     From: report of J.L. Mackie (Evil and Omnipotence [1955], Pref.) by PG - Db (ideas)
There is a problem of evil only if you expect the world to be good [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: There is a "problem of evil" only for those who expect the world to be good.
     From: Bernard Williams (Shame and Necessity [1993], III - p.68)