Showing posts with label Inductive problem of evil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inductive problem of evil. Show all posts

August 27, 2009

Pointless Evil Versus God's Existence?

Associated Press: In this photo distributed by the official Xinhua news agency, rescuers search for students at Juyuan Middle School in Juyuan Township of Dujiangyan City, about 100 kilometers from the epicenter in Wenchuan county of southwest China's Sichuan province, on Monday May 12, 2008. Nearly 900 students here were feared buried when a high school building collapsed in the earthquake, Xinhua said. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Chen Xie)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, August 27, 2009)

Pointless Evil Versus God’s Existence?
Some critics object to the Christian God’s existence as follows: If God exists, then there shouldn’t be any pointless evil in the world; but there is pointless evil in the world; therefore, God does not exist.

Should we be persuaded by this objection? I don’t think so.

Let’s get clear on the objection. A pointless evil is a horrendous event for which there is no moral justification. For examples of such events, critics point to the deaths of innocent schoolchildren in an earthquake, or, say, to a fawn severely burned in a forest fire, suffering several days before dying. Surely, an all-good God would want to stop such pointless evils. Surely, an all-knowing God would know how to stop these evils. Surely, an all-powerful God could stop such evils. But the pointless evils exist. Therefore, God does not exist. Or so the objection goes.

The objection seems strong: there definitely are horrendous evils in the world; many of these evils do appear pointless; plus their horror tugs powerfully at our emotions.

Seemingly strong objection or not, wisdom requires that we should think carefully about matters having to do with God (whether one is a believer or not). Significantly, it turns out that careful thinking can weaken the logical if not emotional force of the above objection.

Two points require attention.

First, if we assume, for the sake of argument (as the objector does), that there is a God, then it follows logically that we should expect a huge intellectual gap between the human mind and the divine mind. Put it this way: If there is a God, then we humans would be like kindergarteners and God would be like Einstein, but much much smarter. In other words, intellectual humility is philosophically appropriate here.

Second (following closely on the heels of the first point), the critics’ claim that there is pointless evil in the world should be revised, for accuracy’s sake, to read as follows: there is apparently pointless evil in the world.

Think about it. If we kindergarteners happen to be with Einstein in his laboratory, Einstein would have reasons for doing what he is doing—and we would not be privy to all of his reasons. Why not? Because we simply couldn’t understand them. So, to a kindergartener some things Einstein does would appear pointless, whereas Einstein would know that they are actually not pointless.

Allow me to drive home the previous point. In the book The Fight (InterVarsity Press 1976), former University of Manitoba psychiatry professor John White (1924-2002) tells of an incident when he and his toddler son were far from home (and far from medical help) and the little boy fell, deeply gashing his chin. Realizing immediate medical attention was required, White used what was available—eyebrow tweezers, thread, household needles, but no pain relievers—and proceeded to stitch up his tiny son’s large wound.

White writes: “I agonized over [my son’s] ordeal as I gripped his tender skin with eyebrow tweezers and brutally jabbed a sewing needle again and again into his chin.”

We can easily imagine the bewildered and terrified boy saying or thinking something like the following (if he had the vocabulary): “Daddy, please don’t hurt me! Why are you doing this to me? I thought you loved me?! I don’t understand! Please don’t let this pointless evil continue…”

On the Christian view of God, our knowledge situation is like that of the toddler who is suffering apparently pointless evil, and the father is like God who has reasons—morally sufficient reasons—for allowing the pain. Like the boy, we are simply not privy to all of God’s reasons.

Significantly, given the evidence of God’s power, knowledge, and care in having created life itself and a universe finely-tuned for life, plus given the evidence of this God coming to our world in the man Jesus to suffer and die for us, as well as defeat death via His resurrection—that is, given this wonderful evidence of divine love—it is reasonable to believe that, even though we may not know all of God’s reasons for allowing apparently pointless evils, God has good reasons.

Yes, horrendous evils are horrendously evil, but, if God exists, it’s reasonable to think they’re not pointless, appearances to the contrary. Therefore, the objection fails.
And hope prevails.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, located in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. 
The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

April 23, 2009

Evil and the Free Will Defence

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, April 23, 2009)

Evil and the Free Will Defence
Christians often appeal to the Free Will Defence to avoid the apparent logical incompatibility between the existence of moral evil and the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.

Here's the defence: (1) The existence of creatures who can love God is a great good, so God creates them; (2) love requires freedom; (3) the creatures choose not to love God; (4) because God is the supreme standard of goodness, the choice not to love God is the same as choosing evil; (5) hence, evil and God co-exist.

Some critics of Christianity object to the Free Will Defence as follows. Surely, an all-powerful God could do anything. Surely, an all-knowing God would know how to do anything. Surely, too, an all-good God would want to be rid of evil. Surely, then, this God could have made people who are free to reject God, but never do. Therefore, because evil exists, God doesn't.

I think that this objection fails. Here are my reasons.

That people always freely choose to love God is a logical possibility. Significantly, however, the objector's claim describing God's task of making people who always freely choose to love God is not a logical possibility. Such a claim is self-contradictory.

The creaturely freedom under discussion is a freedom that stems from being made in "God's image," what philosophers call Metaphysical Libertarian Freedom. This is a freedom of decision-making the outcome of which cannot be brought about by a force outside the free agent and cannot be guaranteed in advance.

More simply stated, it’s a freedom that puts the creature squarely in the driver’s seat. The creature isn’t a puppet or a robot.

So far, so good.

But now consider this: The objector's task requires God to make people make choices that are made without God's making them make those choices (think about it).

In other words, the objector's task requires God to create people so that (1) they are guaranteed to choose X and, at the same time and in the same respect, (2) they are not guaranteed to choose X. But, of course, this is a contradiction—a logical impossibility.

Philosopher Stephen Davis puts the matter this way: Asking God to force or guarantee the outcome of free choices is like saying to a sculptor "make a sculpture such that independent of any effect you might have on it, it will have quality Q." Davis adds: It's like saying to a scientist, "please conduct an experiment in which independent of any and all influence you might have on the experiment, it will lead to result R."

Clearly, whether people freely choose to love God is up to people, not God.

Hence, the Free Will Defence stands: God and moral evil are not logically incompatible.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)