On the Problem of Evil

            The definition for evil can be as follows: a.) morally repressible, b.) arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct (Merriam-Webster, evil [online]).  However, in philosophy we define evil in three different ways which are as follows: physical, moral, and metaphysical.  Physical evil would include all that causes harm to man.  Moral evil comes from any deviation of Moral Law.  “Metaphysical evil is the limitation of various components parts of the natural world.  Through this mutual limitation natural objects are for the most part prevented from attaining to their full or ideal perfection, whether by the constant pressure of physical condition, or by sudden catastrophes” (newadvent.org, Evil [online]).  Evil in essence is negative and not positive in contrast with good (opposite).  In other words, evil is the absence of some good.  Keeping what is written above in mind—it is my opinion that an act of evil with intentionality appears to come from someone or something with a mind [capable of thought] who has the capability of committing an act which entails evil.

            We don’t know specifically where evil came from, but we do know evil exists.  From a Scriptural standpoint John 8:44 seems to imply the devil was the father of lies from the beginning; as Christians we accept God is the absolute good and has no taint of evil in His being.  Christians consent to the belief that God is the absolute good which grounds Him as the Moral Law Giver.  The devil is a created creature who in Christian tradition was an angel of God.  If evil came into being through the devil or not it is not specifically described in the Bible.  We do know evil was present prior to the creation of man as the tree of good and evil was present when God advised Adam and Eve not to eat of it.  Christians believe God is sovereign and thus even evil is subservient to God.  God either allowed evil to come into being or He created evil into being.  If God allows evil to come to be through free will (i.e. the devil as an angel rebels against God as he wants to be God through free will), or God predisposes evil into creation (i.e. the devil rebels against God because he is predisposed to wanting to be like God).  In my opinion, the latter option seems to cast doubt into God’s character, because He inputs a bias on a creature and then judges the creature on a bias He bestowed on the creature to begin with.  Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense has put the philosophers’ “the problem of evil” in a chokehold.  In Plantinga’s argument he writes as follows:

A world containing creatures who are sometimes significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.  Now God can create free creatures, but he cannot cause or determine them to do only what is right.  For if he does so, then they are not significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.  To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he cannot leave these creatures free to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so....The fact that these free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against his goodness; for he could have forestalled the   occurrence of moral evil only by excising the possibility of moral good (Plantinga 1974,  pp. 166-167).

            Atheist philosophers have assumed God could have created a world with free will and where evil was not present, but such assumptions are just opinions of preference which discount what Plantinga has pointed out.  In addition, these atheists have not provided good arguments as to why God should have not allowed evil into creation; rather, they have extrapolated no evil should exist if there is a good God, because then God would not be omnipotent.  What these atheist philosophers have aimed to do is attempt to hinder God’s omnipotence.  However, we note God can’t kill Himself or create a square circle, since they are logical impossibilities; which is to say, even God cannot create things which are nonsense.  God cannot kill Himself, because He is a necessary Being (the ontological argument).   Furthermore, God cannot create a square circle, because circles by nature are circles and squares by nature are squares.  Lastly, I am skeptical human beings can understand the full scope of why God allowed evil into creation, since we would lack total understanding into the inner workings of such a Being.

The Problem of Evil?

What is the problem of evil? Well, I would say the main conjecture about the "problem of evil" is the assumption that there is in fact evil [meaning evil exists and is real].  However, the assumption [there is evil] presupposes there is good. To actually believe there is evil in this world one would have to presuppose there is good to begin with.  Else, how would we know there is evil without knowing the good?  Is it possible to know evil without knowledge of the good at all?  I don't think it is possible.  Take for example if the universe were to shrink, could we come know the universe had shrunk without comparing it to something-else?  No, we would have to have something to compare [before it shrunk and after it shrunk] with the size of the universe in order to know it had shrunk.  In as much, there has to be some sort of defining factor which allows me to come to some sort of understanding of what evil is.  The only thing I can think of that would acquiesce me to differentiate evil is good.  If evil is a disruption of goodness or at the very least the opposite of good, and let's say such is the case, then good would be able to give us different defining factor(s) of what good is and evil is not.  Therefore, any human being holding to a position that commits them to believing there is evil has to also be assuming there is a certain good.

If what I said above is true, is it fair to accept the following?

[1] Evil exists.
[2] In order to know evil exists good has to also exists.
[3] Therefore, good exists.

Relationship & Responsibility

In Christian Theism human relationships are deem as important.  God created mankind in His image and God also saw the need to create a pair of humans.  Humans need each other and being able to relate to one another in a healthy manner helps the development of self; it is reasoned relationality helps develop/emerge[1] the first-person perspective in each individual.  If healthy relationships help the development of self then it's a fact relationships are important to the development of mankind.  People tend to think about themselves at times, and being concerned with oneself a lot of the time can cause harm to relationships; for example, being a selfish person can impede on relationships one tries to build with different individuals.  Inasmuch, focusing on oneself solely will affect a relationship with God as the focus on God will diminish and the focus on oneself will increase.

Now, it is entirely possible for a person who is disabled, brain damaged, etc. who will not be able to make a conscious choice when it comes to relating to God or others; if such is the case, I am assuming God will not hold the person accountable for not being able to make certain conscious choices.  It is also conceivable to me an innocent[2] person will be pardon by God, but a person that is guilty[3] will be condemn by God.  Exactly who is guilty and how much the person failed to do I leave to God and the individual.  By no means do I deny original sin, but I don't think certain systematic theologies take into account the predicament some individuals with certain deficiencies find themselves in.  What I do know is in Scripture we read about responsibility (i.e. Matthew 25:14-30), and it should be understood some people will have more responsibility than others.

__________________________________
[1] For a more in depth view see Rethinking Human Nature by Kevin J. Corcoran page 74.
[2] I use the term rather loosely as no one is innocent due to original sin.
[3] I mean here a person who is able to make conscious choices (i.e. good or bad).