Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Evil? No Problem
In sections X and XI, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument fail? What about the possibility that suffering is part of some great good like free will or character development (a theodicy)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Philo and Demea argue that there is a lot of suffering in the world and if God is the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creature we assume him to be, then he has both the ability and the desire to prevent all this suffering. Philo and Demea, therefore conclude, that God do not exist because there is suffering. If he does in fact exist, then he is not the omnibenevolent God we say that he is.
ReplyDeleteOne major objection to this argument is the idea that God created suffering as a necessary evil. We need suffering for free will; suffering is the result of bad decisions which is the result of a free will that allows such decisions to be made. It can be argued that we need suffering for moral character development and growth. If everyone lives in a perfect world with money and food, then in this world, nobody experiences charity work or community service. Suffering gives human race that opportunity to rise up against adversity and as a result, come back stronger.
Similarly, suffering is a natural component of life; without suffering our world would not survive. If no suffering existed, then everyone would live in a pointless, meaningless, world, never developing, learning, or experiencing life at all. Would we really want to live our entire lives like babies, never experiencing any problems, difficulties, or challenges to overcome? What would be the incentive to work hard and maintain a healthy life style if no matter what nothing can go wrong? In summary, without suffering, yes there would be a world but it would NOT be life as we know it, and in fact, could not even be called a ‘world’ at all.
While I am not entirely certain that this argument disproves the existence of god or his benevolence, I feel that the arguments for the greater good of free will and, or, character development have important flaws.
ReplyDeleteA world with both free will and no suffering, while seen as the best, is considered not logically possible. This would make it out of god's power to create. The world of free will and suffering is considered by many to be the second best, over no free will and no suffering, and is largely considered to be our current world. In this way god appears to have created the best possible world, making suffering, and Philo's argument, irrelevant to god's existence. This does not satisfy me; why can there not be a world with no suffering and limited free will? By limited free will I mean the free will to make any decision as long as it does not cause suffering. Imagine yourself in a room alone with two chairs of the same build, but one is blue and one is red. You have the free will to decide which chair you wish to sit in because neither decision harms anyone. You can go a step further and say that one chair is less comfortable than the other, but neither will cause any suffering. Still you would have free will, but to the extent that you do not cause suffering. Would this not be better than full free will and suffering? If so then god would have had to create that world rather than this one, and this line of reasoning would be flawed.
As far as character development goes; would it not be better for no one to learn charity if no one had to starve or suffer? Is the anguish of someone worth a lesson in virtue for another? I say no. I would rather sail a ship with no leaks than a ship with leaks so that I could learn to plug them.
The theory is that if God is really omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, then there should be no suffering or evil in the world. Philo and Demea are arguing that because there is suffering in the world God does not exist. This argument is sound in some ways but not in others. For this argument to be sound we have to distinguish between natural evil and human evil. Because God gave us free will, he cannot make us do the right thing. Therefore, as long as free will exists, suffering and evil exists. God can only do what is logically possible so we can never have free will and no suffering at the same time. Even though God cannot get rid of human evil, he could theoretically get rid of natural evil like disease and natural disasters. But because natural evil exists, we have to assume that there is a reason for its existence if God is truly benevolent. One theory is that humans are actually the cause of natural evil. Another is that our suffering serves some greater purpose that we don't know about. Without suffering, certain qualities like courage and kindness would have no meaning. God could allow suffering to help build our characters. Without suffering, good things in the world like happiness would have no meaning.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe that the argument is sound.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I believe that suffering is an critical part of the human condition. There are several reasons for this. One reason is how humans came into being- if it were not for the harsh system of natural selection, humans (as we are today, with certain instincts embedded in our minds) would not exist. If the environment did not prefer organisms with greater relative intelligence, humans would have had a far lower niche in the ecosystem, because of our weak stature and small strength. Thus, suffering is what truly carves out the human mind, scraping away weaker forms of beings. Another reason why suffering is necessary is because it is what defines our current society. Whether we like it or not, humans have developed governments to create and respond to threats of suffering; thus, if suffering did not exist, groups of humans would be amorphous and identity-less, which would actually diminish a "value to life." Lastly, suffering defines our mindsets on life. If you recall a past event, what moments stand out? Embarrassment and pain? We can demonstrate that measures of suffering would define how memorable an event is; this makes it clear that suffering defines the quality of an event.
Secondly, suffering is necessary to define a difference between good and evil. By defining suffering as evil and designating happiness as good, we can create a distinction between what is good and what is evil. Without this distinction and without suffering, the good would not appreciate the good as "happiness," turning life into a pointless series of events that culminate in the same event.
Lastly, humans have a very limited scope on ontology and the meaning of existence of suffering. We do not know how our suffering may influence other events in the universe (making this argument anthropocentric because we only evaluate events with relevance to humans) or even other humans (making this argument racist because we consider ourselves as greater than the other, which is an ethnocentric view).
Thus, because we show that suffering is a necessary "evil," it is very possible that God is actually being benevolent by creating suffering in our universe.
In sections X and XI, Philo and Demea spend much of the dialogue arguing about God’s existence. They discuss the common characteristics used to describe the ‘designer’ such as his omnipotence, omniscience, and Omni benevolence. If we as humans assume that God possesses these features, then he would not tolerate suffering and would do all in his infinite power to prevent it. Philo and Demea come to the conclusion that, because there is suffering in the world, God does not exist. However, if he does by chance exist, he does not embody all of the characteristics that have been bestowed upon him.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Philo and Demea’s argument is sound. In class we talked about the idea of suffering as a necessary evil; the notion that in order for humans to obtain free will, anguish must exist. Like Annie stated, suffering is the result of bad decisions, which is a result of free will. Through these bad decisions and subsequent suffering, humans are able to grow and become more capable and complex. Therefore, it can be argued that while suffering is bad, it is a necessary evil as it challenges humans to grow. As a result, many might then conclude that God is in fact omnipotent, omniscient, and Omni benevolent; as his benevolence is shown through him forcing humans to grow and overcome hardships all in the name of improving their lives and the world that they live in.
These arguments on the either lack of benevolence in God’s character or ultimately his existence due to human suffering I believe hold some truth, but there are some faults in argument. For instance if God was a benevolent being, yet he allows suffering to humans for a greater good that would allow for that person to have a better life. This example shows how God could be a benevolent being and allow suffering but for a greater purpose that overall is more beneficial than hurtful. By giving us free will God gives humans the opportunity to do what is right and what is wrong. This supports the argument by means of portraying that someone can choose to do something wrong without this wrongdoing being blamed on God. God by allowing us to make our own decisions in a way wipes his hands clean of what suffering we will have to endure. By doing the right thing we as humans do not have to go through as much suffering as we would if we make the wrong choices. Suffering for the greater good plays a role in this in that God may use suffering as a test against someone to see what they will do in a moment of either having to choose right or wrong. Ultimately the right choice will end the suffering and the wrong choice only can enhance the suffering.
ReplyDeletePersonally I feel as though the argument that Philo and Demea present is not concrete what so ever. They argue that if there really is a God; one who’s omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient then there should not be any suffering in the world. Due to the fact that there is suffering in the world, they come to the conclusion that God does not exist. In my opinion, got gave humans free will to serve as a kind of test in life. He gave us free will to show that he cannot make us do the right thing. God give us a choice in life; we all have the opportunity to do what is right or what is wrong. God gives us the option to do wrong, and if we do indeed choose to do wrong, this in turn will continue the suffering. However, those who choose to do right will be free from suffering. I view this as God’s way of sorting through people and finding those who actually live their lives in the likeness of him.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of evil is a strong argument, but fails by assuming that an omni-benevolent God would create a world without suffering.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of evil is based on the observation that there is suffering, or evil, in our world. This appears to contradict the existence of an omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and omniscient god because such a god would create a world in which there is no suffering. He has the power and knowledge to create a world without suffering and the assumption is that if he is capable of creating a world free of suffering he would because this is what is in our best interest.
The problem is: Would a world without suffering really be best? A world without suffering would have to be a world without freewill because choice leaves the possibility of evil. This would mean that the alternative to our world would be one in which there is neither free will nor suffering, but in this world we would all be puppets of God. It is our choices that define who we are and once they are taken away we loose ourselves and become pawns. Without free will one can never feel satisfied or happy, especially with themselves because their lives are not a product of their own fruition.
Additionally, a true omni-benevolent god would create a world with suffering because without suffering nothing can be exciting, or rewarding, or happy. There must be a contrast so that people can recognize and appreciate good in their lives. A world in which everything is good may as well be a world in which everything is bad--it has the same result. Good and bad are dependent on each other and to take away one neutralizes the remaining so that it becomes the norm.
The argument states that there is suffering in the world. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Therefore, God has the knowledge, power, and want to prevent suffering since he knows everything, is all powerful and is all good. If God exists, then suffering would not exist. However, suffering does exist and so God must not exist or, God exists but he is not benevolent because if he were benevolent he would want to prevent suffering. Since there is suffering, he must not want to prevent it. Only an evil creator would want people to suffer. I find this argument not sound because the argument assumes that God does have all three qualities listed above. However, there is no reason that a creator has to have these qualities. A creator doesn’t have to be ALL powerful to create the universe. He may have the knowledge and power to create the universe but not the knowledge and power to prevent evil.
ReplyDeleteThe possibility that suffering is part of some greater good doesn’t seem like a valid response to me. If God is omnipotent like the argument assumes, then he has the power make us better without suffering. There is no reason for God to take the “round a bout method” when trying to improve humanity. He has the power to make us better without suffering so suffering for the greater good is not sound. Furthermore, some claim that suffering is a result of freewill. Since we have choices, there must be suffering. However, there are many cases where suffering serves no greater purpose and is not a result of freewill. Take for example a child with cancer. The child suffers and it is not a result of a choice the child made. The suffering cannot possibly better a child who is too innocent to have done anything wrong yet. Suffering in this case cannot be explained by freewill or character development.