Theodicy, Free Will, and the Response of the Believer
Kelly M. Tague
Introduction to Philosophy of Religion
Ivy Tech Community College
Abstract
This paper will take a look at the problem of evil , as discussed within the philosophical realm. This paper will begin by looking first at the claim that a good , all powerful God cannot exist, if there is evil present in our current world, because, a good , all powerful God couldn’t just allow evil to exist, let alone flourish. In the next section this paper will address Theodicy, or the defense of the existence of God, regardless of the presence of evil in the world. This section will look at how both the love of God and the free will of man make Gods existence likely in spite of of the presence of evil. In my third section this paper will look at how religion both confirms and interprets the divine love and free will the God gives by examining some of the scriptures and teachings of several world religions. Last the paper will tie it all together to demonstrate that evil doesn’t make Gods existence impossible and that it only demonstrates by free will Gods love of humanity.
Keywords: God,Free Will, Theodicy, Love, Religion, Golden Rule
Theodicy, Free Will, and the Response of the Believer
Evil is an ever present force in our world. We see the terrible things that evil and suffering bring upon our world on a daily basis. Whether it’s on the news , reporting the latest mass shooting or terrorist attack, we see it in the cries of hungry children and war torn peoples fleeing their homes. In another degree we see it in hurriedness and tornadoes and in earthquakes and tsunamis. Evil is real and to the majority of us do is the concept of a God or gods. There are those who say that the two are mutually exclusive, you cannot have a good God and evil because they would say that a good God wouldn’t tolerate evil of any kind. In the paper I will attempt to look at this topic. I will answer some questions, such as How can a good God allow evil? And What role does the believer play in this discussion? It is my hope that at the end of this paper we may have a more fuller understanding of Theodicy and free will
So what’s the problem? The problem is evil and it’s mere existence in our world. The major focus being that how can a good, benevolent, omnipotent God allow evil to persist in our world, a world that the theist claims this God made. So the claim goes that in our world that has a persistent problem of evil there cannot also be this benevolent, omnipotent God. Because if such a God existed that God could never tolerate such a thing. Therefore God doesn’t exist. Now of course the one who makes this claim would also happily describe the world that they believe that the God that eschews evil would have created. This world would repel evil in a way, or you and I would be incapable of committing any of these evil acts by God and live in a deterministically
So what’s the problem? The problem is evil and it’s mere existence in our world. The major focus being that how can a good, benevolent, omnipotent God allow evil to persist in our world, a world that the theist claims this God made. So the claim goes that in our world that has a persistent problem of evil there cannot also be this benevolent, omnipotent God. Because if such a God existed that God could never tolerate such a thing. Therefore God doesn’t exist. Now of course the one who makes this claim would also happily describe the world that they believe that the God that eschews evil would have created. This world would repel evil in a way, or you and I would be incapable of committing any of these evil acts by God and live in a deterministically
good world. Essentially we would be a sort of automaton, doing only what is right in the eyes of God and never suffering any pain or evil at the hands of another. This would be a drab existence and most peculiar to say the least. So there is our problem, a good God can’t allow evil and evil negates the existence of a good God. Now it’s time to look at some solutions.
The term Theodicy refers to the solution to the problem of evil or at least an explanation of this problem. So if God fits all the attributes listed previously how does evil persist? There are two theories that are usually postulated. The first I want to talk about is “ The Best-of all possible Worlds” theory as taught by Gottfrieb Liebniz. Leibniz contends “That God permitted evil to exist in order to bring about greater goods”. Basically that some of that evil can lead to good and also without that evil we wouldn’t truly understand good. Now while I understand Leibniz’ premise it never really answers to Gods Omniscience and Omnipotence. Does God create evil that good may come? If you take this argument all the way you have a God who is creating evil. Now the other idea isn’t a Theodicy as much as a defense that might help us understand how these two seemingly contradictory things can coexist. The Free Will Defense is postulated by Alvin Plantinga and his defense states in so many words that “God is omnipotent, but it doesn’t mean he can bring about just every possible state of affairs, Thus he can’t cause that I would freely do something”. Plantinga basically asserts that because of free will Gods omnipotence takes a back seat to our freedom of choice. As such we being free, will likely choose to do evil. Now some may ask, why can’t God create a world where we only choose to do good? For that Plantinga proposes the idea of Transworld Depravity, which says that for all the possible worlds
The term Theodicy refers to the solution to the problem of evil or at least an explanation of this problem. So if God fits all the attributes listed previously how does evil persist? There are two theories that are usually postulated. The first I want to talk about is “ The Best-of all possible Worlds” theory as taught by Gottfrieb Liebniz. Leibniz contends “That God permitted evil to exist in order to bring about greater goods”. Basically that some of that evil can lead to good and also without that evil we wouldn’t truly understand good. Now while I understand Leibniz’ premise it never really answers to Gods Omniscience and Omnipotence. Does God create evil that good may come? If you take this argument all the way you have a God who is creating evil. Now the other idea isn’t a Theodicy as much as a defense that might help us understand how these two seemingly contradictory things can coexist. The Free Will Defense is postulated by Alvin Plantinga and his defense states in so many words that “God is omnipotent, but it doesn’t mean he can bring about just every possible state of affairs, Thus he can’t cause that I would freely do something”. Plantinga basically asserts that because of free will Gods omnipotence takes a back seat to our freedom of choice. As such we being free, will likely choose to do evil. Now some may ask, why can’t God create a world where we only choose to do good? For that Plantinga proposes the idea of Transworld Depravity, which says that for all the possible worlds
that God may create, given free will that we will do at least one evil thing in our lives. Now this theory doesn’t work well in a more determinist worldview, but the majority of us can agree that we all possess free will. So what does all this mean for all of us, and how does religion fit into this framework? I will attempt to explore this in the next section.
As I thought about the problem of evil and Theodicy and free will, the thing that eventually popped into my mind was that in order to truly respond to this problem you have to come up with a definition for God. Because religions as a whole don’t describe God in necessarily the same terms. Now of course I’m looking at this from the eyes of a person who is religious, at least in my theology. So when I contemplated this definition there was one word that I kept coming back to as an ultimate way of defining God and that was “Love”. In my Christian worldview, everything that God does is from love, and as such free will makes sense. At this time I was reading a book about petitionary prayer and the author said something that really caught my attention and that was “ Devine love limits Devine omnipotence “. That is the heart of what I’m trying to say, God loves us enough to let us make bad decisions, but that is not done without some direction, in every major world religion there is a moral law or a way that we are called to behave. Though they might differ on religious practice and on theology they all agree on how we are to treat one another. We are all called to of sort “ love our neighbor as ourselves”. Author M.J. Joseph in his article “The Golden Rule in Asian Religions “ demonstrates this through various religious writings
As I thought about the problem of evil and Theodicy and free will, the thing that eventually popped into my mind was that in order to truly respond to this problem you have to come up with a definition for God. Because religions as a whole don’t describe God in necessarily the same terms. Now of course I’m looking at this from the eyes of a person who is religious, at least in my theology. So when I contemplated this definition there was one word that I kept coming back to as an ultimate way of defining God and that was “Love”. In my Christian worldview, everything that God does is from love, and as such free will makes sense. At this time I was reading a book about petitionary prayer and the author said something that really caught my attention and that was “ Devine love limits Devine omnipotence “. That is the heart of what I’m trying to say, God loves us enough to let us make bad decisions, but that is not done without some direction, in every major world religion there is a moral law or a way that we are called to behave. Though they might differ on religious practice and on theology they all agree on how we are to treat one another. We are all called to of sort “ love our neighbor as ourselves”. Author M.J. Joseph in his article “The Golden Rule in Asian Religions “ demonstrates this through various religious writings
“ Chrstianity: St. Luke 6:31 - "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
Hinduism: Mahabaratha ch.5 - 'This is the sum of duty; do not do unto others what would cause pain, if done to you."
Islam: Muhammad's Hadith: "Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself the prophet."
Judaism: Hillel,Talmud,Shabbat 31a - "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.
Buddhism: The Buddha-Udarra-Varga-5:18 - 'Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
Confucianism: Confucius Analects 15:23 - "One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct... Loving-kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself."
Taoism: Lao Tzu,T'ai Shang Kan Ying,P'len, 213-218. - "Regard your neighbour's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss."
Baha'i Faith: bahaullah. Gleanings - "Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself."
Unitarianism: Unitarian Principle - "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."
Hinduism: Mahabaratha ch.5 - 'This is the sum of duty; do not do unto others what would cause pain, if done to you."
Islam: Muhammad's Hadith: "Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself the prophet."
Judaism: Hillel,Talmud,Shabbat 31a - "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.
Buddhism: The Buddha-Udarra-Varga-5:18 - 'Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
Confucianism: Confucius Analects 15:23 - "One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct... Loving-kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself."
Taoism: Lao Tzu,T'ai Shang Kan Ying,P'len, 213-218. - "Regard your neighbour's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss."
Baha'i Faith: bahaullah. Gleanings - "Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself."
Unitarianism: Unitarian Principle - "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."
See no matter what the religious tradition we are called to do good to others by God. It is in our hands to do good in the world and to utilize the free will given to us for the purpose of making
things better. I’m of the opinion that God isn’t interested in controlling us and making us do good, but in teaching us that we are to be responsible for the good in this world.
The world will always have evil, it isn’t going away anytime soon. I am of the belief that evil doesn’t negate the existence of God. I don’t subscribe to the best of all possible worlds theodicy. I do however agree with the free will defense and not necessarily because of trans world depravity either. No I’m of the mind that it’s live that is the driver behind our free will. I am also of the opinion that religions as a whole bears out Gods desire not to control our behavior, but to teach us to do good to one another. In the end I think the existence of God is irrelevant to evil and far more relevant to how we as humans treat each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment