Navigating around Hume’s ‘Rock of Atheism’ by Mike Tonks, Second Master, Shrewsbury School Published in ‘Dialogue: A journal of religion and philosophy’, issue 49, November 2017 _______________________________________________________________________________ Before starting work this morning I decided to check the BBC website to see what the main news headlines were. Exploring further I found myself confronted by numerous illustrations of what ‘philosophers of religion’ might call ‘The Problem of Evil.’ The inescapable truth is that the human condition is punctuated by suffering. At least twenty people had been killed in a bomb attack in Bangkok. The refugee crisis continued in many areas of Europe including France, Italy and Macedonia. Another headline reported the establishment of a new enquiry into child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church of Scotland. A tornado had struck the southern coast of Mexico, fires blazed out of control on the Idaho / Oregon border and a state of emergency had been declared in Ecuador due to growing activity in the Cotopaxi volcano. Reading these and many other similar accounts a question presents itself – ‘Are such events necessary and inevitable?’ Can one imagine a world without such brutality, pain and torment? And perhaps most challenging of all, does this world present itself as the creative work of a supremely perfect, powerful and benevolent personal deity who enjoys a loving relationship with all of his creation? Welcome to the study of what ‘philosophers of religion’ refer to as The Problem of Evil! There is an enormous amount of material available on this topic and therefore part of the challenge at ‘A’ Level lies in establishing a structured approach to your investigations. One possibility would be to employ the following subheadings: 1. Why is the existence of evil and suffering a problem for theists? 2. Key terminology identified. 3. The main concepts and ideas clarified & discussed. 4. Two theodicies examined and evaluated. 5. What conclusions might one reasonably draw? Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD) summarised the dilemma thus: ‘Either God cannot or will not abolish evil. If he cannot he is not all-powerful, if he will not he is not all-loving.’ (1) In the 18th century the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume (1711 – 1776) commented in similar fashion when writing in ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’; ‘Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil?’ (2) The influential contemporary atheist writer Sam Harris expresses the issue thus; ‘If God exists either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God therefore, is either impotent or evil.’ (3) Key terminology Evil There is no single all-encompassing definition. It is often seen in dualistic terms as the opposite of God’s goodness and traditional Christian imagery frequently associates it with the work of God’s nemesis, the devil. For our purposes it is perhaps useful to regard evil as referring to that which causes human suffering and to make two further distinctions. Natural Evil This can be taken to refer to the operations or malfunctions of the natural world that cause human suffering and would include earthquakes, tidal waves, famine & tsunamis. (Some philosophers including Mill and Singer would broaden this to incorporate animal suffering.) The defining characteristic of these phenomena is that they are independent of human activity. Moral Evil This refers to the actions and the results of the actions of human behaviour. This would include torture, violence, war & injustice in all its forms. The nature of God Traditional theism describes God as having a number of necessary properties. Three in particular are relevant to our study. God is viewed as being de dicto omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) & benevolent (all-loving). Given these qualities of the divine the problem emerges. Specifically in the face of ‘Natural Evil’ why did God create the world the way it is? God could have created a world without the apparent flaws that it possesses in its Design – why didn’t he? In Darwinian terms nature has been famously described as being ‘Red in tooth and claw’ with species preying upon species for survival. More than this there are numerous examples of what one might call the cruel and callous side of nature. While supporters of the Design Argument may well emphasise the beauty, order and majesty of the natural world there is no escaping the fact that it is also the source of considerable suffering. Moral Evil leads many to ask the question why would God create humanity the way it is? It is this question in particular that many philosophers discuss and debate and is linked to the Biblical account of The Fall of Man. The Fall of Man Located in Genesis chapter 3 the Fall is the story of Adam and Eve. It attempts to show that evil is associated with original sin, that being man’s wilful disobedience of God. Therefore man is the author of evil rather than God. The Free Will Defence Linked to the above, many theists will emphasise the notion that much human suffering emerges as the result of man freely choosing to turn away from God’s goodness. The Evidential Problem of Evil This suggests that the weight of evidence, the sheer volume of evil in the world does not support the existence of God. It is ‘a posteriori’ and inductive in approach and concludes that based on the evil, pain and suffering in the world rejection of the God of classical theism is the only reasonable conclusion to draw. One might be able to make a case for God allowing ‘some suffering’ to achieve a ‘just’ end but not the scale of suffering experienced in the world. Events such as the Holocaust cannot be reconciled with God’s existence. The Logical Problem of Evil Based around J.L. Mackie’s (1917 – 1981) ‘Inconsistent Triad’ this goes a step further. Mackie claims that it is logically impossible to accept the following three propositions simultaneously as they are incompatible; 1. God is Omnipotent. 2. God is Benevolent. 3. Evil Exists. If God was omnipotent he would posses the wherewithal to address human suffering and a benevolent God would want to do so. Given this then evil as we know it would not exist. As the existence of evil is demonstrably true then either one or both of the other propositions must be rejected. Additional comment For many writers on this topic, the notion of God’s omniscience requires some clarification. What does it mean to describe God as all-knowing? In particular can one make sense of the notion of divine foreknowledge? What would be the relationship between divine foreknowledge and human free will? Is it tenable to argue that God knew in advance the wickedness that man would be responsible for? This is relevant because many critics would argue God is culpable and must accept responsibility if he did indeed know these things in advance and yet continued with his creative plan. However there is a view that the notion of foreknowledge is an oxymoron. If knowledge is the ability to be aware of everything that has happened in the past and is happening now then it is logical nonsense to talk of knowing the future. Knowledge of the future is impossible as the future hasn’t happened yet. Some may appeal to the idea that God is timeless and therefore not bound by such restrictions. If one accepts such a scenario then it may indeed be possible to talk of God knowing the future. Theodicy ‘The defence of the justice and righteousness of God in the face of the fact of evil.’ (4) John Hick This term, coined by Gottfried Leibniz (1646 – 1716), refers to an attempt to defend the existence of the God of traditional theism in light of the Problem of Evil. For a theodicy to be effective it must address the challenges outlined above. It is important to remember when studying this topic we are not examining a series of abstract principles. The Problem of Evil is a very real issue in the lives of many. A successful ‘solution’ will have to provide an adequate explanation not merely for the existence of some evil in the world but for the world and the human condition as we experience them. Therefore the issue of the scale of human suffering, the intensity of such suffering and the inequality of such experiences must be tackled. Although many such theodicies have been produced there is only scope in this particular article to examine two contrasting approaches. Irenaeus (130 – 202 AD) & John Hick (1922 – 2012) Irenaeus lived during the second century at a time where both Christians and Jews suffered significant persecution. 177 CE saw the ‘Pogrom of Lyons’ in which many Christians were beaten, tortured and ultimately lost their lives. In the writings of Eusebius we find reference to Irenaeus petitioning Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome on behalf of the persecuted. This was to no avail and Irenaeus was left trying to reconcile the atrocities he had witnessed with his belief in God. It was in this context that his theodicy emerged. He takes as his starting point the creation of man in Genesis 1:26-27. ‘The God said ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.’ Irenaeus draws a distinction between the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God and concludes that God’s creation is a two stage process.