DOCSLIB.ORG

Why God Allows Evil Richard Swinburne

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why God Allows Evil Richard Swinburne p. 105 Why God Allows Evil Richard Swinburne Richard Swinburne is the Nolloth Professor of Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the Univeristy of Oxford. He has done important work in metaphysics, epistemology and the philosophy of religion. From Richard Swinburne Is There a God? pp. 95-113 (Oxford Univeristy Press, 1996) 106 PART 1 • Reason and Religious Belief This world is a clearly providential world in this her own life and that of close relatives and friends sense-that we humans can have a great influence (which can so easily seem the only important on our own destiny, and on the destiny of our thing in the world), and ask very generally what world and its other inhabitants; and it is very good things would a generous and everlasting good for us that it is like that. And yet animals God give to human beings in the course of a and humans suffer (through natural processes of short earthly life. Of course thrills of pleasure disease and accident), and they cause each other and periods of contentment are good things, to suffer (we hurt and n1aim each other and and-other things being equal-God would cer­ cause each other to starve). The world, that is, tainly seek to provide plenty of those. But a gen­ contains much evil. An omnipotent God could erous God will seek to give deeper good things have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly than these. He \vill seek to give us great respon­ good and o.mnipotent God would have done so. sibility for ourselves, each other, and the world, So why is there this evil? Is not its existence strong and thus a share in his own creative activity of evidence against the existence of God? It would be determining what sort of world it is to be. And unless we can construct what is known as a theo­ he will seek to make our lives valuable, of great dicy, an explanation of why God would allo\v use to ourselves and each other. The problem is such evil to occur. I believe that that can be that God cannot give us these goods in full mea­ done, and I shall outline a theodicy in this chapter. sure without allo¥.ring much evil on the way. I emphasize that in ... \Vriting that God would do The problem of evil is not that of the absence this or that, I am not taking for granted the exis­ of various good states. We noted in Chapter 1 * tence of God, but merely claiming that, if there that, ho\vever much good God creates, he could is a God, it is to be expected that he vvould do cer­ create more; and he does not in general have any tain things, including allowing the occurrence of obligation to create. That is vvhy death is not in certain evils; and so, I am claiming, their occur­ itself an evil; death is just the end of a good rence is not evidence against his existence. state, life (and in any case one of which God It is inevitable that any attempt by myself or may choose to give us more-by giving us a life anyone else to construct a theodicy will sound after death). Death may be an evil if it comes pre­ callous, indeed totally insensitive to human suf­ maturely, or causes great grief to others; but in fering. Many theists, as well as atheists, have felt itself it is not an evil. But there are plenty of that any attempt to construct a tl1eodicy evinces evils, positive bad states, which God could if he an immoral approach to suffering. I can only chose remove. I divide these into moral evils and ask the reader to believe that I am not totally natural evils. I understand by "natural evil" all insensitive to hu1nan suffering, and that I do evil which is not deliberately produced by human n1ind about the agony of poisoning, child beings and which is not allowed by human beings abuse, bereavement, solitary imprisonment, and to occur as a result of their negligence. Natural evil marital infidelity as much as anyone else. True, I includes both physical suffering and mental suffer­ \Vould not in most cases recommend that a pastor ing, of animals as well as humans; all the trail of give this chapter to vi.ctin1s of sudden distress at suffering which disease, natural disasters, and acci­ their vvorst moment, to read for consolation. dents unpredictable by humans bring in their But this is not because its arguments are train. "Moral evil" I understand as including all unsound; it is simply that most people in deep evil caused deliberately by humans doing what distress need comfort, not argument. Yet there they ought not to do (or allowed to occur by is a problem about vvhy God allows evil, and, if humans negligently failing to do what they the theist does not have (in a cool moment) a sat­ ought to do) and also the evil constituted by isfactory answer to it, then his belief in God is less such deliberate actions or negligent failure. It than rational, and there is no reason why the includes the sensory pain of the blow inflicted by atheist should share it. To appreciate the argu­ ment of this chapter, each of us needs to stand back a bit fro1n the particular situation of his or *(01nitted here-Ed.] RICHARD SWINBURNE • Why God Allo"vs Evil 107 the bad parent on his child, the mental pain of the pleasurable sensations, and to pursue worthwhile parent depriving the child of love, the starvation activities-to play tennis or the piano, to acquire allowed to occur in Africa because of negligence knowledge of history and science and philosophy, by members of foreign governments who could and to help others to do so, and thereby to build have prevented it, and also the evil of the parent deep personal relations founded upon such sensa­ or politician deliberately bringing about the pain tions and activities. And hu1nans arc so 1nade that or not trying to prevent the starvation. they can form their characters. Aristotle fa1nously remarked: "we become just by doing just acts, MORAL EVIL pn1dent by doing prudent acts, brave by doing brave acts." That is, by doing a just act when it The central core of any theodicy must, I believe, is difficult-when it goes against our natural incli­ be the "free-vvill defence," vvhich deals-to start nations (which is what I understand by desires)­ with-with moral evil, but can be extended to we make it easier to do a just act next ti1ne. We deal with 1nuch natural evil as well. The free-will can gradually change our desires, so that-for defence claims that it is a great good that humans example-doing just acts becomes natural. have a certain sort offree will which I shall call free Thereby we can free ourselves from the power and responsible choice, but that, if they do, then of the less good desires to which we are subject. necessarily there \v:ill be the natural possibility of And, by choosing to acquire knowledge and to moral evil. (By the "natural possibility" I mean use it to build machines of various sorts, humans that it will not be determined in advance whether can extend the range of the differences they can or not the evil will occur.) A God who gives 1nake to the world-they can build universities humans such free will necessarily brings about to last for centuries, or save energy for the next the possibility, and puts outside his own control generation; and by cooperative effort over many whether or not that evil occurs. It is not logically decades they can eliminate poverty. The possibil­ possible-that is, it would be self-contradictory ities for free and responsible choice are enormous. to suppose-that God could give us such free It is good that the free choices of humans will and yet ensure that we always use it in the should include genuine responsibility for other right way. hun1ans, and that involves the opportunity to Free and responsible choice is not just free \vill benefit or harm them. God has the power to ben­ in the narrov.r sense of being able to choose efit or to harm hun1ans. If other agents are to be between alternative actions, without our choice given a share in his creative work, it is good that being causally necessitated by some prior cause. tl1ey have that power too (although perhaps to a I have urged, for the reasons given in the last lesser degree). A world in which agents can bene­ ·chapter,* that humans do have such free will. But fit each other but not do each other harn1 is one humans could have that kind of free will merely where they have only very limited responsibility in virtue of being able to choose freely benveen for each other. If my responsibility for you is lim­ nvo equally good and unimportant alternatives. ited to whether or not to give you a camcorder, Free and responsible choice is rather free will (of but I cannot cause you p~n, st1u1t your growth, the kind discussed) to make significant choices or limit your education, then I do not have a between good and evil, which make a big differ­ great deal of responsibility for you. A God vvho ence to the agent, to others, and to the world. gave agents only such li1nited responsibilities for Given that we have free will, we certainly have their fellows \Vould not hav~ given much.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beyond Good and Evil—1
    Nietzsche & Asian Philosophy Beyond Good and Evil—1 Beyond good and Evil Preface supposing truth is a woman philosophers like love-sick suitors who don’t understand the woman-truth central problem of philosophy is Plato’s error: denying perspective, the basic condition of all life On the Prejudices of Philosophers 1) questioning the will to truth who is it that really wants truth? What in us wants truth? Why not untruth? 2) origin of the will to truth out of the will to untruth, deception can anything arise out of its opposite? A dangerous questioning? Nietzsche sees new philosophers coming up who have the strength for the dangerous “maybe.” Note in general Nietzsche’s preference for the conditional tense, his penchant for beginning his questioning with “perhaps” or “suppose” or “maybe.” In many of the passages throughout this book Nietzsche takes up a perspective which perhaps none had dared take up before, a perspective to question what had seemed previously to be unquestionable. He seems to constantly be tempting the reader with a dangerous thought experiment. This begins with the questioning of the will to truth and the supposition that, perhaps, the will to truth may have arisen out of its opposite, the will to untruth, ignorance, deception. 3) the supposition that the greater part of conscious thinking must be included among instinctive activities Nietzsche emphasizes that consciousness is a surface phenomenon conscious thinking is directed by what goes on beneath the surface contrary to Plato’s notion of pure reason, the conscious
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011 The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions Edward Matusek University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Matusek, Edward, "The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3733 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Problem of Evil in Augustine’s Confessions by Edward A. Matusek A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Charles B. Guignon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 14, 2011 Keywords: theodicy, privation, metaphysical evil, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism Copyright © 2011, Edward A. Matusek i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Chapter One: Introduction to Augustine’s Confessions and the Present Study 1 Purpose and Background of the Study 2 Literary and Historical Considerations of Confessions 4 Relevance of the Study for Various
    [Show full text]
  • God and the Problem of Evil Notes
    Theodicy: God and the Problem of Evil Introduction Theodicy: From the Greek words for God (theos) and justice (dikē) - It is an attempt to vindicate divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. Three facts that seem to be in tension: 1. God is all-good 2. God is all-powerful 3. Evil exists “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – David Hume Summary: How do we defend the facts that God is good and God is powerful if he allows the holocaust, child-molestation, infanticide, wars, terrorism, cancer, rape, etc. Attempts to solve this tension 1. Simply deny that God is good. Problems 1 John 1:5 - This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Psalm 106:1 - Praise the Lord! Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever! Psalm 119:68 - You are good and do good; teach me your statutes. Nahum 1:7 - The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him. James 1:13 - Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodicy: an Overview
    1 Theodicy: An Overview Introduction All of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to someone, either ourselves, our family, our friends, our nation, or perhaps some particularly disturbing instance in the news—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. The following material is meant to give an overview of the discussion of this issue as it takes place in several circles, especially that of the Christian church. I. The Problem of Evil Defined Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to explain why it exists (Unde malum?) and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed, something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world. Peter Berger in particular has argued that explanations of evil are necessary for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces. It follows, then, that such an explanation has an impact on the whole person. As David Blumenthal observes, a good theodicy is one that has three characteristics: 1. "[I]t should leave one with one’s sense of reality intact." (It tells the truth about reality.) 2. "[I]t should leave one empowered within the intellectual-moral system in which one lives." (Namely, it should not deny God’s basic power or goodness.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Evil in the Personal Experience of St. Augustine
    RUCH FILOZOFICZNY LXXVI 2020 2 Agnieszka Biegalska University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland ORCID: 0000-0002-5653-9684 e-mail: [email protected] DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/RF.2020.024 Our heart is restless until it rests in you. St. Augustine, Confessions* Evil in the Personal Experience of St. Augustine The most disturbing issue that permeates all of St. Augustine’s work is the question of the existence of evil, experiencing it and inflicting it. Giovanni Papini claims that Augustine, “before he found himself in finding God, […] had to exhaust the experience of evil to the very depths”.1 This remark redirects our thinking about Augustine’s under- standing of evil from the field of theoretical considerations to the realm of his personal experience of evil, where his philosophical and theologi- cal thought seems to be rooted. For many years, Augustine experienced evil and inflicted it himself. In the Confessions we read: “our life was one of being seduced and seducing, being deceived and deceiving, in a vari- ety of desires. Publicly I was a teacher of the arts which they call liberal; privately I professed a false religion – in the former role arrogant, in the latter superstitious, in everything vain”.2 A sense of persistence in false- hood and iniquity, noticed by Augustine quite late, a few years before his death in 430 (if one can consider his Confessions as a testimony to this important moment) and his desire to know the truth about himself, * Saint Augustine, Confessions, transl. with an introduction and notes by Henry Chadwick (USA: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1, i (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Summary the Purpose of the Dissertation Is to Present The
    Summary The purpose of the dissertation is to present the abductive argument of Richard Swinburne in favor of theism. Richard Swinburne was born on December 26, 1934. He is a British philosopher, a retired professor of the University of Oxford, where he held the position of Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion (Oriel College). He has devoted all his philosophical activity to the justification of the Christian faith – he has intended to show that it is rational to believe in God. The main thesis of the dissertation is that Swinburne’s concept of theism does not remain consistent with the assumption that God is perfectly good. This inconsistence comes from the fact that human experience of suffering cannot be reconciled with God’s perfect goodness, especially assuming that God allows or causes the suffering. The structure of the work corresponds to the logical construction of Swinburne’s line of reasoning. The first chapter – Methodology of Philosophy – describes the main philosophical methods Swinburne uses in presenting his arguments. It is divided into two parts: the first one (Theory of Explanation) primarily presents the Swinburne’s construction of the concept of coherence, which is a prerequisite for considering any theory as probable or true. Moreover, this part discusses Swinburne’s dual explanatory theory, according to which two types of explanation are possible: (1) scientific, based on the analysis of unintentional causation, and (2) personal, based on the analysis of intentional causation. At the same time, Swinburne tries to show that it is not possible to explain certain phenomena in the world only by means of scientific explanation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Conscience As a Determinant of Morality: It’S Implication for the Nigerian Society
    International Journal of Philosophy and Theology September 2014, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 219-234 ISSN: 2333-5750 (Print), 2333-5769 (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). 2014. All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/ijpt.v2n3a15 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/ijpt.v2n3a15 The Human Conscience as a Determinant of Morality: It’s Implication for the Nigerian Society Patrick Eluke1 Abstract Human conscience has been severally described as the judge of human morality in every society. The way individuals in the Nigerian Society behave is predicated on the type of conscience they possess. Human conscience is that part of one’s mind that tells one whether his or her actions are right or wrong. Conscience varies from certain, doubtful, and perplexed, scrupulous to lax conscience. The good conscience undoubtedly implies the absence of fault, constant practice of good works and insistence on honorable behavior. This paper, therefore, seeks to survey types and they directly correlate with our different actions in the Nigerian Society today. This paper adopts descriptive method in order to achieve its objectives. 1. Preamble “Conscience is seen by some scholars as the source of moral knowledge or the source of moral reason, while others see it merely as a name for more feelings approval or disapproval of actions either as a result of psychological or social conditioning.”1 (Peschke K.H. Christian Ethics, moral Theology in the light of Vat. 2 Vol. 1 1986 p. 152.) This view is held by various scholars especially by both philosophers and non- philosophers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of the Good and the Evil in the Teachings of Leo Tolstoy and Hannah Arendt
    Svetlana Klimova THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GOOD AND THE EVIL IN THE TEACHINGS OF LEO TOLSTOY AND HANNAH ARENDT BASIC RESEARCH PROGRAM WORKING PAPERS SERIES: HUMANITIES WP BRP 150/HUM/2017 This Working Paper is an output of a research project implemented at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE). Any opinions or claims contained in this Working Paper do not necessarily reflect the views of HSE Svetlana Klimova1 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GOOD AND THE EVIL IN THE TEACHINGS OF LEO TOLSTOY AND HANNAH ARENDT2 The main subject of this article is devited of analyses a problem of Good and Evil in the teaching of Leo Tolstoy and Hannah Arendt. each in his epoch and by a similar way, got to the back of contradictions between “reasonableness”, “morality” and a human behavior in the state and society though they approached them from the opposing points of view. The approach of Tolstoy was Christian-ethical while that of Arendt was philosophic-political. Their congeniality is attributed to the fact that the ethics of Tolstoy and the policy of Arendt are built on a common theoretical ground, i.e. the philosophical anthropology of Kant. In the “man-state” opposition, Tolstoy revealed the ethical prerequisites to creation of the totalitarian ideology, and Arendt showed up the historical, political and inhuman essence of the totalitarianism phenomenon as such. Key words: Good, Evil, radical and banality evil, a philosophical anthropology of Kant , consciousness, the mass society and the mass man, “Eichmann as man” and “Eichmann as Nazi official,” independent thinking. JEL Classification: Z 1 National Research University Higher School of Economic (Moscow, Russia); Department of Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Swinburne's Arguments for Substance Dualism
    Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. MA by Research in Theology and Religion David Horner September 2018 Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. Submitted by David Horner to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of MA by Research in Theology and Religion in September 2018 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 1 Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Jonathan Hill and Dr Joel Krueger for their support and encouragement in the writing of this dissertation and for their patience in trying to keep me on the straight and narrow. I want to acknowledge the many conversations, on this and other topics, I have had with my friend and philosopher, Dr Chris Boyne, who sadly died in June of this year. I thank all my other chums at The Bull, Ditchling, for listening to my metaphysical ramblings. And finally, I thank my wife, Linda, for once more putting up with this kind of thing. 2 Abstract This dissertation is a contribution to debates in the philosophy of mind and of personal identity. It presents a critical account of arguments for substance dualism to be found in Richard Swinburne’s Mind, Brain, and Free Will (2013).
    [Show full text]
  • SPINOZA's ETHICS: FREEDOM and DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero
    SPINOZA’S ETHICS: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero-Montaño 1. What remains alive of a philosopher's thought are the realities that concern him, the problems that he addresses, as well as the questions that he poses. The breath and depth of a philosopher's thought is what continues to excite and incite today. However, his answers are limited to his time and circumstances, and these are subject to the historical evolution of thought, yet his principal commitments are based on the problems and questions with which he is concerned. And this is what resounds of a philosopher's thought, which we can theoretically and practically adopt and adapt. Spinoza is immersed in a time of reforms, and he is a revolutionary and a reformer himself. The reforming trend in modern philosophy is expressed in an eminent way by Descartes' philosophy. Descartes, the great restorer of science and metaphysics, had left unfinished the task of a new foundation of ethics. Spinoza was thus faced with this enterprise. But he couldn't carry it out without the conviction of the importance of the ethical problems or that ethics is involved in a fundamental aspect of existence: the moral destiny of man. Spinoza's Ethics[1] is based on a theory of man or, more precisely, on an ontology of man. Ethics is, for him, ontology. He does not approach the problems of morality — the nature of good and evil, why and wherefore of human life — if it is not on the basis of a conception of man's being-in-itself, to wit, that the moral existence of man can only be explained by its own condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.Pdf
    Leo Strauss Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil A course offered in 1971–1972 St. John’s College, Annapolis, Maryland Edited and with an introduction by Mark Blitz With the assistance of Jay Michael Hoffpauir and Gayle McKeen With the generous support of Douglas Mayer Mark Blitz is Fletcher Jones Professor of Political Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College. He is author of several books on political philosophy, including Heidegger’s Being and Time and the Possibility of Political Philosophy (Cornell University Press, 1981) and Plato’s Political Philosophy (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), and many articles, including “Nietzsche and Political Science: The Problem of Politics,” “Heidegger’s Nietzsche (Part I),” “Heidegger’s Nietzsche (Part II),” “Strauss’s Laws, Government Practice and the School of Strauss,” and “Leo Strauss’s Understanding of Modernity.” © 1976 Estate of Leo Strauss © 2014 Estate of Leo Strauss. All Rights Reserved Table of Contents Editor’s Introduction i–viii Note on the Leo Strauss Transcript Project ix–xi Editorial Headnote xi–xii Session 1: Introduction (Use and Abuse of History; Zarathustra) 1–19 Session 2: Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorisms 1–9 20–39 Session 3: BGE, Aphorisms 10–16 40–56 Session 4: BGE, Aphorisms 17–23 57–75 Session 5: BGE, Aphorisms 24–30 76–94 Session 6: BGE, Aphorisms 31–35 95–114 Session 7: BGE, Aphorisms 36–40 115–134 Session 8: BGE, Aphorisms 41–50 135–152 Session 9: BGE, Aphorisms 51–55 153–164 Session 10: BGE, Aphorisms 56–76 (and selections) 165–185 Session 11: BGE, Aphorisms 186–190 186–192 Session 12: BGE, Aphorisms 204–213 193–209 Session 13 (unrecorded) 210 Session 14: BGE, Aphorism 230; Zarathustra 211–222 Nietzsche, 1971–72 i Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil Mark Blitz Leo Strauss offered this seminar on Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil at St John’s College in Annapolis Maryland.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Do Good and Evil Come From? Peter Kreeft
    WHERE DO GOOD AND EVIL COME FROM? PETER KREEFT I’m going to argue for the existence of God from the premise that moral good and evil really exist. They are not simply a matter of personal taste. Not merely substitutes for “I like” and “I don’t like.” Before I begin, let’s get one misunderstanding out of the way. My argument does not mean that atheists can’t be moral. Of course atheists can behave morally, just as theists can behave immorally. Let’s start then with a question about good and evil: ‘Where do good and evil come from?” Atheists typically propose a few possibilities. Among these are evolution, reason, conscience, human nature, and utilitarianism. I will show you that none of these can be the ultimate source of morality. Why not from evolution? Because any supposed morality that is evolving can change. If it can change for the good or the bad, there must be a standard above these changes to judge them as good or bad. For most of human history, more powerful societies enslaved weaker societies, and prospered. That’s just the way it was and no one questioned it. Now we condemn slavery. But based on a merely evolutionary model, that is an ever-changing view of morality, who is to say that it won’t be acceptable again one day? Slavery was once accepted, but it was not therefore acceptable. And if you can’t make that distinction between accepted and acceptable, you can’t criticize slavery. And if you can make that distinction you are admitting to objective morality.
    [Show full text]