Durham E-Theses Theodicy and evolution: aspects of theology from Pierre Bayle to J.S. Mill Loades, Ann Lomas How to cite: Loades, Ann Lomas (1975) Theodicy and evolution: aspects of theology from Pierre Bayle to J.S. Mill, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/8091/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. THEODICY AND EVOUJriON: ASPECTS OF THEOJXXSy FROM PIERRE BAYIE TO J .S . MILL By Atiu Ixsmas Loades, B.A., M.A. A Thesis Submitted in Fullilaient of the Reqtiiremeats for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Durhara University, 1975 Table of Contenta Page Summaxy ii Preface iii Introduotion 1 Section I % Bayle to Kant A Bayle 6 B Leibniz . 29 G- Lixmaeus and Hiune 75 B Kant 119 Section II t Malthus to Coleridge A Malthua' 205 B Ki'asmua j)aK'win 222 0: Paley 239 3) Coleridge 262 Section III ; Dai'vdn in his context A Chamlsers to Kill 35^ B Conclusion 451 Bibliography 455 ii Summary This study is an attempt to describe how a number of thinkers from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries approached the problem of theodicy in relation to physical evil. Most of those studied also concerned themselves with the natural sciences, aspects of which they sought to relate to their theology. It was sometimes difficult for them to write publishable theology, which would not incur the censure of the authorities, so various devices were employed. This means that some of the work under discussion has to be approached historically ±a order to ascertain the author»s meaning. ' The study falls into three sections. Each of the first two follows the same pattern. Three preliminary investigations lead to one substantial chapter, involving reference to the earlier material of the section. Thus the analysis of Bayle, Leibniz and Hume relates to the chapter on Kaiit, and that of Mai thus, Erasmus Darwin and Paley, to the chapter on Coleridge. The two sections are related to one another in that Mal^hus, Erasmus Darwin and Paley were all In their own ways reacting to Hume, and Coleridge was reacting to the work of his immediate predecessors in this country and also to the writings of ILeibniz arid Kant,. The third section contains one main chapter, together with an extended summary of the study. IT is related to the previous two sectioixs Jjn that i;u attempts to pursue the coneem with theodicy in the writings of those mentioned for the first time, in the light of their possible awareness of writers discussed eai'lier. iii mSFACE I wish to acknowledge my indehtednesss to Mr. R»P. MdDermott and Mr» J.JJ. Rogerson of the Bepartmemt of Theology? 14r» E.J, Kearns of the Bepartment of French} ¥sr» B.A. Whewell of the Department of Fnilosophy, all of Durham University! and above all to Professor W.A. VJhitehousOj Department of Theology, University of Kent. In proper names and all technical terma standard modern spelling is used, except in quotations where the form used is as in the source qiioted. Introcluctioii When A.C. Bradley gave a series of Gifford Lectures in 1907 entitled Ideals of Religion, he presented the press with a summary which Was printed as the "Introduction". In this sunimary he asked the question, "Do we realise how utterly different from the picture of the world which would have been sanctioned by an orthodox theologian a humdi-ed years ago, is the picture habitually presented to and active ijn the average cultivated European mind of today j.n regard to the beginning an.d history of the earth and man, or their possible or probable future, or the causation of events, whether usual or unusual, that happens here or anywhere in the Universe?"' This study is concerned with certain features of that "orthodox" picture before and after Darwjji published The Origin of Species, ana with the impact that woik made on theological thinking. The particular topic within the general field which is of special interest here is that laiown as 3 • "theodicy", a term probably invented by Leibniz. its meaning may be briefly defined as the "problem" of how to jiistify Gtod in his deal• ings wi-ch man and with his creation, given tha. claim that there is a divinely good, wise and powerful Creator, and thoJi this is compatible with the presence of evil in the world, supposing evil to be that which God detests. aie topic of related interest has been excluded from the discussion, so far as possible, namely, the topic of whether it is meaningful to assert belief in a creator who possesses a will which his creatures not only can but do disobey. "Theodicy" is integrally related to that area of "natural" theology which may be referred to as - 2 "design" theology. This latter area, which was concerned to derive a kind of theology from nature, was substantially undermined quite indepoidently of the tradition of natural philosophy represented by Darwin, by the philosophical tradition represented b^J Hume. By paying care and attention to the writings of some of the central figures involved in the xmdermiriiiig it ma.y be possible to discover what it was that so deeply concerned theta about this kind of theology, and the theodicy appropriate to it.. Whether or not theodicy is a proper concern for a Qiristian theologian depends upon what one thinks the tasks of such a theologian are to be. "Any attempts to defend God, any kind of theodicy is wholly alien to Cliristian faith; a god v/hom man has to try to defend is no longer God." This may or may not be the case, but there is no attempt in this study to discuss this question. Rather, I intend to look at the work of some who have thought theodicy to be a proper topic for a Christian theologian, even though some of those to whom reference will be made represent points of view critical of and often hostile to those of the so-called "orthodox" theologians of their period. It may be that theodicy is an attempt to answer questions that have no answer, and in this case theologians may well be grateful to those who enable the truth of this to be seen. But it will not do initially to accept "impenetrable mystery" as the reply to the question being raised. As Plev/ says, "the point has been put that - 3 - the kno\vn and undisputed facts decisively falsify the fundamental theist claim, that, in the full but basic sense specified, God exists." To escape the charge of wilful self-delusion, he goes on, the believer should show how and why this is not necessarily so since God is so defined in the Christian tradition as having "a set of characteristics vthich one might'uninstntctedly have thought, mu.st make it. impossible toi squai'e an existence claim with some of the most obvious facts of the world around us." If the world-picture has changed, it may be that the discussion of theodicy can be no more than an historical exercise for a theologian, who would then be attempting to assess the "performance value" which a cluster of ideas once had, and the confidence they engendered, a confidence which would have to be sought from new sources once the ideas were discredited. However, it might also be the case that from the analysis hints mig^it be discerned as to how to set. about constructing a '^theology of nature", or at any rate to jnake some minor contribution to such a construction. A theology related to nature would be a particular area of Christian theology which might be related to "scien.ce". As W.A. Whitehouse put it, writing of the Christian interest in "science", "the fundamental concern is to promote and deepen a true understanding in man of his place in the order of time and nature, and to clarify the question about a relationship with God •which will govern imagination, aspiration, and action all the dealings men have with their fellov/s, With the things about them, and with the tasks of ciillture and politics." 4 - And with theology and nature in mind, one may usefully adopt his employment of tte word '"nature" to mean "a conventional way of referriiig to the environraen,t within which I have emerged, with other beings some of whom I recognize as my fellow men, an environment which provides vast fields of possible experience." Finally one may note that later on in his book he writes that another aspect of the Christian's concern "is to anticipate any 10 ' ill-conceived religious commitments" ^ and it might be the case that iattention to this area of religious commitment as it has been seen in the past might at the very least provide oie with information about how not to relate theology and "ecology" together in a naive way.