DOCSLIB.ORG

The Problem of Evil Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Problem of Evil Dr The Problem of Evil Dr. Peter Kreeft The problem of evil is life’s greatest problem for everybody. It’s certainly the strongest argument for atheism. One of the ancient skeptics said: “If there’s a God why is there evil, but if there’s no God why is there good?” Those are two very challenging questions, and mystery is either way. In the first page of your outline I divide the problem into five different problems, because there are five different dimensions: practical, logical, religious, epistemological, and theological. The practical problem, which everybody faces, whether they think about it or not, is ‘we all suffer and die’. We want not just an explanation, but a real solution. The second problem is a logical problem: the existence of evil seems to disprove the existence of God. There are many ways to formulate this. When Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica he looked for as many objections as he possibly could to the many thesis that he tried to prove. And to the first and most important one, that there is a God, he found only two very strong objections to the existence of God. The first one was the existence of evil. If God is infinite goodness there is no room for evil. If there is room for evil, therefore God doesn’t exist. The other one was the apparent adequacy of the natural human sciences to explain everything without Him. It doesn’t really prove that God doesn’t exist, it proves that you don't have to believe in God to explain everything else. So really there is one really strong argument against the existence of God, and that is the problem of evil. The religious problem. Religion being a personal relationship with God, the problem is how can I trust a God that is omnipotent and can do everything He wants deliberately allows me to suffer. Why doesn’t He get me out of it? The epistemological problem: why don’t we know the answer? Why can’t we solve the problem? Why is it a mystery that always has dark areas? You get some light but not enough. We are never satisfied with that answer, no matter who we are. Why? And, finally, the deeper theological problem is that within Christian theology we have a doctrine called hell or eternal damnation; which is certainly Christianity’s most unpopular doctrine, and the most difficult one to defend. That seems to contradict a God of infinite power and infinite love. Doesn’t that mean God in the end loses? I like hard questions; they stimulate thought much more than the easy ones. So, in making the question five-fold instead of just single I try to make it five times harder. Let's start with the practical problem. On page two I gave you four distinct answers to the practical problem. The first and most obvious one is that there is no answer. ‘Life stinks then you die’. Do the best you can. Nobody can get out of suffering; nobody can live without suffering, and nobody can live without dying. So there is no answer. There are also a number of ways to mitigate or lessen our suffering. That’s the second answer. At least an honest one. Surely medical technology is a terribly important thing because it deals with us, with our very bodies, that part of the universe which is us. Technology is not always and uniformly a good thing. Most of us would wish there weren't nuclear bombs and drone warfare. But technology is a wonderful thing. It’s a natural thing, it’s a human thing, and especially nobody wants to go without medical technology. This is a clear example of that. This doesn’t totally solve the problem, but it certainly helps. That’s just a negative thing though. It reduces pain. We can also compensate by adding pleasures. Divert ourselves by adding pleasures, where you can include mental pleasures, and emotional pleasures and physical pleasures. That doesn’t totally solve the problem, but it’s definitely a part of human life. Or thirdly, we can deal with ourselves, those who are suffering, and learn mechanisms to cope with it from within. The most obvious one is courage. Courage is the willingness to endure pain for a good reason. Another is compassion. If we didn’t see other people suffer, we would have no reason for compassion. The third one is hope. That extends our positive attitude into the future and not just in the present. And almost any psychologist would say that these are very important virtues. You don’t need to believe in God to believe in courage, compassion and hope. The third and more radical answer to the problem of suffering on a practical level is a kind of surgery. Recognize the thing that suffers in us and try to amend it, and maybe take it away and hide it. And the thing that causes us to suffer is that contradiction between our desires and our satisfactions. Our desires always exceed our satisfactions. Or to quote the most famous and the most rich philosopher in the world, Jagger, “you can’t always get what you want”. An ancient philosophy, and a very popular one, Stoicism, which deals directly with the problem of suffering by saying, ‘well, there are some things you can control, and there are some things that you can’t. Stop trying to control the things you can’t control. Don’t rebel against it, that adds to the suffering. And concentrate on changing what you can, especially gratitudes’. There is a lot of practical wisdom in Stoicism, although there is a lot missing. Buddhism goes one step farther than Stoicism and says let us subtract not only superfluous desires that can’t be satisfied, let us subtract all desires. If you have only a thousand dollars and you desire a million, stop desiring the other 999 thousand. Buddhism says, stop desiring even what you have because you will lose it with death. So, develop a conscience by Buddhist meditation that has no desires in it at all. Buddhism also says that ‘we’ there that suffers. You realize that you don’t really exist, you are a series of events, psychological events. Then, if there is no ‘you’ who suffers, no suffering still happens if it’s not happening in anybody. Personally I am not terribly attracted to that. It sounds a little bit like spiritual euthanasia. You kill or deny the patient in order to solve the problem. Christianity has a very practical answer to the problem of evil, it’s Jesus Christ. He suffered with us, and for us and in us so that suffering is not removed but transformed. Something with meaning. Something like the meaning of childbirth. It’s a great pain, but if you want the baby that changes the meaning of pain. It’s worth it. So if somehow you are identified with Christ's suffering, it doesn’t take your suffering away but it gives it a new meaning, a new purpose. It is better to embrace it freely, than to suffer it unwillingly. Finally the most practical answer to the problem of suffering and death is that Jesus rose from the dead. The conquest of death entails the conquest of suffering. Not an answer but an actual solution. Because the problem is not just how you explain it but what you do about it. And if His resurrection and our resurrection go together, so everyone of us will solve the problem of death definitively. I would like to concentrate on the second formulation of the problem: the logical, apologetic, philosophical. This is the deepest threat for those who believe in God. The existence of evil seems to definitively disprove the existence of God. Three formulations. The first one is the happiness on, why doesn’t God make us happy? If He won’t, He’s not ​ ​ all-good; if he can’t He’s not all-powerful. In any case, He doesn’t deserve the name God. The second formulation which is similar, is simpler, is the concept of infinite goodness. A good that is partly good and partly evil doesn’t deserve the name God. And a God who is beyond good and evil He is not God to pray to or worship. If one of two opposites is infinite, the other is unreal. Evil disproves infinite goodness (God). There would not be room for evil if there was an infinite goodness. So, if there is evil that doesn’t disprove the existence of goodness, but of infinite goodness. Most contemporary atheists use the third formulation, The concept “God” includes infinite goodness, infinite power, and infinite wisdom. If he has infinite goodness, he wants nothing but good. And if he has infinite power he gets everything he wants, and if he has infinite wisdom, then he knows how to get it. So It logically follows that if God exists, there can be no evil. So, if there is evil, either there is no God at all or he’s a wicked God, or a weak God, or he’s an unwise God. Fourth formulation is much simpler and more practical. Life sucks and then you die. You find that in Atheists like Sartre and Camus. That's what it looks like. How can life look like that if there is God. Finally, the moral formulation, the injustice formulation, the fifth one, is why do bad things happen to good people? Why do people get not what they want, how come the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper? That’s not fair.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Problem of Evil and the Probity of Theodicy from William Rowe's
    Liberty University Department of Philosophy The Problem of Evil and the Probity of Doing Theodicy from William Rowe’s Evidential Argument from Evil ------------------------------------------- A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Philosophy Department of Liberty University In Partial Fulfilment Of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in Philosophical Studies -------------------------------------------- By Olaoluwa Apata -------------------------------------------- Lynchburg, VA May 2016 Abstract In this research, we discussed the types of evil: moral and natural, which are cited by atheistic philosophers as evidence against the existence of God. The so-called evidence from evil has been used by the atheistic and other non-theistic scholars to raise hypothesis on evaluating the possibility or likelihood that an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God exists in a world that is littered with evil. Moral evil is evil that arise from the misuse of free will by moral agents, while natural evils are natural disasters such as: earthquakes, famine, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. We discussed moral evil and Plantinga’s free will defense. We also discussed the natural evil and how it poses threat to theism. The logical and the evidential arguments from evil are the forms of arguments developed from moral and natural evils. While many scholars have agreed that Plantinga’s free will defense adequately responds to the problem of logical evil, the same consensus does not necessarily apply to the evidential argument from evil. We also examined William Rowe’s evidential argument which he developed from cases of intense animal and human sufferings considered by him to be pointless or gratuitous with no known reasons or goods for which God should have allowed the visceral experience of such sufferings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Liberal Doctrine of Hell and Universalism: a Transcendental Approach
    1 The Liberal Doctrine of Hell and Universalism: A Transcendental Approach By Daniel L. Broadstock BA (Hons), B.Ed A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy University of Divinity 2017 2 Abstract In this thesis I have applied a Kantian methodology to present a new approach to the problem of Hell. I have engaged with two leading perspectives in this debate, the ‘liberal doctrine of Hell’ and the doctrine of Universalism, and pursued dialogue with leading theologians of each view; Jerry Walls and Jurgen Moltmann respectively. The liberal model of Hell is a modern attempt to revitalise the doctrine by recasting its nature and purpose. Rather than an instrument for the punishment of sin, the liberal model interprets Hell as God’s response to human freedom. This theory holds that God has constituted human beings with free volition of the will and desires a free relationship with them. As it is possible to resist this invitation, he has also created Hell as a place of eternal separation for those who reject him. While the invitation of grace is never withdrawn, some will remain there forever. Universalism is the view that all human beings will be saved. I have sketched a general outline of these views, illustrating them with reference to arguments proposed by key thinkers in their respective fields. I conclude that they constitute an antinomy; an a priori dilemma abstract from experience and therefore unresolvable by philosophical reasoning. I suggest that the problem of Hell can be resolved by employing a theological adaptation of Kant’s transcendental idealism: eternal separation and universal salvation can both be true, if understood as compatible manifestations of different levels of reality and perception.
    [Show full text]
  • This Thesis Is Submitted in Fulfilment of The. Requirements of the Degree Of
    The Problem of Evil and Theodicy in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Thought Muhsin Akbaý This thesisis submittedin fulfilment of the. requirementsof the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Wales University of Wales,Lampeter 1999 1 Acknowledgements I would like to expressmy sinceregratitude to ProfessorPaul Badham,who has supervisedmy research,for his valuableattention, guidance, suggestions, and comments. I would also like to thank to ProfessorRabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbokfor his helpful supervision in the Jewish side of this study, and to Dr. Dawüd al-`Alanü for his valuable suggestionsin the Islamic side of this work. It is necessarythat I extend my deepestgratitude to the Higher Educational Counsel of Turkey and canakkale Onsekiz Mart University for their financial support without which this studywould not haveemerged. I would also like to thank to Professor Mehmet Aydm and ProfessorHanifi Özcanat the Faculty of Divinity at Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir for they encouragedme to pursue an academic career in Philosophy of Religion. I am very happy to thank to the members of the library and the ACS at Lampeter for their assistance during my research. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my wife, Emine, for her patience, support, and encouragement throughout my research. Il Abstract This thesisis the study of the problemof evil and theodicyin Jewish,Christian, and Islamic traditions.The principal aim of the study is to explore,discuss, and compare and contrastthe major responsesto the problem of evil offered in the sacredwritings, theology and philosophy of the three Abrahamic faiths. I have demonstratedhow Judaism,Christianity, and Islam understoodthe problem of evil, and respondedto the atheisticargument from evil.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Religion
    Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION BEAU BRANSON, MARCUS WILLIAM HUNT, TIMOTHY D KNEPPER, ROBERT SLOAN LEE, STEVEN STEYL, HANS VAN EYGHEN, BEAU BRANSON (BOOK EDITOR), AND CHRISTINA HENDRICKS (SERIES EDITOR) Rebus Community Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion by Beau Branson, Marcus William Hunt, Timothy D Knepper, Robert Sloan Lee, Steven Steyl, Hans Van Eyghen, Beau Branson (Book Editor), and Christina Hendricks (Series Editor) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. DEDICATION To Roger Branson — the best dad I ever had. For all the sacrifices I know ouy made. And for all the ones I don’t. CONTENTS What is an Open Textbook? ix Christina Hendricks How to Access and Use the Books xi Christina Hendricks Introduction to the Series xiii Christina Hendricks Praise for the Book xvi Acknowledgements xviii Beau Branson and Christina Hendricks Introduction to the Book 1 Beau Branson 1. The Intertwining of Philosophy and Religion in the Western Tradition 7 Beau Branson 2. Reasons to Believe – Theoretical Arguments 18 Marcus William Hunt 3. Non-Standard Arguments for God’s Existence 30 Robert Sloan Lee 4. Reasons Not to Believe 49 Steven Steyl 5. Debunking Arguments against Theistic Belief 62 Hans Van Eyghen 6. From Philosophy of (Mono)theism to Philosophy of Religions 74 Timothy D Knepper Glossary 87 About the Contributors 91 Feedback and Suggestions 94 Adoption Form 95 Licensing and Attribution Information 96 Review Statement 98 Accessibility Assessment 99 Version History 101 WHAT IS AN OPEN TEXTBOOK? CHRISTINA HENDRICKS An open textbook is like a commercial textbook, except: (1) it is publicly available online free of charge (and at low-cost in print), and (2) it has an open license that allows others to reuse it, download and revise it, and redistribute it.
    [Show full text]
  • A Craigian Theodicy of Hell
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 17 Issue 1 Article 6 1-1-2000 A Craigian Theodicy of Hell Charles Seymour Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Seymour, Charles (2000) "A Craigian Theodicy of Hell," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 17 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol17/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. A CRAIGIAN THEODICY OF HELL Charles Seymour Problem: if God has middle knowledge, he should actualize a world con­ taining only persons whom he knows would freely choose heaven. Thus there should be no hell. Craig offers an answer to this problem in his article " 'No Other Name': a Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ." Craig is mainly concerned to give a logically possible defense of hell, though he thinks his suggestion does not lack the sort of plausibility needed for a theodicy. I consider various objections to the latter assessment. My conclusion is that, although Craig's argument is implausible as a theodicy of conservative exclusivist soteriology, it is useful for less traditional ideas of hell.
    [Show full text]
  • The Incompatibility Between Free Will Theodicies and Religious Experience
    The Incompatibility between Free Will Theodicies and Religious Experience A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham as part of the fulfilment of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY in Philosophy By Benjamin Matheson Department of Philosophy School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion The University of Birmingham April 2010 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. i Abstract This thesis suggests a novel problem for theists. This problem is that there is an incompatibility between free will theodicies and religious experience. Free will theodicies are responses to the problem of evil and religious experience is form of interaction between God and people. The free will theodicies that are discussed say that God gives us free will for two purposes. These purposes are to excuse God from direct responsibility for evil in the world and to act as a qualifying factor in who goes where when we die (i.e. either Heaven or Hell). Religious experience, it will be argued, usually, if not always, gives recipients of religious experience moral benefits. The giving of moral benefits in religious experience acts to undermine the second purpose we are said to have been given free will and hence generates the incompatibility between free will theodicies and religious experience.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spiritual Theology of Julian of Norwich As a Resource for Issues In
    The Spiritual Theology of Julian of Norwich as a Resource for Issues in Theoretical and Pastoral Theodicy by Kwang-Cheol Oh A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Knox College and the Pastoral Department of the Toronto School of Theology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College © Copyright by Kwang-Cheol Oh 2013 The Spiritual Theology of Julian of Norwich as a Resource for Issues in Theoretical and Pastoral Theodicy Kwang-Cheol Oh Doctor of Philosophy University of St. Michael’s College 2013 ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes the spiritual theology of Julian of Norwich in light of certain developments in contemporary theodicy. It begins by exploring in a creative and critical fashion the current debates between theoretical and practical (or pastoral) theodicy. Some theologians who favor pastoral responses to evil and suffering argue that theoretical theodicy is mistaken, misguided and even immoral because it legitimizes and perpetuates evil in the world, silences the voices of victims, and justifies the social structures that produce suffering. In critically exploring these claims, I argue that these views of pastoral theodicists and the responses from those who support theoretical theodicy trigger three significant issues for contemporary theodicy: (1) the question of theoretical support for practical theodicy; (2) the nature and actions of God in relation to human suffering; and (3) the question of destructive suffering experienced by people. This thesis then focuses on Julian of Norwich’s (1342-1416) spiritual theology and its implications and relevance to these contemporary issues in theodicy.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Theological Debates of Hell in the USA
    Polonia Sacra 25 (2021) nr 2 (64) ∙ s. 115–130 ISSN 1428-5673; e-ISSN 2391-6575 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15633/ps.3984 Received: Nov 22, 2020 | Accepted: Jan 23, 2021 | Published: June 30, 2021 Sydney Sadowski1 ORCID: 0000-0002-9117-4086; [email protected] The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow Modern Theological Debates of Hell in the USA Abstract Among the differing Christian denominations there are various viewpoints regarding hell. This article presents differing viewpoints of the theological questions concerning hell that have been debated over the last ten years (2010–2020) in the United States in the theological arena as well as the popular press. The positions of annihilationism, universalism, and the traditional viewpoint are to be surveyed. The differing philosophical, theological and biblical viewpoints are presented for each general category. The article strives to give a general overview of the various theologies and to show that such theological investigation is of urgent importance for Christians today. Keywords: Hell, annihilationism, universalism, traditional viewpoint Streszczenie Współczesna debata teologiczna o piekle w USA Wśród różnych wyznań chrześcijańskich istnieją rozmaite poglądy na temat piekła. W artykule przedstawiono różnorodne stanowiska teologiczne dotyczące piekła, nad którymi debatowano w ciągu ostatnich dziesięciu lat (2010–2020) w Stanach Zjednoczonych na płaszczyźnie teologicznej oraz w prasie popularnej. Badane są tutaj: anihilacjonizm, uniwersalizm i tradycyjny punkt widzenia. Dla każdej generalnej kategorii przedstawiono różne teorie filozoficzne, teologiczne i biblijne. W artykule starano się zaprezentować ogólny przegląd rozmaitych teologii, aby pokazać, że takie teologiczne dociekania powinny być niezwłocznie podjęte, bo mają bardzo ważne znaczenie dla współczesnych chrześcijan.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Religion
    International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Cumulative Index Volumes 1-38 (1970-1995) Compiled by NAYNA }IVAN and EUGENE THOMAS LONG With the assistance of PATAKIANTAL Part One: Articles Part Two: Review Articles Part Three: Book Reviews Kluwer Academic Publishers DORDRECHT / BOSTON / LONDON 184 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PlllLOSOPHY OF RELIGION Part One: Articles Special issues 1970 (Volume 1, No.3) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Commemorating the 200th anniversary of his birth (27 August 1770) with contributions by Darrel E. Christensen, Murray Greene, Edgar H. Henderson, Robert 1. Perkins, Efraim Shmeli & Frederick G. Weiss 1988 (Volume 24, Nos. 1-2) The problem of evil with contributions by Keith Chrzan, David A. Conway, R. Z. Friedman, C. Robert Mesle, Bruce R. Reichenbach & Jane Mary Trau 1992 (Volume 31, Nos. 2-3) The epistemic status of religious belief guest-edited by Bowman 1. Clarke & William 1. Power with contributions by William P. Alston, Bowman L. Clarke, Frederick Ferre, Eugene Th. Long, William L. Power, Theodore Runyon & Keith E. Yandell 1995 (Volume 38, Nos. 1-3) God, reason and religions edited by Eugene Th. Long with contributions by William P. Alston, David B. Burrell, Bowman 1. Clarke, Eugene Th. Long, Robert Cummings Neville, Philip 1. Quinn, William 1. Rowe, Robert P. Scharlemann, John E. Smith, Richard Swinburne & Merold Westphal Articles on author's name in alphabetical/chronological order Adams, E. M. (1985) The accountability of religiOUS discourse, 18(1-2): 3-17. Alon, Ilai see Graves, David & Alon, Ilai (1995). Alston, William P. (1985) Divine foreknowledge and alternative conceptions of human freedom, 18(1-2): 19-32.
    [Show full text]
  • Hell and the Problem of Evil
    Hell and the Problem of Evil Andrei A. Buckareff and Allen Plug Marist College and Malone University 1. Introduction While accounts of the nature of hell vary within and between religious traditions, formulations of the traditional doctrine include at least the following five elements. E1 Some persons do or will reside in hell and will be there for an infinite period of time. E2 Hell is the residence of those persons who have failed to satisfy some condition(s) dictated by God as necessary to avoid hell and enjoy heaven. E3 The cumulative well-being and well-being at any moment of any resident of hell is negative. E4 Those in hell are blocked from leaving. E5 Those in hell are consigned to hell as punishment for either failing to satisfy the condition(s) God requires for one to avoid hell or for actual sins committed or both. In this essay we explain why the doctrine of hell poses a problem of evil for traditional theists in the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and how some have responded to the problem. Our focus is entirely on recent work in analytic philosophical theology. Given that the recent philosophical debates over hell have largely transpired within the context of the Christian theistic tradition, Christian theism provides the backdrop for how we frame the problem and some of the responses in much of what follows. However, this should not be taken as an indication of the problem as unique to traditional Christianity or even that the responses to the problem considered are only available to those who are working from within the Christian tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tough-Love Proposal: a Novel Theodicy Le Pham Thai
    THE TOUGH-LOVE PROPOSAL: A NOVEL THEODICY LE PHAM THAI A doctoral thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the DEPARTMENT OF SYSTEMATIC AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY FACULTY OF THEOLOGY AND RELIGION UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA PROMOTER: PROFESSOR JERRY PILLAY June 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………ii DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY……………………………………………………………x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………………………...xi SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………...xii CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY………………………...1 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 1.2 The Research Problem………………………………………………………………...6 1.3 Research Objectives…………………………………………………………………...7 1.4 Research Methodology………………………………………………………………..8 1.5 Delimitations of Study……………………………………………………………….12 1.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...12 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………14 2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..14 2.2 Definitions of Terms…………………………………………………………………15 2.2.1 Definition of Evil……………………………………………………………….16 2.2.2 Definition of Moral Evil………………………………………………………..17 ii 2.2.3 Definition of Natural Evil……………………………………………………....18 2.2.4 Definition of Social Evil………………………………………………………..20 2.2.5 A Combination of Evils………………………………………………………...22 2.2.6 Definition of Suffering………………………………………………………….22 2.2.7 The Problems of Evil…………………………………………………………...24 2.3 The Logical Problem of Evil………………………………………………………....24 2.3.1 The Logical Argument………………………………………………………….24
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Hell
    THE PROBLEM OF HELL John M. DePoe The Christian doctrine of hell has long been a stumbling block for people to overcome when accepting Christianity. For surely a good God would not send people to hell, especially those who lead a pretty good life and had no possible opportunity to accept Christianity. Below, I will proceed to resolve this problem by first sharpening the apparent disharmony of the doctrine of hell, then pointing out some misconceptions, and finally by providing a positive Christian defense for the classic doctrine of hell. THE PROBLEM Typically the problem for the doctrine of hell is established as an unlikely consequence given that if the Christian God exists, he would essentially possess the characteristics of love, mercy, goodness, kindness, etc. Thus, based on the fact that God essentially possesses these characteristics maximally, then it is inconsistent for God also to create a place for the purpose of punishing those who chose not to believe in him, especially those who aren't overtly evil and/or had minimal or zero opportunity to accept Christianity. Some proponents of this objection go further to claim that if God creates hell and damns people to it, then God is positively evil. Another problem for the doctrine of hell comes from certain interpretations in the Bible. For example, in Matthew 7:13-14 Jesus seems to teach that the broad path, which is populated by those bound for hell, has a larger following than the narrow way, which leads to heaven. If this is so, one wonders why a good God would create a world knowing that a lopsided outcome was inevitable? Moreover, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 both seem to teach that God desires no one to go to hell.
    [Show full text]