1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1. The Problem of Evil Definition and the Logical Problem of Evil The term theodicy arose from G.W. Leibniz’ book in 1710 entitled Theodicy.1 Robert M. Adams (1996) notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice.2 Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world.3 Dewi Zephaniah Phillips4 admits that ‘philosophizing about the problem of evil has become common place.’5 There are ‘theories, theodicies and defences abound.’6 These are all seeking to somehow justify God,7 or to render the concept of God as untenable.8 Phillips rightly reasons that such work should be done with fear,9 as approaches to 1 Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy. 2 Adams (1996: 794). 3 Adams (1996: 794). David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion explains that geniuses over the ages have continued to look for proofs and arguments concerning God. Hume (1779)(2004: 2). Theodicy would involve demonstrating that God exists and is good even as the problem of evil exists. 4 Unfortunately Phillips died within the time frame of writing this thesis (1934-2006). 5 Phillips (2005: xi). 6 Phillips (2005: xi). 7 Phillips (2005: xi). 8 Phillips (2005: xi). Most often atheistic attempts, or those critical of Christian thought. 9 Phillips (2005: xi). 2 the problem of evil in error could ‘betray the evils people have suffered.’10 Such explanation should never be overly simplistic, insensitive or ridiculous.11 Phillips warns that pro-religious philosophical presentations can often do more damage to the cause of theodicy than can the work of critics.12 David Hume (1779)(2004) discusses the danger of traditional superstition in religious presentations,13 and doubtless a reasonable, open-minded, philosophical approach from a theist would be far more helpful within a theodicy. He also warns against theistic claims of being able to adequately understand the Supreme Being, if there is one.14 This Being’s attributes would be ‘incomprehensible’15 and it basically impossible for the theist to understand the nature of this being.16 If Hume is correct,17 constructing a theodicy would be largely meaningless. To counter this problem, Biblical Revelation would be required in order that God reveals self in context of the issue of theodicy.18 Augustine19 (388-395)(1964) deduces that God is good and therefore does not commit evil.20 The cause of evil is therefore not to be traced back to God, but to the person that does evil.21 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz22 (1710)(1998) reasons God always chooses what is best, freely within his nature and is vindicated within his creation, even though it contains evil.23 God 10 Phillips (2005: xi). 11 Phillips (2005: xi). I can agree with this point in general terms, but there will certainly be disagreement between writers on the negative and positive aspects of various theodicy. 12 Phillips (2005: xi). Henry Blocher warns that theodicy as a philosophical defence of God fails on its own, unless backed up by Scripture. Blocher (1994: 84). Phillips and Blocher would both be critical of poorly constructed theodicy approaches, even as their perspectives on theodicy are not identical. 13 Hume (1779)(2004: 7). 14 Hume (1779)(2004: 21-27). 15 Hume (1779)(2004: 21). 16 Hume (1779)(2004: 21). 17 Hume (1779)(2004: 21). 18 Blocher (1994: 84). German philosopher F.W.J. Schelling’s philosophy is noted within the ‘Introduction’ in Of Human Freedom to include the idea that God’s revelation is ‘a genuine metaphysical necessity.’ This is in the context of understanding what is ‘morally necessary’ concerning God. Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxxvi). 19 Augustine lived (354-430). Blackburn (1996: 29). 20 Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). 21 Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). 22 Leibniz lived (1646-1716). Blackburn (1996: 215). 23 Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61). 3 co-operates in all the actions of his creatures, and yet is not the author of sin. 24 Philosopher of Religion, John Hick (1970) writes that the fact of evil is the most serious objection against the Christian belief in a God of love, and is probably the most difficult objection to write about.25 It can be disastrous to say too little or too much.26 Christian philosopher, Alvin C. Plantinga (1977) notes many philosophers believe that the existence of evil constitutes a difficulty for the theist,27 and many critics reason that the presence of evil and its abundance makes a belief in God unreasonable and irrational.28 For Reformed theologian John S. Feinberg (1994), perhaps anyone that has suffered affliction or has friends or family that have suffered, must wonder why there is so much pain if a loving God exists that has the power to remedy evil.29 Delton Lewis Scudder (1940) writes that the problem of evil arises from the theistic attempt to be loyal to the concepts concerning: (1) the sovereignty of God,30 who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, (2) the reality of evils in the world,31 and (3) the goodness of God.32 Peter Kreeft (1988) explains that the problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world,33 and is a very serious objection to theism.34 Theologian John Frame (1999) notes that for many throughout history and today, the problem of evil is the most serious objection to Christian theism.35 Ernest Valea (2007), a scholar on comparative religions,36 admits that although God is considered good within Biblical Christianity, it can be clearly seen in the world that evil exists in 24 Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61). 25 Hick (1970: xi). 26 Hick (1970: xi). 27 Plantinga (1977: 7). 28 Plantinga (1977: 7). Many critics view religious claims as irrational. Beebe (2006: 1). 29 Feinberg (1994: 11). 30 Scudder (1940: 247). 31 Scudder (1940: 247). 32 Scudder (1940: 247). 33 Kreeft (1988: 54-58). 34 Kreeft (1988: 54-58). 35 Frame (2000: 1). 36 Valea (2007: 1). 4 an awful measure.37 Greg Welty (1999), Assistant Professor of Philosophy from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,38 deals with the issue of whether the existence of evil is logically compatible with the belief in an omnipotent39 and good God.40 Welty explains that for many critics these concepts are incompatible.41 Greg Ganssle (1998) in his lecture on the problem of evil at Dartmouth College,42 explains it is deduced since God is omnipotent and all loving, he should eliminate evil, and that it is a challenge to demonstrate God exists in a reality where evil flourishes.43 William Ferraiolo (2005) notes many anti-theists deduce that the all-powerful God would not allow his children44 to suffer, and therefore the God of theism is an irrational concept.45 Philosopher Theodore P. Rebard (1996) states that the logical problem of evil exists since God is omnibenevolent46 and omnipotent,47 and writes critics can view the logical problem as meaning that if God cannot end evil, he is not omnipotent, and if he can prevent evil and does not, he is not omnibenevolent or all loving.48 Rebard concludes that God either does not exist or is misunderstood.49 It should also be stated that the problem of evil is not only an intellectual problem,50 but as R.K. McGregor Wright (1996) notes, a great deal of moral and emotional 37 Valea (2007: 1). 38 Welty (1999: 1). 39 Theologian Kenneth Cauthen (1997) in ‘Theodicy’ describes God’s omnipotence as meaning God is all-powerful. Cauthen (1997: 1). Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling explain omnipotence as God’s attribute and ability to do whatever is consistent with his character. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 85-86). God is only limited by his character and not by a lack of power. R.K. McGregor Wright states that God cannot violate his own attributes and could not, for example, make a stone too heavy for the almighty to lift. Wright (1996: 278). 40 Welty (1999: 1). 41 Welty (1999: 1). 42 Ganssle (1998: 1). 43 Ganssle (1998: 1). 44 In context Farraiolo is describing human beings. 45 Ferraiolo (2005: 1). 46 Cauthen describes this as perfect goodness and love. Cauthen (1997: 1). Henry Thiessen in Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology states that the goodness of God includes his benevolence and love. Thiessen (1956: 130). 47 Rebard (1996: 1). 48 Rebard (1996: 1). Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80). 49 Rebard (1996: 1). 50 Wright (1996: 178). 5 freight goes along with the problem of evil.51 He connects this to the fact that many philosophers have viewed the problem of evil as a disproof of God.52 I shall explain throughout this thesis that God has been largely misunderstood and, although Biblical revelation, theology, and philosophy do not provide an exhaustive and absolutely conclusive answer to the logical problem, there are reasonable solutions to the difficulty of evil existing within God’s creation. 53 The logical problem of evil will be the main focus of my thesis,54 but shall be dealt with while interacting with practical and empirical theology and data.55 Gratuitous Evil Another aspect of the problem of evil is the evidential56 or gratuitous57 problem of evil. I shall deal with this relevant issue in Chapter Four: John Hick: Soul-Making Theodicy,58 but the evidential problem is not the main focus of my research.59 Kirk Durston (2000) explains gratuitous evil is commonly understood as evil that God could have prevented without forfeiting a greater good, or permitting a worse evil.60 Welty explains that throughout recent academic literature concerning the problem of evil the focus has shifted from the logical to evidential problem.61 He writes that a major reason the evidential problem is researched and written about more academically than the logical problem is the success of Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will 51 Wright (1996: 178).