Frankenstein, The Problem of Evil and The Irenaean Theodicy by Megan Kuhr

Transcription

1 1 24 Frankenstein, The Problem of Evil and The Irenaean Theodicy by Megan Kuhr The problem of evil in the world has plagued believers in a theistic God for millennia. Humanity, God s beloved creation, resides in a world where natural disasters, war, disease, and death indiscriminately claim innocent victims. Does it logically follow that a loving, omniscient, and omnipotent God would create the human race in his image to have them inhabit a world filled with pain and suffering? In his well-known Irenaean theodicy, philosopher John Hick attempts to show that the moral and natural evils in the world, and the immense suffering to which they give rise, are not inconsistent with the theistic conception of God that is, the idea of God as an all-knowing, allpowerful, and morally perfect being. Hick does so by arguing that God s divine purpose is for people to develop as moral and spiritual beings and that this end could not be achieved in a world free of suffering and evil. In this paper it is argued that Hick s theodicy is built upon flawed assumptions about typical human behavior. To illustrate this claim, we draw upon Mary Shelley s Frankenstein. Frankenstein is not just a literary horror classic, but a work with deep insights into the relationship between a creator and his creation and how evil affects both of them. In comparing the Creature to humanity, and his creator, Victor Frankenstein to God, it will be argued here that the typical response to evil is not moral or spiritual growth, as Hick suggests, but rather a perpetual cycle of evil. For like many people, the Creature

2 2 Janua Sophia 25 responds to the evil and suffering in his life through violence and revenge rather than moral and spiritual growth. Through these comparisons, it will be argued that Hick s argument makes flawed assumptions about human behavior and propensity, and consequently, that Hick s theodicy fails to show that the moral and natural evils in the world are logically consistent with the theistic conception of God. We will begin with an explanation of what a theodicy is and with a specific explanation of Hick s Irenaean theodicy. The two main assumptions supporting Hick s argument will be discussed, and it will be argued that these assumptions are flawed. It will further be argued that there are significant parallels between the Creature and humanity, and also between Victor Frankenstein and God hence weakening the two main assumptions supporting Hick s theodicy. It will then be posited that the Creature has all of the qualifications of a human and is a model of human propensity when faced with random evil and suffering in the world. Having argued how Hick s assumptions are not consistent with human tendency, it will however be acknowledged that Hick allows that some people do not respond to evil with moral and spiritual development and fall into a cycle of evil. We will conclude by arguing that many of Hick s assumptions about human tendency are too idealistic and not representative of how people act in reality. I A theodicy is an attempt to reconcile the evil in the world with the existence of a God who is believed to be omniscient, omnipotent and beneficent. Hick s Theodicy

3 3 26 Frankenstein, The Problem of Evil and Theodicy is called an Irenaean Theodicy after St. Irenaeus, the second century C.E. Bishop of Lyons and Father of the Church. While St. Irenaeus did not write a theodicy, he provided the framework upon which a theodicy is built. The central theme borrowed from Irenaeus is the idea that creation is a two-stage process. The first step of creation yielded spiritually and morally immature beings. The second step is the process of moral growth and development through our free responses. Hick adopts the proposed Irenaean idea of evil as an opportunity for moral growth over the Augustinian idea that evil is a punishment for the fall of Adam and Eve. Hick s hypothesis is that evil exists so that human beings can evolve (from their lower, animal nature into moral and spiritual beings) based on their responses to the instances of evil and suffering in their lives. The Irenaean Theodicy is a negative theodicy, meaning that it is trying to show that evil is not inconsistent with the existence of a theistic God. It must be made clear that Hick is not arguing in defense of evil, but rather is offering a possible explanation as to why God would allow evil to exist. Hick sees the opportunity for moral and spiritual growth and the opportunity to be one with God as two goods that outweigh any possible instances of evil in the world. Ultimately, Hick believes that humanity is created at a distance from God so that humanity can come to know and love their creator, achieve moral and spiritual growth, and reach their human potential by overcoming the challenges of evil and suffering in the world. To support his theodicy, Hick makes two main assumptions about the relationship between humanity,

4 4 Janua Sophia 27 God, and evil. The first main assumption that Hick makes is that people respond to evil and suffering by growing morally and spiritually. The second main assumption Hick makes is that the opportunity to be one with God and attain moral and spiritual growth outweighs any evil and suffering on earth. In what follows, we will attempt to show that these assumptions are flawed by turning to Mary Shelly s Frankenstein. II Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley and published in 1818, is still considered a classic to this day. Mary Shelley was the daughter of political philosopher, William Godwin, and feminist philosopher, Mary Wollstonecraft. In the novel, scientist Victor Frankenstein, becomes consumed by the desire to discover how to create life and, after he indeed discovers the secret of life, he makes a creature out of dead body parts and brings it to life. When his Creature comes to life, Frankenstein is so horrified by his own hideous accomplishment that he falls into a delirious illness, and the Creature flees into the woods and disappears. After having been rejected and feared by every human he encounters, the Creature returns and demands that Frankenstein create a female companion for him so that he will not be lonely. Frankenstein eventually gives in to this idea and begins to create a female creature, but changes his mind and destroys her. In his anguish and rage, the Creature promises to make his creator as miserable as himself. In his vengeance, the Creature murders Frankenstein s childhood friend and adopted sister. Victor Frankenstein then seeks his own revenge and pursues the Creature into the Arctic to kill him.

5 5 28 Frankenstein, The Problem of Evil and Theodicy Victor fails and eventually dies aboard a passing ship after telling the captain his tragic story. The Creature then comes aboard the ship to mourn his creator and then heads farther north to die. The argument that there are flaws within Hick s assumptions in his Irenaean Theodicy may be explored through the parallels that can be drawn between Victor Frankenstein and the theistic conception of God--as well as the parallels that can be drawn between the Creature and humanity. First, Victor and God both create life. God creates from nothing and Victor from the remains of the dead. Second, both appear to want little to do with their creations. Victor runs away in horror from the Creature and regrets ever learning how to create life, and it may be argued, God has done the same thing to all of humanity by hiding himself from us. The hidden-ness of God and the rarity of miracles and religious experiences create a strong parallel between the creator s desired lack of interaction with his creation in the novel. Third, Victor and God both created beings that were utterly distinct and inferior to them. The Creature was made out of dead body parts and was enormous and hideous in comparison to Victor and the rest of humanity. God created us to be different than Him insofar as humanity is not omniscient, omnipotent, or supremely good. Finally, God and Victor create with unequal circumstances for their Creatures and little motivation for spiritual development. No two people on the planet have the same opportunities for spiritual growth. While one person may be born into a loving family, another person may be born on the street with no family.

6 6 Janua Sophia 29 Before the Creature dies he says, I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked and trampled on. Even now my blood boils at the recollection of this injustice (Shelley 188). It is easy for any human to relate to the injustices perceived by the Creature because the circumstances of our existence and his existence are not different. The Creature could not choose whether or not he was created, what he would look like, or who his creator would be. In the same way, no human being can choose whether or not they are born, what their genetic make-up will be, or who their parents are. In this section we have given a brief analysis of Frankenstein and argued some of the parallels that can be drawn between the Creature and humanity, and his creator, Victor Frankenstein to God. With this in mind, in the next section it will be analyzed whether the Creature ought to be considered a human. Next, Hick s claim will be addressed that all people have an opportunity for moral growth. Finally, it will be argued that the Creature is a model for common human behavior when faced with evil and oppression. III Before turning to Hick s theodicy, we will consider the objection that the analogy between the Creature and humanity is weak. In his theodicy, Hick identifies some criteria for one to be considered human. He says, Humans are ethical that is gregarious as well as intelligent animals, able to realize and respond to the complex demands of social life (Hick 2008, 246). The Creature in the novel is not the inarticulate, stumbling

7 7 30 Frankenstein, The Problem of Evil and Theodicy monster from old horror movies; he is articulate, graceful and capable of understanding complex human emotions. Although God may not have given him the spark of life, it may be argued that the Creature is still a living human being. The Creature was designed in Victor s image and is capable of the same abilities and emotions as every other human. He can speak, read, write, and experience complex emotions like loneliness and shame. In order for one to be held ethically accountable for their actions, they must be aware of their self and the consequences of their actions. Because the Creature is aware of his own existence and knows that he is causing harm to others when he commits a violent action, he can be held ethically accountable just like any other human being. In short, it is fair to apply Hick s theodicy to the Creature because the Creature meets Hick s criteria to be considered a human being. It is necessary that the Creature be seen as a human being in order to justify that the Irenaean Theodicy is just as applicable to him as it is to any other person. Furthermore, whether or not the Creature is a human being is irrelevant because he is still a sentient being that can think and suffer. Hick makes the claim, We do not, in our degree of freedom and responsibility choose our origin, but rather our destiny (2008, 249). While this claim is inspiring, it may be argued that is not true. It is true that we do not choose our origin, but it is certainly not clear that we are able to choose our destinies. If a person is the sum of their experiences, then their origin, upbringing, experiences and choices are intertwined in determining their destiny. Based on the origin, upbringing, and

8 8 Janua Sophia 31 experiences of the Creature, he was destined to fail the challenge of moral development presented by evil in his life. The Creature was completely alone and had no family to love him or teach him the rules of morality. Similarly, many people are also destined to fail the challenge because they are ignorant of the path to moral development, or live lonely lives filled with rejection and abuse. The Creature was not accepted by anybody, and there are many people who live their lives feeling the same way. Not only does Hick overlook the argument that some people are denied the opportunity for moral growth based on their origin and preceding life experiences, he also overlooks the argument that there is virtually no motivation for those people to desire to create a positive moral identity. What is the motivation for the Creature to want to develop a moral identity when he is so dejected? For example, the Creature observes a family in the woods while he was on his own during the first part of his life. However, when he has direct contact with them, they try to kill him. He comes to understand how society works because of his rejection from society. Given this rejection, there is no incentive for the Creature to want to develop as a moral human being. Most importantly, the actions of the Creature undermine one of Hick s main assumptions about moral and spiritual growth. Hick believes that the lack of justice in the world causes human beings to develop a sense of sympathy for others. Hick claims that if we lived in a paradise that defied the laws of gravity and science, we would not be capable of developing sympathy for others.

9 9 32 Frankenstein, The Problem of Evil and Theodicy However, is it true that random occurrences of evil and suffering in one s life makes them more likely to be sympathetic to others? Based on the actions of the Creature, it may be argued that anger is a more prevalent response than sympathy to the evil and injustice in the world. Anytime the Creature feels that he has been wronged, he responds to the situation with violence and anger. The Creature ends up killing four people in order to get revenge on Victor for abandoning him and breaking his promise to make him a mate. Revenge is one of the most natural human responses when a person feels that they have been treated unjustly or unfairly. It may be argued that humans in the everyday world also tend to respond to evil in the world with anger, resentment and violence. For example, people who grow up with abusive parents tend to be abusive parents when they have children. More often than not, when people are raised in homes where there is violence, abuse or addiction, the children raised in these homes tend to have family lives that also contain violence, abuse and addiction. Outside of Hick s assumptions in the real world, one may argue that evil does not usually create sympathy, but rather it manifests itself in a dangerous, perpetual cycle. In Hick s defense, he claims "Sometimes indeed obstacles breed strength of character, dangers evoke courage and unselfishness, and calamities produce patience and moral steadfastness. But sometimes they lead instead to resentment, fear, grasping selfishness and tragic disintegration of character. Life can be souldestroying as well as soul-making" (1970, 90). Hick openly acknowledges that there are some cases where

10 10 Janua Sophia 33 people respond to evil with more evil. However, it may be argued that it is more often than not natural human tendency to respond to evil in a negative way. In addition to allowing that not all people respond to the challenge of evil positively, Hick also makes the claim that if we are ever to reach the full realization of the potentialities of our human nature, this fulfillment can only come in a continuation of our lives in another sphere of existence after our bodily death (2008, 254). Hick s idea that soul making continues in another realm beyond this world makes the final stages of his theodicy unquantifiable to any living person. IV In this paper it has been argued, based on Mary Shelley s Frankenstein, that many of the assumptions that Hick makes about the nature and tendencies of humans are flawed. In his theodicy, Hick overlooks the lack of motivation for moral growth and the tendency of evil to perpetuate an ongoing cycle of evil. In addition, it is unrealistic for Hick (or any person) to assume that one can undergo positive moral development if the majority of their experiences do not put them on a path that allows moral growth. The goal in this paper is not to discredit the project of theodicy in general, but rather to argue that many of Hick s assumptions about human tendency are too optimistic and not reflective of how the majority of people behave in reality. Beyond the world of ideas, made up of hypothesis and theodicies reconciling God s existence and the existence of evil, we live in a world where real evil and suffering affect all people purposelessly. While life is often filled with the pain

11 11 34 Frankenstein, The Problem of Evil and Theodicy caused by evil, as Hick describes, there are people who can overcome the pain and suffering in their lives. These are the individuals that one finds once in a blue moon. These rare souls give humanity a feeling of hope and make the darkness of this world a little brighter. Works Cited Hick, John. "An Irenaean Theodicy." Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. Andrew Eshleman. Maldeon, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Print. Hick, John. Christianitv at the Centre. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970 Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin s, Print.