Navigating around Hume s Rock of Atheism

Transcription

1 Navigating around Hume s Rock of Atheism by Mike Tonks, Second Master, Shrewsbury School Published in Dialogue: A journal of religion and philosophy, issue 49, November 2017 Before starting work this morning I decided to check the BBC website to see what the main news headlines were. Exploring further I found myself confronted by numerous illustrations of what philosophers of religion might call The Problem of Evil. The inescapable truth is that the human condition is punctuated by suffering. At least twenty people had been killed in a bomb attack in Bangkok. The refugee crisis continued in many areas of Europe including France, Italy and Macedonia. Another headline reported the establishment of a new enquiry into child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church of Scotland. A tornado had struck the southern coast of Mexico, fires blazed out of control on the Idaho / Oregon border and a state of emergency had been declared in Ecuador due to growing activity in the Cotopaxi volcano. Reading these and many other similar accounts a question presents itself Are such events necessary and inevitable? Can one imagine a world without such brutality, pain and torment? And perhaps most challenging of all, does this world present itself as the creative work of a supremely perfect, powerful and benevolent personal deity who enjoys a loving relationship with all of his creation? Welcome to the study of what philosophers of religion refer to as The Problem of Evil! There is an enormous amount of material available on this topic and therefore part of the challenge at A Level lies in establishing a structured approach to your investigations. One possibility would be to employ the following subheadings: 1. Why is the existence of evil and suffering a problem for theists? 2. Key terminology identified. 3. The main concepts and ideas clarified & discussed. 4. Two theodicies examined and evaluated. 5. What conclusions might one reasonably draw? Augustine of Hippo ( AD) summarised the dilemma thus: Either God cannot or will not abolish evil. If he cannot he is not all-powerful, if he will not he is not all-loving. (1) In the 18 th century the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume ( ) commented in similar fashion when writing in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ; Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil? (2) The influential contemporary atheist writer Sam Harris expresses the issue thus; If God exists either he can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities or he does not care to. God therefore, is either impotent or evil. (3) Key terminology Evil There is no single all-encompassing definition. It is often seen in dualistic terms as the opposite of God s goodness and traditional Christian imagery frequently associates it with the work of God s nemesis, the devil. For our purposes it is perhaps useful to regard evil as referring to that which causes human suffering and to make two further distinctions.

2 Natural Evil This can be taken to refer to the operations or malfunctions of the natural world that cause human suffering and would include earthquakes, tidal waves, famine & tsunamis. (Some philosophers including Mill and Singer would broaden this to incorporate animal suffering.) The defining characteristic of these phenomena is that they are independent of human activity. Moral Evil This refers to the actions and the results of the actions of human behaviour. This would include torture, violence, war & injustice in all its forms. The nature of God Traditional theism describes God as having a number of necessary properties. Three in particular are relevant to our study. God is viewed as being de dicto omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) & benevolent (all-loving). Given these qualities of the divine the problem emerges. Specifically in the face of Natural Evil why did God create the world the way it is? God could have created a world without the apparent flaws that it possesses in its Design why didn t he? In Darwinian terms nature has been famously described as being Red in tooth and claw with species preying upon species for survival. More than this there are numerous examples of what one might call the cruel and callous side of nature. While supporters of the Design Argument may well emphasise the beauty, order and majesty of the natural world there is no escaping the fact that it is also the source of considerable suffering. Moral Evil leads many to ask the question why would God create humanity the way it is? It is this question in particular that many philosophers discuss and debate and is linked to the Biblical account of The Fall of Man. The Fall of Man Located in Genesis chapter 3 the Fall is the story of Adam and Eve. It attempts to show that evil is associated with original sin, that being man s wilful disobedience of God. Therefore man is the author of evil rather than God. The Free Will Defence Linked to the above, many theists will emphasise the notion that much human suffering emerges as the result of man freely choosing to turn away from God s goodness. The Evidential Problem of Evil This suggests that the weight of evidence, the sheer volume of evil in the world does not support the existence of God. It is a posteriori and inductive in approach and concludes that based on the evil, pain and suffering in the world rejection of the God of classical theism is the only reasonable conclusion to draw. One might be able to make a case for God allowing some suffering to achieve a just end but not the scale of suffering experienced in the world. Events such as the Holocaust cannot be reconciled with God s existence. The Logical Problem of Evil Based around J.L. Mackie s ( ) Inconsistent Triad this goes a step further. Mackie claims that it is logically impossible to accept the following three propositions simultaneously as they are incompatible; 1. God is Omnipotent. 2. God is Benevolent. 3. Evil Exists. If God was omnipotent he would posses the wherewithal to address human suffering and a benevolent God would want to do so. Given this then evil as we know it would not exist. As the existence of evil is demonstrably true then either one or both of the other propositions must be rejected.

3 Additional comment For many writers on this topic, the notion of God s omniscience requires some clarification. What does it mean to describe God as all-knowing? In particular can one make sense of the notion of divine foreknowledge? What would be the relationship between divine foreknowledge and human free will? Is it tenable to argue that God knew in advance the wickedness that man would be responsible for? This is relevant because many critics would argue God is culpable and must accept responsibility if he did indeed know these things in advance and yet continued with his creative plan. However there is a view that the notion of foreknowledge is an oxymoron. If knowledge is the ability to be aware of everything that has happened in the past and is happening now then it is logical nonsense to talk of knowing the future. Knowledge of the future is impossible as the future hasn t happened yet. Some may appeal to the idea that God is timeless and therefore not bound by such restrictions. If one accepts such a scenario then it may indeed be possible to talk of God knowing the future. Theodicy The defence of the justice and righteousness of God in the face of the fact of evil. (4) John Hick This term, coined by Gottfried Leibniz ( ), refers to an attempt to defend the existence of the God of traditional theism in light of the Problem of Evil. For a theodicy to be effective it must address the challenges outlined above. It is important to remember when studying this topic we are not examining a series of abstract principles. The Problem of Evil is a very real issue in the lives of many. A successful solution will have to provide an adequate explanation not merely for the existence of some evil in the world but for the world and the human condition as we experience them. Therefore the issue of the scale of human suffering, the intensity of such suffering and the inequality of such experiences must be tackled. Although many such theodicies have been produced there is only scope in this particular article to examine two contrasting approaches. Irenaeus ( AD) & John Hick ( ) Irenaeus lived during the second century at a time where both Christians and Jews suffered significant persecution. 177 CE saw the Pogrom of Lyons in which many Christians were beaten, tortured and ultimately lost their lives. In the writings of Eusebius we find reference to Irenaeus petitioning Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome on behalf of the persecuted. This was to no avail and Irenaeus was left trying to reconcile the atrocities he had witnessed with his belief in God. It was in this context that his theodicy emerged. He takes as his starting point the creation of man in Genesis 1: The God said Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Irenaeus draws a distinction between the image and likeness of God and concludes that God s creation is a two stage process. He notes that God, having said he will create man in his image and likeness, only creates in his image. Irenaeus viewed image as that which resides in the bodily form, including intelligence and is man s ability to grow towards God. The fact that man was created in God s image is what separates man from the rest of the created order. Likeness, argued Irenaeus, is the state of being perfected, and is what man, with the help of God, must strive to achieve. When one considers the story of creation and The Fall in Genesis, Irenaeus is arguing that God deliberately created man imperfect. Attaining the likeness of God requires man s willing cooperation. Therefore God was compelled to grant human freedom and with this freedom came the genuine choice between good and evil. Man, like a child, must grow and develop in the likeness of God. If man is to achieve this then God had to

4 create a world in which there was both good and evil so that man can learn to embrace the former and reject the latter. As such, the existence of evil is necessary for man to grow in the likeness of God. Quoting him; Just as the tongue receives experiences of sweet and bitter by means of tasting, so also does the mind, receiving through the experience of both the knowledge of what is good, become more tenacious of its preservation, by acting in obedience to God. (5) For example the existence of poverty in the world teaches us the value of charity; sickness encourages us to value other human lives etc. These human qualities could not be nurtured and developed in a world free from suffering. Notice here that human free will is central to Irenaeus argument. Irenaeus himself argued that attaining the likeness of God requires the willing cooperation of human individuals. In short, suffering is bound to happen if man is free and man must be free if he is to be able to choose to grow in the likeness of God. In certain respects, Irenaeus approach sits well with the ideas associated with evolution. Man was not created perfect but rather is charged with the responsibility of developing and becoming more like God. God remains at an epistemic distance from man so that man, through his free will may choose to grow in God s likeness. But genuine choice, Irenaeus argued, requires the reality of man opting for the opposite of God and hence evil. God had to create a world with evil for this to be the case. John Hick follows in the footsteps of Irenaeus when he describes the world as a Vale of Soul making (paraphrasing Keats). God s creation is an ongoing process where man must freely strive to become more like God. It is interesting to note at this point that both these defences of God are teleological in nature. Therefore, they require an answer to the question Is it worth it? Do the ends justify the means? Hick claimed that the ability to grow and mature morally and spiritually was indeed a worthwhile end. Quoting him; Humanity is created at an epistemic distance from God in order to come freely to know and love their maker; and that they are at the same time created as morally immature and imperfect beings in order to attain through freedom the most valuable quality of goodness. (6) This development cannot occur in a moral vacuum and therefore human suffering is an inevitable element of the journey toward God. We are not God s pets to be mollycoddled and spoiled but rather his children undertaking a voyage of discovery. Intrinsic to this journey is the notion of free will as this is necessary for genuine moral development and suffering is an inevitable consequence of this. If man is to engage in soul making then this has to be based upon genuinely free decisions that have real moral consequences. Again from Hick; A world without problems, difficulties, perils and hardships would be morally static. For moral and spiritual growth comes through response to challenges and in a paradise there would be no challenges. (7) In a similar fashion, Leibniz had previously argued that God created the best of all possible worlds. By this he meant that the world was perfect for God s plan, it has to be as God is perfect. Therefore the evils that we witness are part of God s overall loving plan. Although we may label them as evil they are an essential part of the process God has put in place for mankind to achieve the likeness of God. God could have created a world with more comfort and pleasure but this would not have been a better world but rather a more comfortable one. However, when one reflects upon human torture, genocide, warfare and cruelty the critic is going to remain highly sceptical that this really is the best possible world that a perfect God could have created. As previously mentioned the issues of scale, intensity and inequality of human suffering have to be addressed if a theodicy is to be successful. Perhaps the most telling criticism of this type of approach is found in the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky ( ) and later developed by D.Z. Phillips ( ). In their own way both attack the notion

5 that God using human suffering for a greater good can ever be justified. In his book The Brothers Karamazov Dostoyevsky issues a stinging attack on God s benevolence claiming nothing is worth the suffering of innocent children. If it was necessary for God to create a world where such suffering took place then the price was simply too high. If the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. (8) It might be useful at this point to compare the response of Ivan Karamazov above to that of Job in the Old Testament. Ivan represents philosophical scepticism while Job, despite his tribulations is the committed man of faith. Job does not understand the suffering that he experiences but adopts an approach that ultimately trusts God and his divine purposes. This notion of trust that all will be worth it in the end lies at the heart of these teleological theodicies Augustine of Hippo ( AD) Whereas Irenaeus underpinned his approach on Genesis 1:26-27, Augustine is influenced by the final verse of the same chapter; And God saw all that he had made and behold it was very good. Genesis 1:31 Augustine bases his approach upon the premise that God was the source of all creation and therefore everything is essentially good. When God created, there was no evil or suffering. There are a number of strands to Augustine s approach beginning with his definition of evil. Augustine claims that actual evil does not exist but rather it is the absence of God s intended goodness. He therefore refers to evil as Pravatio Boni. Augustine believed God was the first cause of everything who created ex nihilo and that everything in existence reflected an aspect of God s nature. As God was de dicto wholly good then actual evil simply could not exist. God s creation was good but corruptible and therefore despite being labelled as good it possessed the potential to be evil. Only God was incorruptible as the divine nature is immutable. Evil was a privation the absence of God s intended goodness in certain aspects of the world. It is useful to distinguish between an absence and a privation. Absence merely suggests a lack of something. Privation refers to something that is lacking a feature which, by its very nature it should have. (I may well have an absence of wings but I would be suffering a privation if I had no arms or legs!!). Evil therefore is more than merely the absence of good. It is a privation in that it is the absence of something which by design should be present. Pure evil is not possible as God is de dicto good. For Augustine mankind is evil in so far as man has turned away from God s goodness and it is that turning away that constitutes evil (this is illustrated in the story of The Fall). God created mankind good but part of this goodness includes free will and the ability to fall short of man s true nature. The Fall, which came about through man exercising this divinely given free will, has led man to move away from God and hence mankind s goodness has diminished. A further strand in Augustine s thinking is what is referred to as the Aesthetic view where Augustine emphasises the natural balance of the universe. The world is like a canvas employing both light and shade. Only the artist himself can fully appreciate the role played by both in the overall work. In other words something may appear evil to us but that is because our understanding and perception is limited. It may not be evil from God s view as he is able to see the bigger picture. Due to God s essence his overall creation must be working toward a good end and must ultimately be good in itself it has to be because God, who is absolute goodness, created it. In later years Aquinas ( AD) developed this argument further claiming that it is impossible for man to comprehend the nature of God and therefore divine goodness remains a mystery. It is therefore possible that God permits evil as part of a greater loving plan. As with Irenaeus and Hick, Augustine places significant emphasis on the role of free will. The essential claim can be summarised as follows;

6 Man is created by God with the ability to enter into a loving relationship with him. Love demands a free response, it cannot be forced. Programmed robots could be obedient but they could not love, as love requires choice. It is not possible for human beings to be created free and also be controlled. Therefore the suffering and evils humans inflict on each other are the necessary price that has to be paid if humans are to be able to respond lovingly to God. In summary, Augustine is arguing that God s original creation was good and reflected his perfect nature. He maintained that suffering and evil were therefore unknown in God s original work. The possibility of evil in a created world is necessary as only the uncreated God himself can be perfect created things are susceptible to change. Adam and Eve were originally in harmony with God but they used their free will to disobey God and as result harmonious relationships were broken. Thus Augustine puts the blame for evil and suffering at the door of man rather than God. Adam and Eve fell foul of the temptations of the devil as reflected in the story of The Fall. For Augustine All evil is either sin or the punishment for sin. (9) Even those today, whom one might regard as innocent, deserve to suffer, as all humanity was seminally present in the loins of Adam. Therefore God has the right not to intervene as mankind is guilty of sin and worthy of punishment. Augustine s conclusion however is a positive one. If God were merely interested in justice then mankind would be left to suffer. But God s benevolence resulted in the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus and the gift of salvation available to all mankind. As the second Adam, Jesus makes a new start possible and the power of sin that Adam failed to resist can be overcome. It was human pride that led to Adam s Fall, his desire to elevate himself to the divine station and Jesus response is to offer the humility of God. As Paul says in 1Cor. 15:21 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. The question of free will and its role in theodicies is not without some complications. Supporters will claim that moral evil is an inevitable consequence of free will. Further, the assertion is then made that this is a price worth paying. It is worth just briefly raising an alternative view at this juncture. Perhaps the best known critic of such a free will defence is J.L. Mackie. He claimed that God has imposed a number of restrictions upon what man can and cannot do. Given this, wouldn t limiting the amount of suffering caused be a sensible and loving restriction on our freedom? Mackie then goes further to suggest we could have been created with the ability to exercise our freedom for good. The argument can be summarised thus; It is logically possible for me to choose good over evil on any one occasion. It is logically possible for me to choose good over evil on many occasions. It is logically possible for me to choose good over evil N times where N is any number. It is logically possible for any individual to choose good over evil N times. It is logically possible for all individuals to choose good over evil N times. Mackie is claiming that God could have created a world in which we were all genuinely free yet freely chose to do good. The fact that God did not exercise this option questions either his omnipotence or his benevolence (or both). In a similar vein Anthony Flew ( ) observed Omnipotence might have, could without contradiction be said to have, created people who would always as a matter of fact choose to do the right thing. (10) One last thought on free will. Imagine, as a parent I find my daughter with a sharp knife about to attack another child. On assessing the situation I decide, on the grounds of free will, not to interfere. There is no doubt that I would be held accountable for my failure to act and that my appeal to her free will would be seen as utterly futile. Critics of the use of human free will as a defence of God may well ask the same question! It is worth emphasising the key differences between Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies. Irenaeus uses the Genesis traditions to claim that God created an imperfect world and that this was part of his divine plan.

7 The world is good and is ideal for the purpose God had in mind when he created. The Fall was the inevitable consequence of mankind striving to achieve the likeness of God. Augustine takes a different view. He claims that evil was never part of the divine plan and that evil is the absence of God s intended goodness brought about by the fall of both angels and mankind. As a number of critics have observed, Augustine s approach that emphasises the fact that everything was created perfect makes it difficult to understand how things went so badly wrong! So is there a satisfactory response to the Problem of Evil? Have theodicies been successful in explaining why an omnipotent and benevolent personal God who loves all mankind equally and unconditionally would allow the scale of suffering that we observe in the world today? The answer to this fundamental question will ultimately be a personal and subjective one. When considering how to conclude an essay on the subject there are a number of possible approaches. A popular one would be to refer to Process Thought. This approach, associated with A.N. Whitehead ( ) and C. Hartshorne ( ) emphasises God as co-sufferer with man. God did not create exnihilo but from pre-existent matter. This places limits on what God can achieve. In short God is not able to abolish suffering. While appealing to many theists one cannot ignore the fact that Process Theology rejects the omnipotence of God. Alternatively Richard Dawkins argues that terms such as good and evil have no place in a scientific worldview. In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins challenges the notion that the world and mankind are the work of a purposeful, intelligent and benevolent designer. The natural world with its cruelty and hardship is the result of blind natural forces. He expresses the view with clarity in River out of Eden where he comments; In a world of blind physical force and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt other people are going to get lucky and you won t find any rhyme or reason in it or any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. (11) For Dawkins the Problem of Evil is not really a problem at all and stems from the human desire to ask questions that don t deserve an answer! The solution to human suffering lies in Biology and not in the heavens! Supporters of such a view may also invoke the principle of Ockham s Razor claiming that atheism allows the reader to avoid the mental and emotional gymnastics associated with theodicies. Other critics have turned to scripture as a means of refuting God s benevolence. If one reads the pages of the Old Testament there is a great deal of evidence that suggests divine malevolence rather than love. Much has been written on God testing Abraham s faith when he instructs him to sacrifice his only son Isaac in Genesis 22. The story of Moses and the Israelites escape from slavery reveals a God who appears to harden Pharaoh s heart so that he will not yield. Then as a result of the tenth plague to hit Egypt we are told in Exodus 12:29-30; At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on the throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night and there was loud wailing in Egypt for there was not a house without someone dead. There are numerous other examples that may be used to undermine the claim that God s nature is all-loving. Finally and taking a different view altogether, one could turn to the writing of Don Cupitt. It was on reading Matthew Arnold s poem Dover Beach that Cupitt was inspired to begin what is known as the Sea of Faith movement. In summary, Cupitt suggests that the traditional theistic view of an omnipotent and benevolent God belongs to a worldview that is no longer relevant. The notion of God as an objective reality is to be rejected. In short, the objective world is Godless. Instead he proposes the idea that God is better understood as a symbol for our spiritual and religious ideas. For Cupitt the objects of faith, such as God should be seen

8 as guiding spiritual ideals. Just as one might speak of duty calling or loyalty making demands without personalising these principles so too God can be the driving force in a person s life. Such an approach removes all the issues associated with an interventionist God who will always be open to attack either for not intervening at all or for only doing so to help some but not others. However, it also removes altogether the God of traditional theism. That said, in offering what might now be referred to as an Anti-Realist view of God one is left with a spiritual dimension to life that contains meaning and mystery in equal measure. References 1.Augustine Confessions 2.David Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion 3.Sam Harris Extract from Huffington Post 4.John Hick Evil and the God of Love 5.Irenaeus Against Heresies 6.John Hick Evil and the God of Love 7.John Hick Evil and the God of Love 8.Fyodor Dostoyevsky The Brothers Karamazov 9.Augustine Confessions 10.Anthony Flew Divine Omnipotence & Human Free Will 11.Richard Dawkins River out of Eden