I am writing to you as the last generation that I will see in my lifetime. When the Atlantic slave trade came to an end, many of us thought that this signalled the end of slavery. However, it appears that equally evil acts are still going on. Modern-day slavery encompasses a range of violations of human rights. It contains the “practices of child labour, bonded labour, serfdom, servile marriage, trafficking in persons (especially women and children), and the exploitation of domestic and migrant labour” (Forms). You are young and may not have yet fully decided your views on life, death and God. However, regardless of this, your generation needs to tackle these evils and to ride the world of them.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism all teach that God is all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing (Stewart, p 163). In our diverse world, many people wonder how a God, if He exists, can allow such evil and suffering to occur. St Augustine defends the existence of God against such arguments. His free-will theodicy claims that human evil, such as implementing slavery and human trafficking, takes place when humans use their free will, which God gave them, to turn their backs on God (Allen). A further significant part of Augustine’s argument is that man’s view of the world is limited, and therefore it is impossible for us to comprehend its overall goodness.
When assessing St Augustine’s, and other attitudes on theodicy, it is important to acknowledge that the problem of evil is only a problem to individuals who believe in God. To non-believers, or atheists, evil is unpleasant and depressing, but it is not really a problem. Nevertheless, whether an atheist, an atheist, or an agnostic, suffering causes distress, and children and adults who are subject to slavery are good examples.
Of course, it is difficult to judge whether or not God really does exist. The Design Argument states that a Higher Intelligence both designed and created the Universe (Design). Before Darwin, Design theorists stated that evidence for this existence was in the intricate design of nature. However, following the emergence of Darwin’s theory, the Design Argument was revised. Theorists then agreed that the Evolution process took place, but that a God set it in motion (Design).
Whether or not to believe in God and, therefore, an afterlife, is a matter which many of us never fully resolve. William James contested that, even if God does not exist, it is still preferable to believe in Him and in an afterlife. He felt that if neither God or an afterlife exists, believing has lost nothing; on the other hand, the act of believing can provide individuals with positive moral and social attributes (William). Similarly, Pascal claimed that although the God’s existence cannot be solidly proven, humans should wager as though God does exist, because living a life with the belief of God has much to gain and nothing to lose (Pascal’s).
However, James and Pascal fail to acknowledge the problems that can arise from religion, and from a belief in a Higher existence. It is arguable that an individual could use their beliefs as a way of avoiding responsibility for the evil acts they are condoning.
There are many philosophers who, unlike James and Pascal, feel certain that God exists. In his “Third Meditation,” Descartes fronts two arguments for the existence of God. These are the ‘Proof of God’ argument and the ‘Human Error’ argument. The main difference between the two appears to be that the first argument is applicable only for people who already believe in God. On the other hand, for a non-believer, the second argument may be more suitable for them. Descartes appears to have covered all bases.
In his ‘Proof of God’ argument, Descartes claims that nothing can have come from nothing. He contests that the idea of God has always been present in his mind and, therefore, God must have placed the idea there originally. He claims that he, himself, cannot be responsible for causing this idea, as only an infinite being could have imagined such a concept and, therefore, God has to exist. He goes on to back up his argument further by claiming that God is benevolent, and therefore God would not allow him to be misled in his thoughts without giving him the opportunities to correct his wrong-thinking. Therefore, again, God must exist (Important).
In his second argument, the ‘Human Error’ argument, Descartes claims that as he is certain that he, himself, exists, his existence must have been caused by something. He says that God as his cause is the only viable option. He claims that he could not have caused himself as he would have created himself to be perfect, which he is not. He also argues that his parents cannot be named as the cause because such an assumption would lead to an infinite regress. Therefore, Descartes concludes, God does exist (Important).
As various philosophers objected at the time of the Meditations publication, it is actually possible to conjure an idea of God without God having caused the idea (Descartes, p 21). Human beings are able to imagine, to an almost infinite degree. For example, a person who has never met an alien from outer space can still imagine what one may look like, speak like and think like. Such imaginings may be inaccurate but, nonetheless, the person is able to possess the concept, without an alien having caused the idea to be in their mind.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the concept that God would not allow Descartes to be misled causes significant problems. If this idea were true, the problem of evil is huge. If God does not allow human beings to make errors then, theoretically, evil such as slavery and human trafficking should not exist.
John Hick famously argued in favour of God’s existence and, in his theories, justified the presence of evil in the world. He felt that God planned for humans to develop spiritually, and that they could do this through suffering. This means, therefore, that if no evil actions took place, then human beings would not have a means of developing to their full spiritual capacity. Essentially, Hick believes that suffering is a requirement if humanity is to reach the ultimate perfection that God has planned. Hick argues that “our theodicy must find the meaning of evil in the part it is made to play in the eventual outworking of that purpose” (Stewart, p 197). However, it is difficult to justify Hick’s position when faced with such terrible suffering as occurs in slavery among humans today.
So, my grandchildren, whether or not you grow up to believe in God, and whether or not you have to deliberate ‘the problem of evil,’ the fact remains that evil does exist. Millions of people are suffering around the world and being forced into terrible lives of slavery. In the end, there is no justification for such suffering, and it must end.
Works Cited
Allen, R.F. “St. Augustine’s Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil.” Ars Disputandi. Mercy:
U of Detroit. Web. 28 April. 2011.
http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000096/article.pdf
Descartes, R. “Objections to the Meditations and Descartes’s Replies.” Web. 13 March. 2011.
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/descor.pdf
Descartes, R. “Third Meditation: God.” The Meditations. Web. 13 March. 2011.
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/descmed.pdf
“Design Arguments for the Existence of God.” Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Web.
28 April. 2011. http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/#SH1b
“Forms of Contemporary Slavery.” The Feminist Sexual Ethics Project. Web. 28 April. 2011.
http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/formsofslavery.html
“Important Arguments from Descartes’ Meditations.” Anselm. Web. 13 March. 2011.
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dcarg.htm
“Logical Problem of Evil.” Internet Encyclopaedia of Philoisophy. Web. 28 April. 2011.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
“Meditation 3.” Philosophy Online. Web. 13 March. 2011.
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/philosophy-study-resources/descartes-
meditations/text/meditation-3.php
Stewart, D. Exploring the Philosophy of Religion. Seventh Edition. Prentice Hall. 2009. Print.
“William James.” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Web. 28 April. 2011.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/
