(Tutor’s Name)
(Assignment)
Gods or goddesses and their activities have been portrayed in numerous scriptures for centuries. In many of such narrations, Gods reflected the traits of human beings as well, and for which they could generally be termed as myths. Myths try to resolve mysteries, like how the universe was formed or how a particular place got its significance and explain the relevance of practicing certain customs and traditions. However, no interpretations have been clearly flawless to answer the puzzle of sufferings and evil when they attempted to define God.
The topic has been a bone of contention among thinkers for centuries. Theists themselves have been deeply at odds regarding the solution to the issue. The result was that volumes have been written on the topic by numerous scholars to substantiate their own theistic responses to the ‘problem of evil’. Admittedly, the emergence of the problem of evil can be attributed to the moral questions or moral protest raised by people, especially atheists on the grounds of existing sufferings and evil.
Although, there came up several theist responses to the question, thinkers like J. L. Mackie argued that the problem of evil is actually a problem of inconsistency (Mackie 200). According to Mackie and McCloskey, many fundamental theological principles are deeply inconsistent with one another; and, the contradiction is highly imperative when it comes to the fact of evil on one side and belief in the omnipotence of God on the other side (McCloskey 97). In that sense, evil is an evidence for the atheists to point out the non-existence of God whereas the same is a perceptual problem to the theists as well. In this debate, theists are to answer the question by presenting convincing and rational evidences to establish the omnipresence of God.
Before moving deep into the topic, it is essential to discuss how differently the term “God” itself is understood. There are metaphysical ideologies of the term that purport God as a prime cause that has its own fundamentals of being. Or in other words, God is a being whose essence is similar to its existence. However, at the same time, God cannot be considered as a supremely great being among other beings. This concept introduces God as an ultimate certainty to which no concepts truly be relevant.
Another concept is a bit more straightforward one that satisfies common people’s religious aspirations. This idea perceives God as a being worth worshiping and responsive to situations. God will enforce justice, and death is not the end of one’s existence.
The argument against the existence of God mainly takes the following points. According to the atheists, if God exists, God must be omnipotent and morally perfect. An omnipotent God will then will have the power to eradicate all evil. If there is a God, then the God must be an all-knowing one who knows when and where evil exists. Again, if God exists, the God must be morally perfect; and a morally perfect God will eliminate all evil. This analysis takes one to the further altitudes of the topic. If evil and God exist at the same time, then God has likely no power to eliminate evil or has no idea when evil exists, or even has no moral strength to eliminate all evil.
This is the context when Mackie finds the problem of inconsistency. According to him, a set of statements can be consistent only if all of them can be true at the same time. Therefore, when it comes to the points like (a) God is omnipotent, (b) God is all-knowing, (c) God is perfect, and (4) evil exists, all statements do not keep consistency. The set of statements fail to keep consistency since a direct contradiction can be inferred from the very set of statements (McCloskey 97-98).
Free Will Defense is conjectural response to the problem of evil by Alvin Plantinga. According to him, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent at the same time; and the evil we see is only a logical contradiction. It is because of God’s omnibenevolent characteristic that he created a world which contained evil and free moral creatures. However, Plantinga’s theory only addressed the moral evil, and he did not attempt to resolve the issues associated with natural evil. Obviously, Plantinga was not ready to take the burden of proof. He instead, he purported that the new view can be true and plausible.
According to his theory of Free Will, creatures are significantly free to prefer good to evil. In order for making creatures morally good, God allowed them to choose between evil and good.
Mackie himself proposes some solutions to the problem. Among them, the first one is that “good cannot exist without evil” and secondly, “evil is necessary as a means to good” (Mackie). According to the first view, “evil is a logically necessary counterpart to good”, good must “allow evil to exist in order for anything to exist at all” (Mackie). The third solution is that the universe would be better with some evil in it than an evil free situation. He points to a common example that benevolence becomes sweet only if there is pain. But Mackie refutes this solution by stating that this point is inconsistent A fourth solution Mackie considers is, evil exists because human are of freewill. On this solution, freewill is such a good thing that it is worth having even if it is necessarily accompanied by evil.
Obviously, it is the problem of evil that the world has been trying to resolve since the beginning of human history. In fact this was the issue all scriptures addressed from multiple dimensions using multiple analytical tools and disciplines. Still it is the same topic on which each and every religion flourishes its own way. However, to what extent each tradition succeeded to resolve the puzzle is a matter of thought. Obviously, no one can claim full credit in this regard, and the solutions they propose may satisfy only some areas of a wide topic.
Undoubtedly, religious people are not very particular that they require an undefeatable answer. They seem contented with the knowledge they have gained from their scriptures or religious leaders. On the contrary, it is atheist groups or other intellectuals who seek evidences on the existence of God and stumble at the rock of sufferings and evil.
In total, the contrasting views of sufferings on the one hand and the belief in a perfect God on the other give way to a perceptual conflict, and this is what is called the problem of evil. The incessant sufferings and evil pose potential challenges to the doctrines of the presence of an omnipotent and all-knowing God.
The issue has been interpreted multiple ways by several scholars for centuries, yet leaving enough room for atheists to question the existence of a powerful and morally perfect God. Among various arguments, the problem of inconsistency is highly notable. According to this view, problem of evil is a problem of inconsistency, for theological doctrines seriously lack consistency when addressing the issue of suffering and the existence of God. The theory of Free Will is the remarkable solution proposed toward the problem. According to this view, God is Omnibenevolent too, that he intended his creatures to be morally free.
Hence, the world is free to choose between evil and good giving higher preference to good to make them morally right. Although the theory has answered the question to certain extents, it flawed in many respects. For instance, it could address only moral evils, and it conveniently left out issues associated with natural evil.
Evidently, the term ‘God’ requires further interpretations. However, it is less likely that any interpretation would serve human quest for knowing the reality as long as the evil and sufferings persist. May be this dilemma itself is the soundness of the concept of God, and it would encourage thinkers to continue their pursuit to attain real wisdom.
Works Cited
Mackie, J.L.. “Evil and Omnipotence”. Summary. Web. 01 March 2016. http://goo.gl/tnS1vq
Mackie, J. L. "Evil and Omnipotence." Mind. (1955). 64: 200-212.
McCloskey, H. J. "God and Evil." Philosophical Quarterly (1960) 10: 97-114.
