Solving Evil Pt 2: A Perfect World
“If there is any eventual resolution of the interplay between good and evil, any decisive bringing of good out of evil, it must lie beyond this world and beyond the enigma of death” - John Hick
Solution Three: Viewing Evil In A Greater Context
The third main solution to the problem of evil offers an alternative way of understanding pain and suffering in a wider theological context. All religions have one aspect in common with each other - belief in the afterlife. Both David Hume and Freud have stated one of the biggest reasons for believing in God is the fear of death. Survival in the afterlife doesn’t include our physical bodies, rather it is an extension regarding our immortal soul. The realm beyond our existence here on earth can never truly be known; and this fear of the unknowable combined with the idea that we may suffer eternally is a truly unnerving thought. Plato believed that the soul existed before we were born, whereas Christianity and Judaism in contrast believe that the soul is created during conception. Despite the differences, all religions are in agreement that there is some form of afterlife, whether this be resurrection, continuing as a spiritual being, reaching paradise or suffering at the mercy of demons.
In the New Testament, the concept of the afterlife is often repeated, finding support from the traditional attributes of God and Philosophers. John Hick (1922-2012) argues that an omnipotent creator would not allow his beings to simply cease to exist when his intentions for them were plainly otherwise. But, how does believe in the afterlife solve the problem of evil? Or more affirmatively, is the existence of an all-loving God compatible with a world where there is a finite amount of suffering before death, but an infinite amount of happiness after?
Across an entire lifetime, humans both encounter happiness and pain. Both of these can be experienced in minimal, or great, amounts. Usually, there is a balance, although this may be unclear by personal perception. In the afterlife, however, only great amounts of happiness are felt for eternity. If we view the afterlife in this way, the problem of evil is seen in a different context and is a lot easier to resolve. The horrors inflicted upon humankind in the physical world may seem difficult to comprehend at the time, and even more so to eventually reconcile with a caring and all-loving God, but if we compare these horrors to the infinite happiness after death they seem relatively trivial.
But what about those who aren’t promised eternal happiness? Jesus creates an image of the afterlife as a celebratory banquet, where those who are invited will rejoice together in their newfound spiritual happiness. Jesus discusses the rewards of those who succeed, but or about those who are not invited to the banquet? Those who have rejected God and done terrible deeds? In Plato’s Socratic dialogue, Gorgias, Socrates describes the judgment of souls in the afterlife: those who have lived an unjust life will suffer under the painful wrath of Hades. Jesus also gives a similar message, describing the horrors awaiting those who reject eternal salvation.
“Angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” - Matthew 13:50
The description of this suffering is repeated throughout the gospels, and for those who have been at the blunt end of wrong-doings, they can be rest assured that countless criminals will receive a fiery comeuppance. The notion that virtuous and honest people will be infinitely rewarded and justice will be served to those who are wicked settles the moral problem of evil for some.
However, as with all solutions, this can be criticized. The problem of evil has simply been deferred to the next life and also magnified on a much grander scale. If we find it difficult to reconcile with God after enduring physical pain during our life on earth, surely it will be a lot harder to come to terms with a God who punishes those eternally. This God gifted us free will initially, and due to His omniscience, He must have known the person would abuse this, yet He still finds the means to punish them? The existence of Hell hasn’t necessarily resolved the problem, it has merely amplified it.
Perhaps the concept of Purgatory should be considered here. Theologians have responded using the Roman Catholic ‘halfway house’ as a suggestion to counteract this criticism. Purgatory is a spiritual place where due punishment occurs before entry is allowed into Heaven. This may bypass the problem that an omnibenevolent God chooses to eternally punish sinners. Even further, some have suggested that perhaps Hell does not entail any torture or suffering, and rather is the absence of God, rendering Him unreachable to unjust souls. Universalism has also been put forward; a belief that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of their immoral past on earth. However, this would go against the New Testament, as Jesus states very clearly that some are invited to the banquet and others are not.
Moreover, the entire claim that the afterlife exists holds its own problems. The implications that our soul continues to experience separate to our bodies is a form of Dualism. For most theologians, our soul survives death although the body dies, yet future embodiment remains a possibility (following judgment day). Dualism has baffled Philosophers since Descartes (1596-1650) proposed its modern form in the sixteenth century. The main issue with dualism is the connection between the body and mind. Both substances are completely different; the body being physical and the mind being mental. Dualism aims to highlight the separation between the two, which somehow manage to communicate and function together. Because we cannot know how they interact, the idea of Dualism has been abandoned by most philosophers as an explanation to how the mind works.
Solution Four: Evil Is For A Greater Good
This is one of the most popular solutions to the problem of evil, as not only does it provide a good response, it also gives evil a purpose and contribution towards something greater. This could mean a multitude of things, including evil being a need for some goods which cannot exist without it, or that the world is actually a better place because of the evil it holds. This takes us to the creation of a ‘perfect’ world:
Leibniz’s Theodicy
Gottfreid Leibniz (b.1646) suggests an entirely different approach to the existence of our world. He assigns an all-loving, powerful God with the task of selecting the best Universe He could create out of a variety of possibilities. Seeing as God is omniscient, He would have the knowledge of which world is the best one that He should choose to create. Seeing as God is also wholly good, this Universe would also be the ‘goodest’ one. Although humankind often perceives our Universe as being flawed and full of suffering, this must be the best possible one, and all features whether good or evil are an essential part of the divine plan. Therefore, both natural and morals evils contribute to the functioning of the greatest world there could be.
All the pain and suffering we endure are a necessity, if they occurred any differently then the world would most likely be worse off. To some, this may seem a stretch - but all evils, even the death of innocent children and the millions dying from disease and war, are for the best. Naturally, we cannot ever truly understand why as God works beyond us in mysterious ways, so the reason for most instances of evil will remain unclear. This can still cause friction to our relationship with God, especially if the suffering of innocents appears to be a needless part of the divine plan. However, just as St. Augustine argued, God’s perspective of the Universe is unknowable, and we cannot know the alternate Universes He rejected nor the true purpose for the pain that His creation encounter.
Of course, Leibniz’s theodicy can be easily criticized. One of these criticizers was the French writer Voltaire in his novel Candide. Dr Pangloss, a character in the book, repeatedly states that this world is the best world. However, the main character, Candide, witnesses great hardships within the world, and also sees the hanging of Dr Pangloss, his mentor. Consequently, as his troubled disillusionment escalates, he begins to question what other worlds must be like. Although this is not a direct refutation of Leibniz’s theodicy, it does attack the approach that Leibniz has taken towards worldly suffering. Voltaire’s novel also makes the ‘perfect world’ theory difficult to support, as it brutally illustrates the harsh reality of pain and suffering.
Swinburne’s Theodicy
Richard Swinburne (b.1934) proposes that some forms of evil are means to particular goods. Swinburne notes that God has the power to stop evil, but only by sacrificing the virtuous acts which are the noble human response to its presence. Thus, the existence of suffering makes greater goods possible. For example, we wouldn’t have charities if there was nobody in need of help. Swinburne takes this further, and perhaps contentiously states that Nazi concentration camps can be justified if they led to higher goods such as sympathy and cooperation. He believes it is far better to live in a world where we are encouraged to act to reach these goods, rather that a ‘toy’ world with no human threat at all. Without the possibility of suffering, Swinburne argues that there would be no dimension to morality. If there were no obstacles with positive outcomes, or even negative ones, there would be no consequences for anything, thus the whole definition of what it means to be moral would lack meaning. Hence, we need real challenges in order for there to be a point to human decisions, and this is enabled through the presence of evil. In Swinburne’s opinion, God did ‘half-finished’ the Universe, leaving a balance of good and evil which allows humans to improve and progress as just human beings.
This grants the assumption that humans have free will, leading us to a possible solution to the problem of natural evil. If human actions have consequences for their characters to build upon, then the world needs to implement law. If God intervened every time somebody was badly injured, say if they fell from a great height or accidentally cut themselves, then humans couldn’t anticipate the outcome of their actions, nor could they establish general laws of nature, including life and death.
Irenaeus’ Theodicy
St Irenaeus (AD 130-202) argued alongside Swinburne, and also John Hick, that God allow evil in the world so his creation could make a journey towards the good. Irenaeus doesn’t agree with St Augustine that free will (after Adam and Eve gave into temptation) caused evil to seep into a perfect world. Irenaeus instead argues that humans are to use the gift of free will to develop their moral understanding to achieve perfection for the next life. Therefore, for Augustine, perfection was an ideal from the past, whereas for Irenaeus, perfection lies in the future.
Augustinian theodicy: God created a perfect world which humans brought evil into due to their actions.
Irenaean theodicy: God created an imperfect world so humans could freely reach perfection.
John Hick takes the same teleological approach to Irenaeus, referred to as ‘soul-making’. Our souls are strengthened on earth by overcoming the struggles of life, in a way to prepare them and perfect them for what lies beyond. God remains distant, and doesn’t provide us with any knowledge of the future, so we must exercise our free will in order to reach the good.
However, these claims are contested. There doesn’t seem to be any form of order in the suffering experienced on earth. The distribution of misery in the world seems random; those who are genuinely good people can suffer more than those who lie and cheat. Innocent people are killed whereas murderers pass unnoticed and unscathed. Why should some experience heaps of pain and others not as much? This poses the original issue of the co-existence of God and evil. Although this does not firmly disprove God, the suffering of virtuous people makes us wonder that if He does exist, is He worthy of worship at all? Furthermore, this begs an important question - is the immense suffering inflicted upon us even worth the end result? And is the pain of young child really needed to be rewarded with perfection in another life?
Σχόλια