Francois Petit[1] observes that clarifying the underlying conception of God is often the first step in getting to the root of the problem of evil. This is because evil in its own right cannot be regarded as a substance or entity, but rather, is the absence of a quality which a thing ought to posses by its nature. He posits that evil can take several forms. For instance, it can presume the form of some harm, which entails anything that falls under the rubric of pain in the physical state, and suffering in the mental state. It can also take the form of unfair treatment of any sentient creature, or a person doing what the society considers a moral wrong, or the privation of good, or anything that poses an obstacle to an individual’s attempt at living a virtuous life. In addition, evil can be categorized either as moral evil or a natural evil. Moral evil can be attributed to a misuse of one’s free will in a way that renders that person morally blameworthy the evil that results. Wrongdoings done intentionally such as stealing and murdering, and character defects such as greed and anger would necessarily be classified as moral evils. On the other hand, natural evils would be attributed to the operation of natural processes. Notable examples include natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods that often claim many lives, diseases and illnesses such as cancer and malaria, and disabilities such as dumbness and blindness.
McCloskey[2] in addressing the issue of pain and evil criticizes several views which purport that pain is but a privation of proper good, or that pain is unreal. He argues that pain, which is a reflection of evil, only serves to manifest an inept God whose ineffective approach alienates people from Him. He finds a contrast in the fact that pain, which is analogous to an ugly element, should be said to be adding beauty to a painting’s general appearance, which is equated with God’s goodness.
According to McCloskey evil presents an obstacle course to embracing faith with totality and that belief in the all powerful nature of God cannot be reconciled with the prevalence of evil in the society. He further posits that if evil is to be considered a trivial issue; the problem of sin should not be considered a problem by the theist either. According to him, trivializing evil would also make it impossible to ignore as mere privations, all evils which do not involve human choice, and that such attempt would clearly be termed as subordinating compassion to ideological fancy. He finds it paradoxical or even contradictory that God is to the theist is an all-powerful, all-wise and not limited by time and space yet pain and evil prevail on the earth. He offers that the problem of evil would be a test in demonstrating God’s rationality , a reason for putting into existence that which he does not approve if it is to be assumed that based on his power and wisdom, he deliberately made pain and evil an indispensable part of human existence.
Faith and his use of the problem of evil
In seeking to establish the logical version of the pertinent problem of evil, McCloskey observes that the contradiction in the problem of evil stems from the fact that evil persists in the face of the theists’ belief in the omnipotent and perfect nature of God. This he argues is maintenance of inconsistent set of beliefs by atheists and thus rendering theism a false belief. McCloskey offers a set of solutions to theists who are willing to modify their theism. One solution is that such theists should embrace the idea that God’s power is limited, and as such, he is not able to contain evil. Alternatively, he suggests that it would be more reasonable to the theist to assume that God created the good part of the universe while some other force created the evil part of the universe.
Central to McCloskey’s beliefs is the contention that the existence of evil in the world warrants the conclusion that the infinite God of the Bible does not exist. This view has however received wide criticism and been refuted by various authors. Warren, for instance, in advancing justification for the prevalence of evil postulates that man’s freedom is the sole reason why the problem of evil is an ever present one. He further argues that pain and suffering per se cannot be said to be intrinsically good or intrinsically evil since the capacity to transgress the law is the only qualification to commit evil. To annul the question on whether pain is considered an evil, he contends that to refer to a state, thought, or action as an intrinsic evil is in essence to attribute its cause to some being, which is out of harmony with the will of God. Thus, according to him, sin is, ideally, the only intrinsic evil, and humans are the only creation whose will result in intrinsic evil.
To counter the question on why there is a prevalence of natural calamities and animal pain, Warren argues that even though most suffering occurs due to an abuse of man’s personal freedom, suffering adds value to environmental stimuli that motivate social and economic activities, and other technological advancements that have been the cornerstone of civilization in the world. According to Warren, for God’s purpose of creation, this world is the most perfect world and that God had a definite reason for creating the world and all that dwells in it. He cites the book of Ephesians 3:11, which states that God’s purpose for creating the world is the creation of a being, which out of free will would choose to love and to serve God in obedience. Free will implies that humans also have the freedom to hate and even to disobey Him.
Concerning the problem of uncaused cause, McCloskey challenges the theists’ perspective of God by arguing that refuting the fact that the world could have been formed on its own without any divine intervention would be tantamount to opening ground for other arguments that would include debating on the genesis of God himself. This he asserts would only result in a continuous regress in a never ending search for the ultimate uncaused cause. He further stresses that the mere fact that the world exists is not in itself a reason to warrant a belief in a supernatural being.
Criticisms of the cosmological argument
One notable example of the cosmological theory that has gained diverse theistic interpretation is the ‘big bang theory’, which implies that the universe began to exist approximately 15 billion years ago. Results inferred from data and figures ( anthropic coincidences) have in many cases suggest that even though a number of possible configuration of particles may be emitted from one singularity, chances of any of this particles leading to animate state are grossly limited. This observation has been the source of impetus for the hypothesis of divine creation.
The big bang theory has however been embraced from another perspective by John Hick, who offers several reasons to support his claim that its reality would mean that God does not exists. One of the reasons that they offer is that the lawlessness characterized by the big bang singularity is not only implausible, but also inconsistent with the notion that it was created by God to ensure a maximal configuration of particles that produce life. This is because, God could intervene at the very moment of the singularity and constrain, through supernatural powers, the singularity, to still end up with a life producing configuration. Secondly, he posits that the instantaneous existence of the big bang’s singularity and the subsequent explosion entails an abrupt flash of lawlessness that is unpredictable in principle. This as he surmises is an indication that no natural laws govern the states and hence, no one has a basis for computing the probability that an animate state will emerge from the singularity.
To add weight to this criticism, McCloskey suggests that at best, what can be inferred from the cosmological argument is that there could be a god who has no control of what he created, and thus muddles along with whatever outcome is experienced. Alternatively, McCloskey offers that atheist should accept the fact that the entire universe was a product of uncaused cause.
Question of all-powerful and perfect God
According to McCloskey, the fact that no proof exists upon which the theory of divine creation can be grounded, is enough reason to refute the existence of such a being. He believes that theist hold on this belief system simply because of its relieving effect and not because it can stand the test of proof
He however contends that if theists are to embrace this notion of a supreme being, and even consider him an all powerful God, then it has to be accepted that God is morally imperfect, since he chose to create a universe which he knew was imperfect owing to pain and evil. This is a stance that has been criticized by Hick[3] who contends that not only is perfect in all ways, but that His freedom is an absolute one and hence nothing outside him can obligate him to perform a particular action. God’s freedom, as Hick insinuates, also implies that he can choose what not to do.
The prime area of weakness of this premise, and which forms the basis for McCloskey’s argument, is the fact that God is said to have no conflicting wants while at the same time He is referred to as omnipotent, implying that nothing is impossible with Him. Citing various practical life situations, McCloskey argues that refuting the existence of God would be beneficial in motivating a sprit of self reliance and seeking alternative solutions to life’s infirmities instead of blaming it on a supreme being. This view is also shared by loin[4] who argues that if by definition God is incapable of doing anything wrong, then it follows that there are specific actions which he cannot perform, namely wrongful actions. From this he argues that God may very well possess desires which logically conflict. He[5] further construes that if it is logically impossible to satisfy both desires, it therefore follows that even an omnipotent being is unlikely to satisfy both needs. This essentially, is the source of the contradiction in the statements that God is incapable of having conflicting wants and that that nothing is impossible with Him.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Petit, Francois ( “The Problem of Evil,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Crowell, Collier, and Macmillan. 1967.
Hick, John Evil and the God of Love London: Macmillan. 1966.
McCloskey, H.J. On Being an Atheist. 1968.
Petit, Francois. The Problem of Evil, trans. Christopher Williams (New York: Hawthorn Books). 1959.
Warren, Thomas. Have Atheists Proved There is no God? Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate. 1972.
[1] Francois Petit, The Problem of Evil,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.( London: Crowell, Collier, and Macmillan 1967) ,147-148.
[2] Henry,J. McCloskey, On Being an Atheist ( Michigan: Macmillan),62-69.
[3] John Hick, Evil and the God of Love ( London: Macmillan 1966),34.
[4] Thomas Warren, Have Atheists Proved There is no God? (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate1972),145.
[5] Ibid,146.
