"God said it, I believe it, and that settles it", is the final refuge of faith-based rhetoric, not a viable philosophical position. Has any significant religious thinker of any stripe constructed a refutation of the paradox of evil attributed to Epicurus: 'If god is willing to prevent evil, but unable, then he is not omnipotent; If he is able but unwilling, then he is malevolent; If he is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil; If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him god?'
9
-
7Yes, the standard response is that the inference in the second horn ("if he is able but unwilling, then he is malevolent") is invalid. There is a reason for God to tolerate evil other than malevolence - preserving free will. Subverting free will to prevent evil would be a greater evil. The issue is generally discussed under the name of theodicy, see SEP, The Problem of Evil.– ConifoldCommented Mar 1, 2021 at 20:36
-
1In addition to the free will argument against the second horn, there is also the "defense from plenitude" at jstor.org/stable/40012554 and also available from the paywall-bypassing site sci-hub.st at sci-hub.st/10.1007/BF00135826 ...see in particular the discussion starting on p. 31 of various arguments that a world with a mix of "significantly free creatures (sfc's)" of varying degrees of virtue is in some sense "better" than a world where everyone is perfectly virtuous, even if that virtue is compatible with free will.– HypnosiflCommented Mar 1, 2021 at 22:44
-
1The question of why a 'good' God allows evil exists only in dualistic religions/philosophies which assert an extra-cosmic Godhead. The question does not arise in monistic traditions as it is incongruous with monistic logic. Read Plotinus' Six Enneads.– Swami VishwanandaCommented Mar 2, 2021 at 5:15
-
1@Conifold; why would an omnipotent god have any problems allowing free will without evil. After all; he did so in heaven, right?– ThisIsMeCommented Mar 2, 2021 at 10:49
-
2If 'good' and 'evil' are only culturally defined and contradictory then there is no problem of evil in the first place, and no Epicurean argument to respond to. It does not even get to free will.– ConifoldCommented Mar 2, 2021 at 18:34
|
Show 4 more comments
4 Answers
I think that Leibniz's theodicy is an attempt to settle this paradox. He basically argues that there are three sorts of evil in the world :
- Metaphysical evil, which is necessary since only God himself can be perfect, therefore the world is not.
- Physical and moral evil, which are allowed to exist because they enable a greater good if one is able to look at the broader picture.
Hence "Everything is for the better in the best possible world", i.e God reduced evil to the minimal amount.
-
2And which category does en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis (eye eating worms) causing blindness in children fall under?– causative ♦Commented Mar 2, 2021 at 3:48
-
1) But we are created in gods' image, therefore we are also perfect. 2) Why is this needed; if god is omnipotent, surely he can enable the greater good without any evil 3) For the christian god, the "minimal amount of evil" is zero, else he isn't omnipotent– ThisIsMeCommented Mar 2, 2021 at 10:48
-
Define 'minimal amount'. Is the death of 2 million children (give or take) world-wide per year to violence and deprivation a minimum amount? Both physical and moral evil are culturally defined, so which culture's god enabled the most 'greater good' by virtue of the types of physical and moral evil allowed? Commented Mar 2, 2021 at 17:12
-
2The argument is about the least amount of evil logically possible. The flaws you point out are not new, they are actually one of the central ideas in Voltaire's Candide, in which the eponymous main character gradually comes to reject this view (which is the one of his master Pangloss) as he is confronted with the evils of the world (slavery, executions, etc).– user50380Commented Mar 3, 2021 at 13:13
-
1Of course, the idea of omnipotence entails several apparent paradoxes, and I personally reject the naive conception of an omnipotent God but Leibniz's argument is consistent, and I think that this is the main point– user50380Commented Mar 3, 2021 at 13:23
The short answer to your question is, No.
If you believe that God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, Leibniz' theory is probably the best that can be done.
From the perspective of someone who is agnostic, atheist or has a different conception of God, the argument turns on the balance between competing values. Voltaire's Candide is the classic response to Leibniz.
You may argue that his outrage at the suffering of innocents is not philosophically relevant. That may be so, but it is certainly morally relevant and constitutes an argument that the moral balance implied by Leibniz' argument should be unacceptable.
The conclusion is only that the conception of God as omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent is not correct. What follows from that needs further argument. Atheism does not necessarily follow - a different conception of God, or some form of agnosticism (including the view that we are not equipped to understand these matters) could be appropriate.
-
1"The good news is, we live in the best of all possible worlds! The bad news is, we live in the best of all possible worlds." Commented May 27 at 15:02
-
1
I think frankly it’s quite idiotic to try to view the actions of God or a God’s behaviours through a human lense. We only have a small part of the big picture and it’s inaccurate to try and judge God’s actions by what we know and concepts we came up with.
From the human pov, it's absurd to conclude that things that happen to us are evil. If ordained by a God(logos/providence/nature), it is for the better hence it is fair to say it is how we perceive it that determines whether it is good/evil meaning it is up to our levels of knowledge/understanding that determines the perceived nature of what is considered evil/good. The facade is often what we perceive, and the interpretation of it is often clouded and shadowed by other factors meaning we can't often objectively conclude the momentary event to be either good or evil.
