“I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering.” said Ivan to his brother Alyosha after reflecting on the unjust evil innocents face because of humanity’s sinful actions. Ivan’s words shed light to the idea of idealism versus reality. Realizing that cruelty is present in the lives of the most innocent, lead me to assert that evil is a real problem as it intervenes between the harmonic and idealistic view that the world consists of genuine, good people. Additionally, in the theist point of view, God has the absolute power to manipulate the circumstances his people are encountering. In The Problem of Evil by Fryodor Dostoevsky, Ivan mentions how children pay for their parent’s wrongdoings and it’s unjust as the children are …show more content…
Although the extermination of maliciousness seems ethical, it actually is quite the contrary. Ironically, God would be taking away the free will he once gave us at birth. Not only is our liberty taken away, but also our knowledge of what evil consists of would be erased. There wouldn’t be an adequate definition of good and evil because one could not exist without the other. Also, the foundation of our knowledge of God’s true intentions is purely based on assumptions. There isn’t factual evidence that God’s decisions benefit the world directly other than having faith and trusting in the goodness of his persona. The only way humans cope with evil is by assuming God sent it for a reason. One general example would be when thousands die at war defending their country. We rationalize their death as a sign from God that the community should be more supportive of each other in times of hardships, yet God could have sent death to punish humanity for the innate evil within us. Ultimately, there is not an all-powerful God who has the duty to abolish evil from the world. Evil in this world is inevitable whether it was planned or not. It is the dark part of life, yet because of evil, we know the good. We hope to think humanity has the power to choose evil over good or vice versa because we received the right, yet because of our limited
In addition, how can humans treat each other as though another human is just a bug that needs to be exterminated? Through the shocking stories, the reader also begins to question where God is; however, there needs to be a separation of blame. Human’s evil actions are not the responsibility of God. It must be recognized that humans have freewill to choose to do good or evil. Evil is of the world, but since God is not of the world, God is not responsible for the evil in the world.
My favorite book from this semester has to be the Grand Inquisitor by Fyoder Dostoevsky. First off, what compelled me to pick this book was the originality of the content by having the Grand Inquisitor appear to conversate with Jesus Christ. However, more specifcally, I appreciated the main themes like the ideas that the masses are innately naïve, a majority of people would rather be told what to do rather than to follow their own logic, and people are satisfied as long as they are comfortable. The idea of the masses seeking refuge and protection over their freedom due to being unintelligent is mentioned frequently in the Grand Inquisitor.
He argues that God compensates for the evil that people suffer in this life by giving them rewards in the afterlife. Beaty's argument is based on the idea that God is just and merciful, and that he would not allow his creatures to suffer without compensating them in some way. Beaty's argument is creative and thought-provoking. He provides a new way of thinking about the problem of evil, and he offers a possible solution that is both plausible and consistent with traditional Christian beliefs. However, Beaty's argument is also controversial.
Theodore Dalrymple is a British doctor who worked for the NHS (National Health Service) until retirement. Most of his writings come directly from his experience in his field and more often than not he writes about the situation in which low-class citizens are living in. This is the case for “The Frivolity of Evil”. The author main concern in this essay is to answer to the question “why do people commit evil?” and how it could be, eventually, prevented or even suppressed.
William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.
But if free non-human beings are blamable for pointless evil, then it would not be consistent with them having free will if God were to stop them from, for instance, causing a tsunami to wipe out thousands of people. This is comparable to how God does not stop humans from, say, committing homicide, which appears to be an evil from which a greater good does not result. Additionally, because God created beings that could do as much good as they wish, these beings could also do as much bad as they wish, so it is entirely conceivable that an unquantifiable amount of evil exists in the world, and not because God is not all-powerful or morally
Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
If we designate the God who punishes His followers as “anti-God,” the rewards to be earned by believing in God in offset by the possibility that the God we believe in is the “anti-God.” Similarly, the losses to be suffered by not believing in God is balanced by the possibility that the God we did not believe in is the “anti-God.” In this way, all possible attributes of God and their opposites essentially cancel the net benefit of each choice to zero. While some may argue that some of these attributes of God are “absurd,” without any prior knowledge of who God is, all attributes of God must be considered as equally
Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. First, I begin with Swinburne’s views on the kinds of evils. According to him, there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).
Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.
e Cycle of Evil In his article titled “the frivolity of evil,” Dr Dalrymple defines evil as,” the elevation of passing pleasure for oneself over the long-term misery of others to whom one owes a duty.” Dr. Dalrymple describes how his community and the people who live there are stuck in a cycle of evil. He believes that this cycle is a side effect of Great Brittan’s transformation in to a welfare state along with our culture of entitlement. The many years of dedicated study and extensive observations, has granted Dr Dalrymple unique perspective and a deep insight regarding the human condition and their social concerns.
All creatures in this world have an ability to do whatever it is willing to do. As an illustration, a mother uses drugs, yells at her son every day, forces him to do what he does not want to, and also violently abuses him. One day, that boy kills his mother. That is murder, and that is evil. God might see that, but he let it happen due to two possibilities.
Question 2. I think there are reasonable arguments to explain why a purely good God would allow bad things to happen to good people, because it demonstrates his wisdom and sovereignty. Some of these arguments