The argument from natural evil, in its most basic form, states that if there is an omniGod (a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good) then there would be no natural evil in the world, but because there is natural evil in the world, an omniGod does not exist. A theodicy is a form of argument that tries to deal with the problem that natural evil poses. A theodicy will offer justifications for God allowing natural evils to exist in the world. The following essay is going to look at three such theodicies, namely, Free Will theodicies, Absorption theodicies, and a form of theodicy from a Biblical perspective, and critically assess each of their attempts at justifying natural evil in the face of an omniGod.
In order to understand justifications put forward by theists for the existence of natural evils in a world created by an all powerful, all loving, all good God one must first recognise the distinction between moral and natural evils. A moral evil is one that is brought about by the actions of morally free agents. Moral evils can also be produced by a failure to act under certain circumstances. (O?Hear, 1984) For example poverty may be seen as a moral evil in that it is the result of the refusal of morally free a
. . .
Theists who hold this point of view claim that these fallen creatures have abused their power over the natural world, yet it is beyond Gods control to intervene in their actions as they are creatures of free will and it is thus logically impossible for God to stop their wrong doings. Hick?s account is flawed in a number of ways, the first of which I will address now. A Biblical perspective on natural evils avoids the problems posed by bother Free Will theodicies and Absorption theodicies but does not provide a sound justification or argument in Gods favour for the existence of natural evils as they are based on faith and not reason. In this respect natural evil is seen as a virtual ?culling? process where by the resulting good of a pure soul is developed. The Free Will theodicies I have mentioned fail in providing a sound justification for natural evil as they do not provide truth to the claim that all evils are the result of moral creatures. The most common example of a natural evil would be suffering caused by a catastrophic event, such as a hurricane, earthquake, or flood. Thus all the evil in the world is the result of decisions made by morally free agents. (Basinger, 1995) Though this view does avoid the problems of causality it does not, however, explain instances of natural evil that stretch beyond the existence of man. In Hicks own words ??in order for man to?come to his Creator in uncompelled faith and love, he must initially be set at an epistemic ?distance? from that Creator. But to say that all natural evils are the result of human?s free choices is completely false. I am going to look at three different perspectives and modifications of Absorption theology, namely those offered by John Hick, and Richard Swinburne. seeing the fate of sheep, men have learnt of the presence of dangerous tigers".
Hick?s account of natural evils existing in the world and justification for it is based on the notion that natural evils are necessary in the world for the purpose of ?soul making?. One approach to natural evil through the free will defence goes against this commonsense view and states that human beings are ultimately to blame for natural evils.
The next variation of the free will defence, most commonly associated with Alvin Plantinga, is that God gave free will to non-human creatures (?fallen angels?), and these creatures are responsible for causing natural evil.
Approximate Word count =
2880
Approximate Pages =
12 (250 words per page double spaced)
Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.
| CREDIT CARD |
ONLINE CHECK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN BY PHONE
|
|
|
