Free The Problem Of Evil Essay Example

While we would neither have been optimistic, the world does not always seem to us as the most joyful place to live. Each of us, whoever a Christian, theist, deist, an atheist, a mystic or nihilist, bears the burden of suffering and faces the evil. It is useless to deny the reality of evil, just through attributing it to the ignorance or illusion.
The theological and philosophical doctrines, having the aim to harmonize the idea God's good​​ for peace with the presence of evil in the world, are collectively known as ‘theodicy.’ The problem of theodicy is precisely as follows: how to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with the idea that the world was created and directed by the all-powerful and all-good God?
One of the logical evaluations of the formulation of theodicy can be formulated as follows: at first glance, there is an inherent logical contradiction in the joint adoption of the following four assumptions: 1) God exists; 2) God is all-good; 3) God is all-powerful; 4) Evil exists. If we agree with any three of them, we should drop out the fourth. Five possible solutions of the so logically formulated theodicy are the followings: 1) atheism - denial of the assumption that God exists; 2) pantheism - denial of the thesis that God is all-good; 3) ancient polytheism and modern deism both deny the thesis that God is all-powerful; 4) idealism - the denial of the real evil; 5) biblical theism recognizes all four parcels and denies the existence of logical contradictions between them.
The theological problem of divine justice is inseparable from the thinking about the availability and nature of evil in the world. Thus, in philosophy and theology the dialectic of these questions arises in the paradox of the coexistence of multiple intellectual and religious irreconcilable assumptions: the good of both the nature of God and goodness as its manifestation in the world; the omnipotence of God; the reality of evil. Good God would not want to admit the evil to the world and would put an end to it.
English philosopher of the 18th century David Hume in ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ put this issue in this way: ‘If He wants to prevent evil, but not able to do that, therefore, he is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, therefore, He is not good. If He is capable of and willing to prevent evil, why the evil continues to exist?’
On the pages of ‘Dialogues’ in verbal duels it came together three personalities, three philosophical positions – ‘carefree skepticism’ of Philo, ‘a philosophical turn of mind’ by Cleanthes and ‘hard inflexible orthodoxy’ by Demea. Cleanthes is a supporter of ‘natural religion’ and attempts to see the structure of the nature of evidence of the existence of the Creator. Philo kept dodging, avoiding to openly manifest the boundless skepticism before the interlocutors. Arguing with Cleanthes, he accompanies the orthodoxy Dimea, speaking as he were on his side. Meanwhile, skepticism of Demea extends only to the realm of the philosophy and science, Demea exposes the poverty of our mind, underscores our ability to err even in the smallest. He hopes that by making sure in the futility of reason, people would find the refuge and comfort in the eternal truths of religion.
The dispute between the parties is carried out, as it is obvious from the name of the book, concerning the ‘natural religion’ - trying to see the religious meaning in the Book of Nature. According to Demea, Cleanthes unduly brings modest the human mind with the mind of the Creator, trying to fill the unbridgeable gap that exists between God and man. Demea is immediately joined by the skeptic Philo. He draws attention primarily to the fact that the argument of Cleanthes is based only on the analogy of the Universe and human instruments, meanwhile the viability of such reasoning is questionable, the Universe and its objects is still poorly resembles the human artifacts.
According to Philo, the reasoning by analogy is stuck over the crowd, fond of the superficial similarities between the objects and unlawfully transporting of properties of one object to another. Philosopher, according to Philo, should be more sober creature. Philo claims, that in order to agree with the arguments of Cleanthes the observations of our unique universe are not enough arguments, it is necessary to observe the origin of other worlds.
Further, the conversation turns to the issue that has been discussed above – to the impossibility to derive the infinite attributes of God from the facts of nature. Earlier Philo emphasizes the difficulty of the validity of His omnipotence, now – of His moral perfection. Philo draws attention to the abundance of suffering and defects in this reality, which, as it is assured by theists, was designed by good and omnipotent God.
Philo paints a grim picture of human life, which is filled with hardship, disease, and always ends in death. The world is designed in such way that the suffering and death are possible and inevitable. All animals and people have adequate senses that create the feeling of pain. In the world there are many accidents, often causing suffering to people and if there is a Creator, who knows the ‘motor spring of Universe,’ He could all the chance pay for our good, but He does not act in this way. In addition, the Creator could provide the beings with the greater resistance to pain and more ingenuity for its avoidance, but He acted, according to Philo, more as harsh and indifferent owner, than the trustees father. Nature is not able to protect itself from the mess and disturbing of the natural course of events, the excess and deficiency in its various fragments effect on living beings. And all this together creates pain and death.
It so happened that in spite of the pressure of Philo, Cleanthes wins, and the poor knowledge of the philosophy of David Hume make it impossible to understand entirely clearly whether Hume is skeptic or partly shares the idea of ​​free, civil religion. In the literature about Hume sometimes it is argued that, in spite of skepticism, the thinker fed some ‘illusions’ about the natural religion. However, when reading the ‘Dialogue’ it appeared the consistent sense, that the positions of Philo belong to Hume, and ending is just written by the author just in order to make the publication of the book possible.