Religion

How can a theist respond to the problem of evil in the specific case of mental illness? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows that mental illness causes suffering, and is able to prevent it, but chooses not to. For an omniscient, omnipotent, morally-perfect god to exist, there must be a morally justifying-reason to permit this suffering. The usual theistic responses to the problem of evil do not seem to apply in the specific case of mental illness. The free will defence fails because mental illness actually suppresses free will; therefore, if God really valued free will, he would prevent mental illness. The soul-making theodicy fails because mental illness actually deprives sufferers of their ability to comprehend their existence in relation to God and His creation; therefore, if God really valued spiritual growth, He would prevent mental illness. It also won't do to say that the suffering of the mentally ill gives others the chance to be morally good, because the pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs to treat mental illness are infamously motivated by profit rather than altruism. The afterlife response fails because to be mentally ill for eternity would cause even more suffering. Skeptical theism is inconsistent with the fact that we try to treat people with mental illness to cure them; if we really believed that God had an unknown, morally-justifying reason to allow people to be mentally ill, then we would not try to cure mental illness ourselves. And, of course, the fact that we can treat mental illness shows that it is not logically impossible to do so. In light of this, how can a theist defend their belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, morally-perfect god?

Comments

Great question, and I feel sure that what I will suggest in response will not strike you as adequate, but let me offer seven things to bear in mind in assessing the force of the challenge you are raising for traditional theists who believe God to be all good, omniscient, and omnipotent::

First, a very minor point, not all of what we call "mental illness" involves the subject suffering. Someone with an illness involving severe cognitive impairment might even have less suffering that most mentally healthy persons.

Second, when we consider cases of illness that do involve undeserved suffering it is not clear to me why this stands out as a special case from other instances of undeserved suffering. Is it worse to be born or develop bi-polar disorder through no fault of one's own than for a healthy, mentally fit child to be killed in an auto accident, etc...? Or consider the suffering of non-human animals whose suffering is not out of their sin or mis-use of freedom, and the like.

Third, on the afterlife, religions that recognize God / Allah as good believe that for the innocent and those redeemed, the afterlife involves a place of healing and transformation both physical and mental. If a blind person dies, these theists do not believe the person will be blind for eternity, and the same would be true for someone mentally ill.

Fourth, on the notion of "morally justifying reasons," and allowing mental illness or not preventing it, I suggest one needs to distinguish what counts as good and evil from the standpoint of God as a creator and sustainer of the cosmos versus a creature, a fellow human and his/her responsibilities. It seems clear that a human being who intentionally does not heal a person with all sorts of illness and suffering when she/he could do so, is in some ways deeply suspect. And as it happens, all the theistic religions I know that involve belief that God is all good, believe that it is a divinely willed command that we do relieve suffering, care for the poor, feed the hungry.... And, for those of us who are Christians, we actually believe that God did heal disorders of severe mental and physical disease (though the Bible portrays some of the accounts of Christ in terms of the exorcising of demons). One might naturally ask: well, if Christ was God (as well as man) and he did such cures, why not more curing prior to and after the incarnation as the Triune, all good God? At this point, I think there is some justice in distinguishing what is permissible for God to endure (allow) as Creator versus what is permissible for a human to endure or allow. So, I am inclined to see the problem of evil in comprehensive terms from the standpoint of creation. Consider the following question which I will put in Christian terms::

Is it compatible with the goodness of God, if God creates and conserves a cosmos containing great goods, laws of nature, animal and plant life, the emergence of conscious beings with reason, emotions, agency, and moral, aesthetic sensibility and yet the cosmos also includes suffering (sometimes deserved, but often undeserved when the person suffering did not bring this on her or himself wrongfully), premature violent deaths, and so while there is the great good of romantic love, raising children loving the world and each other, art and creativity, friendship, there are also the great horrors of murder, rape, torture, betrayals, birth defects...All these horrors are against the will and nature of God and count as crimes or damage to the great sacredness of life. In this world, persons have duties to prevent such horrors. Into the midst of this cosmos God works through earth's history (and perhaps in the history of indefinitely more planets with life) to redeem those victims and wrong-doers in this life through miracles, prophets, and even an incarnation in which God endures the suffering of others and perhaps even mental illness (during the agony of the cross). And in this act, Christ testifies to the wrongness of torture and draws our attention to the needs of the poor and ill, and then through the resurrection God promises an opportunity of redemption for all through confession, repentance, personal transformation, and more in this life and the next.

I could have filled this out much more, but I am trying to at least suggest that from this broader perspective, the point of view of a Creator rather than a fellow-creature, matters (I believe) shift. The above approach will seem nonsense if one already thinks (on conceptual grounds) there could no more be a God, let alone a good God, than a square circle. But if one is open to the existence of a good God, and perhaps even impressed by some positive reasons for thinking God exists (imagine one has been convinced that theism may be true based on the argument from religious experience developed so well in Kai-Man Kwan's The Rainbow of Experiences, Critical Trust, and God (Continuum Press, 2011), I can see thinking that it may indeed be compatible for a good God to create a cosmos such as ours.

5th For filling out the above, see The Image in Mind by myself and Jil Evans in the book The Image in Mind. In that text, we also compare naturalist accounts of evil with theistic accounts, argument that the former are more reasonable.

6th One might take the position of Robert Audi in his recent Cambridge book, Reason and Religious Commitment and argue that even if belief in an all good God in light of evil is not justified, one is justified in having a rational hope that this God exists, for that allows for the redemption of victims and evil-doers.

Finally, one might take Brian Davies approach. He has multiple books in which he argues on Christian and philosophical grounds that the God of Christianity is not a moral agent. He is a professor at Fordham University and a google search should turn up multiple books for you to engage.

Thank you for your impressive challenging question and the presentation of the problem of evil with a focus on metal illness. Speaking personally, there has been mental illness in my family and this is deeply vexing but many in my family have also pledged their lives for the care and healing of the mentally ill. For some of us, this has stemmed from our belief in a God who cares for the mentally ill. For all of us, the important question has not been a speculative philosophical worry about whether it is justified for mental illness to exist, ours has been concerned with using all our strength to understand and help treat the ill and pray that God might redeem them and us all. Sorry this is turning more testimonial than detached philosophical inquiry, but I intuited (perhaps wrongly) that the question you pose might be based on some exposure to the plight of the mentally ill, and I wanted to share with you that the panelist who replied to your challenging question is not doing so from an ivory tower with no exposure to mental illness. If you or anyone reading this (whether a theist or atheist or agnostic or none of the above) wish to donate to some of the work with the mentally ill, may I suggest giving to Spring Lake Ranch in Vermont. It is not itself religiously affiliated as you will see by its website, but such work is of religious importance (in my view) as well as from the standpoint of secular humanism, and the more attention it can get as a need (I think) the better.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Religion