Topics Religion

Question In the context of "The Problem of Evil" can you help point me to the literature on this sub-category? Lacking this I have dubbed this sub-problem the "God for a day paradox": “If I had only some of the powers of God, I would cure cancer” Am I therefore more merciful than God? Supposedly the most merciful possible Being… Therefore is God’s omni-benevolence (not even that much is needed) itself a contradiction? How can a lesser being even think of a more merciful action (take curing cancer down to a single child; even to just answering a prayer for such a child) than God Himself? It is almost certainly possible to write a computer simulation that would, discover the “cancer mercy” action / rule on its own given an appropriate set of rules guiding “advance being behavior” This outcome would probably be another notch in favor of the Bostrom's “The Universe is a Simulation” argument. Thanks in advance, --JCN

Accepted:
September 18, 2014

Comments

Here's one kind of answer that a theist might offer. You might think, seeing through a glass darkly as you do, that if you only had the power, you'd wave your wand and cure cancer. In fact, however, the argument would go, doing that would bring a host of consequences that you can't even begin to foresee. And it might be that if you fully understood the consequences (remember: the universe is a really complicated place), you'd see that all things considered, you wouldn't want to do this.

That may not seem very plausible to you, and I'm inclined to agree. But the larger point is that according to some theists (Peter van Inwagen, for example), if we think we know what would really be the best way to set up a universe for the benefit of its inhabitants, we're fooling ourselves. To make this a bit more plausible, keep in mind that for these same theists, our life on earth isn't the end; the apparent evils of our fleshly existence are only a part of a much larger story.

I think that this is a perfectly good answer on its own terms, but I'll have to confess that the terms don't appeal to me much. I have trouble getting myself to take the idea of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God of classical theology very seriously. But I have also have trouble taking seriously the idea that this idea is what's needed to have a religious attitude toward the universe. Omni-God isn't the only religious option. For a very different view, you might have a look at Mark Johnston's Saving God: Religion After Idolatry. Johnston takes evil and suffering very seriously, but the standard problem of evil doesn't get its usual grip on his view. Whether Johnston's overall picture is plausible is another matter. I'm not sure it is, and I've said a few things about that here But the larger point remains: the standard problem of evil only makes sense within a particular sort of religious stance, and that stance is not the only available religious alternative.

Since you asked for literature on the topic of the problem of evil, let me offer you some sources:

God, Freedom and Evil by Alvin Plantinga (focuses on a 'free-will answer' to why evil exists)

Evil and the God of Love by John Hick (focuses on a 'moral development' answer to why evil exists)

Wandering in Darkness by Eleonore Stump (focuses on a 'superior relationship with God' answer to why evil exists)

The Problem of Evil (Marilyn and Robert Adams eds.) an edited collection with many influential essays from many viewpoints on the issue.