Evil And Omnipotence Essay, Research Paper

In his article ?Evil and Omnipotence? J.L Mackie discusses the challenge to

religious belief known as the problem of evil. What is this problem? According

to Mackie ?[p]erhaps the most important proposed solution to the problem of

evil is that evil is not to be ascribed to God at all, but to the independent

actions of human beings, supposed to have been endowed by God with freedom of

the will?(Mackie, 93). Explain how the existence of free will is thought by

many theists to solve the problem of evil. Mackie raises several objections

against the free will solution. We also examined some related objections in

class (Couldn?t we all have been made a bit more in Mother Theresa?s mold?

Couldn?t God have arranged things so that humans find evil less tempting than

they currently do? If it is possible to imagine a heaven in which people do no

do evil, doesn?t this show that there can be free will without anyone?s

doing evil?). Pick the one (or two) objection(s) that you believe is (are) the

most effective objection(s). How might a theist reply? Would Mackie, or any

other non-theist, have a convincing counter-reply? Explain your answers The

quest to find out who we are, where we came from, where we will go after we die

and what, if anything, controls our world has fascinated mankind throughout the

centuries. Famous philosophers have devoted their whole lives to developing

theories, and yet the closest any have come to success has been to not have

their theories disproved. One of such theories is the challenge to religious

belief known as evil. J.L. Mackie was one of the major philosophical opponents

of religion in the twentieth century. Mackie claims that theism is logically

inconsistent, thus irrational, in the combining of these three judgments: 1. God

is omnipotent. 2. God is wholly good. 3. Evil exists. ?The problem of Evil, in

the sense in which I shall be using the phrase, is a problem only for someone

who believes that there is a God who is both omnipotent and wholly

good.?(Mackie pg. 90) If God were truly omnipotent, he could prevent all and

every evil. If he were wholly good, he?d prevent all and every evil that he

could prevent. So if God was omnipotent and wholly good, he?d prevent every

evil, hence there?d be no evil. But in reality, evil does exist. So does this

mean that no omnipotent-God exists, which would then cross the lines of

religion. The problem that we are faced with is not either a scientific problem

nor a practical problem, but it is a logical problem. Logically there is a God,

and he is both omnipotent and wholly good, in which technically there should be

no evil. Some theists feel the existence of free will; can solve the problem of

evil. If free will were allowed, there would be decisions and actions in which

God could not know due to the person?s choice. This would limit God?s

omnipotence, which is unacceptable to some. Free will is the mind?s ability to

choose with intelligence. That doesn?t mean that our choice has all the

freedom in the world. Our choices cannot and obviously should not be totally

free from our knowledge, values and perceptions of everyday life and the things

around us. Our choices are not free from past thoughts and decisions or from

outside influences. The freedom in freewill is not the dismissal of these

influencing factors: our self-awareness, our imagination, our ability to seek

out knowledge and project the future, and our awareness of and observing our own

thinking. This is our source of freedom. The proper understanding of free will

is that choices are not free from influences, but free to make intelligent

choices. Free will is a measure of self-determination that people feel

themselves to possess and by which they make moral judgments. Mackie raises many

objections to the free will solution. Some theists also state Evil results from

the abuse or our free will, but its better to have free will and sometimes act

wrong, than to be robots and act right all the time. Mackie replies that a good

God would allow our free good choices but stop our free bad choices. Mackie also

states, ?Humans always freely do the right thing? which is logically

possible and so an omnipotent God could bring it about that humans always freely

do the right thing. ?Perhaps the most important proposed solution of the

problem of evil is that evil is not to be ascribed to God at all, but to the

independent actions of human beings, supposed to have been endowed by God with

freedom of the will?(Mackie pg 95) This solution is combined with the theory,

?The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no

evil.? Certain evil?s lead to higher goods, an example would be pain a first

order evil, that leads to sympathy which is a second order evil. This is a

logical example of a world with some evil in it; certain evils are highly

unjustified such as cruelty. Cruelty, second order evil, has no third order good

to lean upon, so it is proven unnecessary and unjustified. Mackie also says the

notion of free will is incoherent. If it is possible to imagine a heaven in

which people do not do evil, doesn?t this show that there can be free will

without anyone?s doing evil? I strongly agree with this objection, if one can

visualize a place where no evil exit then there should be a place with any evil.

But this place that we have found can only be reached after death. We are

talking about Heaven, and you can only go to heaven after you die. So such a

place may exist but not in your lifetime, only your afterlife. A theist would

reply to this objection, that if there is heaven then there must be a God. In

which God does exist, and there is a place where you can go and there is no

evil. But to achieve this you must live your life wholly good. Mackie see that

the more common theistic view is that God cannot do what is logically

impossible. But in reality there is evil, some theists say, lower evils such as

pain and suffering are required to achieve higher-order goods such as sympathy

and heroic benevolence.