The dilemma of evil is caused by the assumptions that God is completely good, omnipotent, and that evil exists (Mackie 111). Some atheists contend that the existence of evil is indisputable proof that God does not exist. According to atheism, the existence of a morally perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent deity cannot explain why there is so widespread suffering, agony, sickness, and misery throughout the entire cosmos (Mackie 357). Naturally, the issue of evil arises in regular religious contexts. In general, many philosophical atheists base their reconstruction arguments on the issue of evil. Contrary, theists acknowledge the problem of evil and provide explanation that excludes God from failing to eliminate it. As a matter of fact, it is extremely difficult for theists to deny the argument that there exists evil in the world (Mackie 119). It is a common claim that with respect to Abrahamic religion all human beings by default are contaminated with the original sin.
John Leslie Mackie is a famous philosopher from Australia who made enormous contributions to metaphysics, philosophy of religion and many other disciplines (Mackie 99). Mackie is well remembered for energetically supporting atheism as well as claiming that the problem of evil makes it impossible to defend monotheistic religions. Nonetheless, in one of his major arguments, Mackie claimed that the Universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil (Mackie 213). This essay seeks to agree with this claim although it points out some of inconsistencies within the claim.
Problem of the evil
Mackie indicates that all arguments supporting existence of God have been found by various philosophers to be unacceptable or faulty (Johnson 54). However, he stresses that the finding need not persuade anyone that there is no rationale for believing in Supreme Being. According to Mackie, philosophy is not only capable of criticizing the arguments for existence of God but also revealing that God does not actually exist. Mackie highlights the problem as, ‘’God is Omnipotent, God is entirely good and yet evils exists.’’ He notes that among the three propositions there appears to be some contradiction in that if two of propositions were deemed true, the third one will be untrue (Johnson 56). In line with theodicy, the three propositions must adhere, a statement that Mackie disperses. Mackie is in a view that good thing often eliminates evil as much as it can and that omnipotent thing has no limitations to what it can achieve or perform. Consequently, it follows that a good omnipotent thing completely eliminates evil thus existence of good omnipotent thing and existence of evil are incompatible.
The perceptions that moral perfection (good) is opposed to evil and that no limits to what an omnipotent thing can perform are problematic. First, pertaining good thing it has been revealed that there situations in which a good human being knowingly permits and always causes suffering and pain. Secondly, studies have shown that there are limits to what an omnipotent thing can do (Johnson 57). Such limits are referred to as logical limits. In addition, Mackie states that to have God who is truly omnipotent then that God must be above realm of logic. Therefore, if that is the case then there is no problem of evil because God’s ability to be above the realm of logic would allow God being good as well as existence of evil away from logic realm (Mackie 168).
Evil is essential as counterpart to good.
Literally, it is impossible for good to exist without evil. Indeed, it is termed as causal law which cannot attain certain outcome in absence of a particular means (Hasker 311). As a result, God could not have created universe full of goodness and happiness without some evil in it. Mackie points out that through God allowing evil to co-exist with good, His omnipotence proposition is limited.
However, it is important to state that omnipotence does not necessarily stretch to performing logically impossible activities or things. Nevertheless, Mackie believes that if God had to bring evil as way of attaining good, then he must be bound to some causal laws (Mackie 123). This perception is wrong since God can do great things including walking on water and changing water into wine implying that God is not subject to causal laws. Actually most of theists believe that God made the causal laws. Realization that greatness needs smallness should help people comprehend the relationship between evil and good (Johnson 64). Despite of Mackie rejecting the argument that any quality must have actual antonym, it is important to note that if God created everything good people will never notice it. For instance, for redness to exist there must be non-redness. If only redness existed humans would notice it and even there will be no word for it. This further stresses the significance of having evil in the universe so that the goodness could be recognized (Mackie 382).
Evil is necessary for free will
Many types of evils are due to free actions of human beings as opposed to deeds of God (Hasker 300). However, there are other evils which are not caused by free will of human beings, for example, destruction, misery and death that are caused by natural phenomena (earthquakes, birth defects, diseases, floods and many others). This distinction between the two evils leads to classification of evil as moral evil (caused by free will of people) and physical evil (associated with natural occurrences). Theodicy attributes the responsibility for suffering and pain (both oral and causal) in this universe to free will of divinely established agents (Johnson 68). Free will is significantly good to an extent that it would be worse to lack free choice compared to having different evils which confront persons. Genuine free will and pure moral responsibility outweigh on some axiological degree the suffering and pain which necessarily arise from the practice of free choice by non-perfect agents. The explanation of evil using free will relies on three assumptions. First, authentic moral responsibility contains nondeterministic type of free choice. Second, agreeing with ethical balancing which states that moral responsibility is more essential than complete elimination of evil (Mackie 278). Last, conceding that nondeterministic free will is logically not compatible with elimination of evil by God.
Suffering and pain are identified as necessary evils though undesirable they are critical price people must pay for moral responsibility and freedom. Arguably, the universe would be better if angelic and human agents were to pick brighter action courses which yielded lesser pain and misery (Johnson 64). Evil is logically needed for the existence of counteracting good rather than simply a logical by-product. With regards to soul making theodicy, evil is reasonably needed for building of righteous or good character habits in free moral agents. The end result is that, logical evil serves as paramount test of personal faith and goodness. Agents who attain goodness as well as faith are recompensed with everlasting ecstasy whereas agents who do not achieve that are tormented eternally. This justifies suitable suffering and pain needed for constructing and testing g of good souls. Mackie asserts that only a small proportion of total suffering and pain experienced by conscious creatures affects people, something which makes him question the logic of morally perfect and omnipotent being permitting such continued suffering to creatures that have no souls and are not moral agents to be tested (Mackie 300). Contrary, it should be understood that all creatures were created by God including human beings and thus none should be exempted from the agony of life. The problem of animal suffering and pain remains a serious explanation challenge for theodicy of soul making (Johnson 70). This is partly because the theodicy does not provide an account of why animal pain is necessary for molding angelic and human souls. Nonetheless, soul-making theodicy provides insufficient explanation of physical evils because it seems to be quiet about such substantial suffering and pain which appears unimportant to human agents’ actions.
Evil produces ‘’good’’
The fundamental idea in this scenario is that particular forms of evil are important for various types of good. Evil is physically essential for realization of various forms of good (Mackie 111). Prime example to consider here is disease and pain versus medical advances. Existence of disease and pain create possible sympathy, heroism, benevolence and perseverance to eliminate these evils. Nevertheless, without suffering and disease, it would not be logically possible to have feelings of sympathy and notable progress in medicine. When disease strike human beings, scientists and researchers converge together and try to reason together to come with possible prevention measures and treatments. Many innovations and medical equipment have been invented due to magnitude of evil brought by diseases (Hasker 355). Due to advances in medicine people are able to live healthy, stress-free and happily. Furthermore, large group of individuals including researchers, medical practitioners, scientists and many others are employed in medical field either directly or indirectly and earn source of livelihood from it.
Mackie points out that evil contribute to overall goodness. For instance, let’s consider a situation where parent forces his/her child to take a spoon full of certain bitter drug , though the pain makes the child feel discomfort and distress the ultimate outcome is that the child regains his/her good health and starts to live normal life. Notably, without undergoing pain and suffering induced by bitter and unpleasant drug, the child cannot obtain good health (Mulgan 194). The act of God allowing people to experience evil discourages them from engaging in unacceptable behaviors thus leading to a near morally upright universe. Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome mainly came as a result of sexual immorality. One may wonder why Omnipotent and wholly good being allowed a disease whose cure has remained a riddle to scientists and researchers. The fact remains that though AIDS brings agony to many human beings it has greatly contributed to growth in field of medicine (Gottfried 432). Additionally, the disease has installed some form of discipline with respect to practicing indiscriminate sex and ensuring faithfulness among couples. Those who continue practicing sexual immorality are at risk of contradicting the disease, a condition which serves as their punishment (Gottfried 382).Therefore, God allows evil to the world as a discipline and a discouragement towards immoral behavior.
Taking into account a situation where everyone would get anything he/she wants at any given time. For example, a situation in which there would no hunger, famine and food would be plenty throughout. Such occurrences would make people lazy since they will never experience any difficulties that may force them to think. In fact, they will eat, drink, get entertained and practice all sort of fan. Consequently, agricultural innovations such as developing drought and pest resistant crops, development of Genetically Modified crops, invention of agricultural machinery among many others will never be realized (Gottfried 400). Actually, God allows people to go through famine, hunger and other problems so that they can critically think and become creative (Luft 243). According to Gottfried, Suffering builds people’s strengths and increases creativity as well innovation. Some will opt to do irrigation. People farm as much as they can, while others engage themselves in other activities such as trade among others to obtain a living. The strongest people around the world are as a result of being subjected to evil. Mackie argues that a person will face various challenges at some time as God builds him/her to become productive and resourceful individual not only to himself/herself but to the whole world (Salza 392). Prudently, a progressive world with stepwise overcoming of evil by good is actually a better universe than a universe with stable endless unchallenged dominance of good.
Conclusion
The existence of evil does not totally disqualify the proposition that God is omnipotent and morally perfect. It is almost impossible for goodness to exist without evil. Actually, existence of evil brings tremendous improvements in the world. God gives people the free will to discern between good and evil so that they can make informed decisions (Johnson 60). Mackie recognizes that there is no adequate logical finding to convince anyone that there is no rationale for believing in Supreme Being. Nonetheless, without existence of evil the world would not experience the gradual progress in many fields. Therefore, the essay agrees with Mackie’s claim that the universe is better with some evil in it than it could be without evil.
Works cited
Gottfried W. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of
Evil. New York: Cosimo, 2009. Print.
Hasker, William. "Suffering, soul-making, and salvation." International philosophical quarterly 28.1 (1988): 3-19.
Johnson, Jeff. "Inference to the Best Explanation and the Problem of Evil." The Journal of Religion 64.1 (1984): 54-72.
Luft, Eric . God, Evil, and Ethics: A Primer in the Philosophy of Religion. North Syracuse, NY:
Gegensatz Press, 2004. Print.
Mackie, John L. "Evil and omnipotence." Mind 64.254 (1955): 200-212.
Mackie, J. L. "Evil and omnipotence." Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology 64 (2014): 256.
Mulgan, Tim. Purpose in the Universe: The Moral and Metaphysical Case for
Ananthropocentric Purposivism. , 2015. Print
Salza, John. Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church, and St. Thomas
Aquinas. Charlotte, North Carolina: TAN Books, 2010. Internet resource..
