The Problem Of Evil: Dostoevsky Vs. Hick

John Hick argues in this writing that the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Christian god is compatible with an abundance of suffering. He offers solutions to the problem of suffering which relies heavily upon a tripartite foundation. Hick divides evil into two: Moral Evil = the evil that human being cause - either to themselves or to each other. And Non-Moral Evil = the evil that is not caused by human activity - natural disasters, etc. He tries to explain that a world without pain and suffering, moral traits such as courage, patience and sympathy would not be developed.

Evil is a concept that humans have developed to explain suffering and disaster. It is seen as the cause of suffering, Religious perspectives would argue that it is contrary to the will of their omnipotent being or predestination. The two types of evil are natural evil, evil not caused by humans such as tsunamis, and moral evil, evil caused by human such as rape and murder. However, this presents the problem of evil, presented by Epicurus; “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” (Epicurus, BC 341-270) This proved the inconsistent triad. If God is benevolent,

In this paper, I will present to you the problem of evil and the criticisms it faces as evil and deities coexists in one ______. Starting out it is important to understand where the dissonance comes from. How can God, an inherently ‘good’ figure, said to know everything, exist in a world where evil exists? If God knows everything that is going to happen, and does not do anything to prevent evil from occurring, or can we label him as a good figure? The big question we must look at is God the cause of evil? The problem of evil proves to be the existence of evil in a world where we believe God to be all knowing, all good and all powerful. Through

In John Hick’s piece “There is a Reason Why God Allows Evil”, he explains his view on the roots of evil. Hick brings up the problem of an all-loving God that allows evil to occur in the world. The conclusion that arises God must not be all loving then. However, Hick explains that humans free will is the problem that leads to evil. A few strengths that Hick has in his argument is the laws of nature, he mentions that they “…would have to be extremely flexible; sometimes gravity would operate, sometimes not; sometimes an object would be hard and solid, sometimes soft. There could be no sciences, for there would be no enduring world structure to investigate” (129). Nothing could hurt anyone or anything, and the world would be some perfect fairytale; “…life would become like a dream in which, delightfully but aimlessly, we would float and drift at ease” (130). Hick goes on to explain that evil allows people to learn what is good, grace and faith. If evil doesn’t exist, then how could one tell the difference from right or wrong? There would be no moral lessons to be taught or learned from since there is no wrong, and wrong an only be done when there is evil. Hick also mentions that bravery, courage and strength would have no point and meaning. Everything that builds character would not exist. The weakness in Hicks argument is that he is blaming free will for the ultimate cause of evil. There are obviously nature disasters that could be considered evil as well. Hick believes that

God and the problem of evil is treated by most philosophers as a paradox to be resolved by creating a theodicy. A theodicy is an attempt to explain or answer the question of how God could allow bad things to happen. So, is there an adequate theodicy? B.C. Johnson argues there is no adequate theodicy, and therefore that there is no perfectly moral God. However, Augustine argues that there is an adequate theodicy, and therefore human are incapable of choosing good without the assistance of God's divine grace. Both natural and moral evils are ultimately the result of the actions of free rational beings who sin. Augustine's theodicy attempts to protect God from responsibility for the existence of evil. The dialogue addresses these and related questions.

Throughout the novel, Crime and Punishment, the prime focus is the continuous struggle between good and evil. Characters like Raskolnikov, Marmeladov, Sonya, and Svidrigailov would be considered horrible people upon first glance, but when you dig deeper they each possess goodness despite their wrongdoings. However, Each character possess different levels of morality, some more than others. Dostoevsky exposes these different levels between characters like Sonya and Svidrigailov.

To take this a step further than Dostoyevsky, I don’t believe that the term “innocent” applies only to children. Those who have had their free will taken and are forced to suffer are also innocent. Had Dostoyevsky lived through the age of holocaust, he would’ve agreed with me. Jewish people, forced into concentration camps, were torture and killed; their religion the sole reason. They had faith, but their suffering was watched idly by their god as six million of “his people” were killed. They were rational people facing an irrational world that was indifferent to them. The concept of human suffering is too much for Ivan to blindly accept.

Ordinarily, two separate quotes offered during the beginning of the first objection both try to rationalize why evil would exist in the world. Comparatively, Epicurus offers his idea through two thought processes. Subjectively, he claims that if God wishes well in the world, but cannot stop evil, he is inadequate. Furthermore, he states that if he has the power to demolish evil, but chooses not to, then God is malevolent. Nevertheless, he leads to a question in his argument, where, if God wants to demolish evil and has the ability, why hasn’t he completed his task. Alternatively, John Stott identifies the fact of suffering to be one of the greatest challenges to Christianity over many generations. Thus, its varying severity, and delivery seem

Dostoyevsky on Good and Evil in Crime and Punishment For hundreds of years, man has walked the earth and for all that time, man has struggled. Fedor Dostoyevsky was an author who worked with that idea within the novel Crime and Punishment. Dostoyevsky conveys the theme of man’s struggle with good and evil through diction, interactions between characters, and character development. Diction, the choice of words in a piece of writing.

Augustine continues his research with his theory on why God allows evil. In his book, he states that, “All things are good even if they are corrupted. They could not be corrupted if they were supremely good, but unless they were good they could not be corrupted. If they were supremely good, they would be incorruptible; if they were not good at all, there would be nothing in them to be corrupted. For corruption harms; but unless it could diminish goodness; it could not harm” (118). God allows evil because, through evil, the greatest good can come. By the possibility of evil, God’s just plan and His mercies can prevail and shine through. Examples include any natural disaster, mass-shooting, or terrorist attack. Through these evil and wicked acts, godliness is able to prevail by Godly people reaching out to help those struggling, mourning, dying, or abandoned. Through evil deeds, God is utmostly glorified because His people reach out to those hurting and share the gospel of His love and truth (Psalm 115:1). God’s allowance of evil allows for

The problem of good and evil in the world has been a challenging subject for hundreds, even thousands of years. If God is all powerful – omnipotent, all knowing – omniscient, and all good – omnibenevolent, how can that same God allow evil to exist and for bad things to happen to good people? Unfortunately, this question has no certain answer, only theories of explanation. This question is also one of the main queries of my personal life that drives my beliefs - agnosticism. If an all powerful God does exist, I can’t imagine why He would allow such atrocities, such as cancers, hunger, genocides – just to name a few – to occur in our world. I would like to dissect this essay and discuss it with three different theories. The first theory

This paper will look at the concept of evil as it impacts our world. Despite the horrible effects of evil in our world, there is a way to lessen the impact on the lives of individuals. For many centuries Christians have struggled with both the existence and the nature of evil. Most people would acknowledge that evil is real and has always had devastating effects on our world. From the sexual abuse of children, to the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11, evil continues to rear its ugly head in our own time. Many people are left wondering what exactly is evil and why does it exist. Let’s look at the definition of evil. A dictionary definition of evil is “morally reprehensible, sinful and wicked” (“Merriam-Webster”, 2015). The definition of evil in the Bible falls into two categories: evil against one another (murder, theft, and adultery) and evil against God (unbelief, idolatry, and blasphemy). From the prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9 New King James Version), to the destruction of Babylon the Great (Revelation 18:2), the Bible speaks of evil.

The problem of evil stems from the concept of a Theistic God – one that is omniscient,

The problem of evil is usually seen as the problem of how the existence of God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world. It’s regarded as a logical problem, because it is based on the apparent contradiction involved in holding onto three incompatible beliefs. This being that God is omnipotent, that God is wholly good and that evil exists in the world. The fact that evil exists in the world constitutes the most common objection to the belief in the existence of the omnipotent (all powerful),

In the book “On Evil”, by Thomas Aquinas, the topic of evil is believed to be a broad subject that cannot be stated in one opinion, but a variety. Aquinas goes on with the idea that evil is not a result of God and cannot be considered as an entity. Aquinas also believes that God, who is perfectly good, is the creator of all things and that God cannot be thought of as causing sin and suffering. In this paper, I will argue against Aquinas’ views on why God is not the cause of evil, why evil is not an entity, why God isn’t thought of as causing sin, and why I think that the root of all evil could be the cause of a possible ‘imperfection’ from God.