Why Do Bad Things Happen?

The issue of evil in the world raises questions with which everyone wrestles. Pain and suffering come into everyone’s life to some degree or another. Trying to find meaning and purpose in the midst of suffering, whether our own or someone else’s, is difficult regardless of what worldview one holds. How individuals and societies deal with this issue will have important implications for those individuals as well as to the whole of society.

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.

Inequality is very unnatural in our species. Social inequality stems from the idea that one group of people are superior than another. However, in ancient societies, those in power “justified” social inequality through means of religion and by the will of the gods. Ancient Hebrew society and ancient Babylonian society both follow this mindset that the gods justified social inequality.

The author’s theory about the peoples’ belief in divine intervention is that the poorest existence is attributed to God’s will, but as their materilistic life and styke get better, God descends the scale of responsibility at a consumerate speed.

There is one question that everyone asks but to which no one knows the answer: "Why do bad things happen to good people?" The misfortunes of good people raise problems not only for those who suffer, but also for everyone who wants to believe in a just and livable world and in a fair and compassionate God. Rabbi Kushner, author of "Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People", attempts to bring light to this difficult question. In doing so he evaluates past attempts to explain suffering, offers his own approach to the justification of suffering in today's society, and makes suggestions for how one can deal with suffering and continue his or her journey into the future. This essay will examine these

How do human beings talk about God in the face of poverty and suffering? This is the question the Book of Job raises for us. A moral and honorable man lives a prosperous, happy and fruitful life. As a wager between God and Satan on the issue of disinterested religion, they test to see if his faith and religion are actually disinterested. This leads to another question of whether human beings are capable of asserting their faith and talking about God in the face of suffering in a disinterested way. In his book “On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent” Gustavo Gutierrez makes the point that human beings, especially the poor, are capable of a disinterested faith and knowledge of God in the face of suffering. His application of liberation theology, way of talking about God, and interest in the poor allow Gutierrez to assert that human beings are capable of a disinterested religion in the face of poverty and suffering.

Does the problem of evil pose a challenge for theists and the existence of God? The problem of evil argues that there is so much suffering in the world that an all-good and all powerful God would not allow such suffering to exist. Therefore, a God with those characteristics does not exist. Unless the suffering is necessary for an adequate reason. Some people argue that suffering is necessary for there to be good and for us to able to understand what good is. In this paper, I will argue that suffering does not need to exist in order for good to exist, because the existence of good does not depend on suffering. I will then argue that good and suffering are not logical opposites. Finally, I will conclude that since evil is not justified, then the God that we defined does not exist.

An argument against the existence of God is based on the presence of evil in the world. This deductively valid argument is divided into two categories; human action and natural evil (Sober, 2005, p. 120). Human action discusses how experiences makes us better people, while natural evil are tragic events that are not under the control of humans. Each category is used as evidence to refute God as an all-powerful omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent being. In order to understand the strengths of this argument, it is important for an overall assessment of how the presence of evil questions if a Supreme Being actually exists, by arguing why a being of all-good would allow evil, importance of evil in a good world, and questioning God’s intervention in evil.

Good and evil are concocted differently in every imagination. To some, evil is the most appalling sins, including such heinous acts such as murder, rape, distortion, or betrayal. To others, evil might be something so simple as indecisiveness, extravagance, or vain glory. Goodness is ambiguous to mankind as well because one man might define goodness as the ordinary man living a free life, yet another might conclude that true goodness is obtainable only through a perfect, honorable lifestyle, completely abstaining from worldly endeavors. One’s attitude at good and evil will predetermine their values, actions, and points of interest. Whether life is spent pursuing heavenly goals or the applying oneself to his or her life, their

One of the main arguments used by non-believers against the existence of God is the presence of evil and suffering in the world. The term ‘evil’ is often used to describe something that is morally wrong. Philosophers make a distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from human actions that are morally reproachable, and Natural evil results from the malfunctioning of the natural world, which produces entities such as disease and famine.

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

A theodicy is a defense of God's goodness in light of the existence of evil. There are different ways of making an argument that constitutes a theodicy, and in this paper I would like to concentrate on three different styles, and analyze them in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. The first type of theodicy is known informally as the "greater good" argument: it suggests that the evil that is permitted by God is outweighed by his goodness, and is permitted in the course of establishing some greater good. The second type of theodicy is based on the concept of free will: to some extent it is a subset of the "greater good" argument, for it holds that God permits human free will (and therefore the possibility of evil being done) as a greater good. The third theodicy hinges upon the idea of a natural order: this posits that God's goodness is manifest in the establishment of a natural order of things in which evil plays a role. Each of these styles of theodicy has its good and bad aspects, and it is worth examining them in some greater depth individually.

The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson

Central to any study of the humanities is the human condition – our nature, which has historically shown that it is equally capable of both good and evil deeds – and the problem that arises from it; specifically, why do humans suffer? Many philosophies and religions have their own account for this aspect of humanity, and we find that what the accounts have in common is each explains the human condition in terms that are similar to how that institution of thought explains the true nature of reality.

Two central themes to understanding the human condition are suffering and morality. Humans contrive morality to be a set of values deemed right or wrong in a society, and are often defined by institutions. These guidelines shape the way people live and how they react to life’s circumstances. Suffering is one emotion crucial to the understanding of existence. In a time of pain, an individual often seeks direction from a higher power, like the church. Institutions such as religion are a way of expressing morality and a means to cope with suffering, a crucial understanding of the human condition.