Why Doesn T God Intervene To Prevent Evil Analysis

Imagine a mother and a newborn child. Now picture the mother abandoning the baby with no one to feed or take care of it. It is very likely that the baby would die. The Nile, a major river in northeastern Africa, could be considered as Ancient Egypt’s mother. Because Egypt was so isolated, the river was all they ever knew. The economy and belief system of Egypt were totally dependant on the Nile River, and if it did not exist, neither would this powerful empire.

All disasters are either natural or man-made. Majority of the United States’ most costly disasters have been natural disasters (Steinberg, 2006). Ted Steinberg, an environmental historian, uses Acts of God to analyze how American interference with nature intensifies the harmfulness of natural disasters. Steinberg (2006), states “those in power have tended to view these events as purely natural in an effort to justify a set of responses that has proved both environmentally unsound, and socially, if not morally, bankrupt”(p.19). This book selectively exhibits solid facts pertaining to specific natural disasters; namely hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. In this manner, Steinberg attempts to persuade readers of the idea that natural disasters are not outside of human control or consequence. The idea of an “act of God” was initially from the idea that natural disasters were a result of punishment for sin (Steinberg, 2006). When Americans started to venture from the idea of natural disasters being a result of human actions, the assumption arose that natural disasters were without human culpability.

On the topic of the existence of God, Ernest Nagel and Richard Swinburne have construct arguments that challenge one another. In Nagel’s article, “Does God Exist?” he argues that if God is all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent; he would know when evil occurs and has the power to prevent it. Because evil occurs, God does not exist. This is the problem of evil. Challenging Nagel, the article by Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil,” argues that God has the right to allow moral and natural evils to occur because those evils reap greater goods that make the lives of human-beings meaningful. He extends his argument to the idea that God seeks to provide human beings with goods such as freewill and responsibility of not only ourselves, but of the world and others. While Nagel utilizes the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God, Swinburne employs it to show that God allows evil to occur to provide human beings with goods that go beyond moments of pleasure and joys of happiness.

Therefore, it is not the case that God is an omnipotent and wholly good being.

Why does an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow natural and moral evil to happen without any restrictions? John Hick, a proponent of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s theodicy defense, answered: “in order that human beings, as free responsible agents, may use this world as a place of “soul making,” which involves the spiritual perfection of our character and persons” (Pojman 74). According to Hick, creation has not been finished its work, it is still undergoing a process, that is, the lives of individual human beings. Hick believed that God is omnibenevolent because he is allowing us to learn how to be perfect on our own.

This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.

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

Evil is something that exists in many forms. From big evils like Hitler’s Holocaust and slavery, to small evils like getting a papercut and getting stuck in the rain (perhaps to some this might be a big evil), evil is basically anything that is not good. For theologians, evil poses several problems, most notably when it comes to the existence of God.

The consequences of accepting that the goodness of actions consists simply in the fact that God favours them are obviously disagreeable. However, the consequences of accepting the alternative also appear unfortunate. If it is maintained that God favours certain actions because they are objectively good, it seems that their goodness is independent of His will. But such a view appears to be inconsistent with the conception of God as the omnipotent creator and sustainer of all that is. It means that there is a realm of moral values which exist quite apart from God's creative will and to which His will must conform. Such a view must inevitably appear blasphemous to all those who believe in God, for it makes God out to be less than He is.

The logical problem of evil is often referred to as the inconsistent triad, this being that the following propositions; God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and evil exists, are inconsistent. Also known as a reduction ad absurdum argument, whereby all three propositions cannot be true together. Theists, like Swinburne, come to the conclusion that the three propositions are compatible with one another, whereas atheists, like Mackie, believe that they are incompatible and therefore God does not exist. I shall be arguing in line with Swinburne’s view, describing the following defenses, indicating that there is no logical problem of evil.

“Either we must say that God is not wholly good, and that he permits or is even the author of evil. Or we must say that God is not omnipotent, and although he is wholly good and would prevent evil if he could, he is powerless to stop it.” (Fitzgerald 340).

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

Everyday it is possible to read a newspaper, or turn on TV or radio news and learn about evil going on in our world. Banks are robbed, cars are stolen, violent murders and rapes are committed. Somewhere in the world the aftershock of an earthquake is being felt. Cancer is killing millions of people each year, while other debilitating conditions continue to affect many with no cure to end their suffering. President Bush said that our country is fighting a war against evil. We all agree that evil is real and cannot be ignored; the problem comes when we try and rationalize the concept of God and evil coexisting.

Therefore, we might best respond by saying that God does not Will "bad" things to happen in life. Rather, "bad"

Throughout the bible there have been countless individuals and masses that have suffered by the hands of God. One that immediately comes to mind is Job. Job had lied in misery for several painful months. He carried the grief and loss of sons, daughters, friends, relationships, and even his own wife. The book of Job deals with the issue of suffering and God’s position in the matter. Being a rich farmer, as Job was, would allow us to assume that he was a hard working man that was provided for and was in need of nothing. Job’s story is a testament to faith in God when things are no longer in one’s own favor. The argument of this paper is that the exact testament of faith Job goes through is a violent one, that may produce a sense of underlying