Fighting Elmer's Glue and Punk Rock Porn Stars

This is my Philosophy paper that I was required to write. I want to state beforehand that I posted this because I wanted more use out of a 4 page paper and I wanted more people to see it other than my teacher who happens to have a horrible hair cut and terrible hygiene. The information expressed does not necessarily explain my views, but it states the opinions and arguments between atheists, theists, and agnostics. All information was found in my philosophy book, Lawhead: The Philosophy Journey: An Interactive Approach, Fourth Edition and is cited throughout the paper. I highly doubt anyone will read this, but I thought it was pretty damn interesting.

            Imagine that you have just heard the news that someone you dearly love has just had their life taken from them by a hit and run; your only son or daughter. The pain that you feel in your heart is almost unbearable. You can’t sleep, you can’t eat, and some times you find it difficult to even think straight. In an exasperated breath of despair, you start crying. You ask yourself “Why is it that things such as this are allowed to happen?” Why would God let such pain come upon you, and why would He take the life of your dearly beloved family member? This question and questions similar are asked more than you might initially think. People are constantly questioning why God would allow evil to exist in the world. The problem of evil has always been a controversial concept since as far back as man kind can recall. We naturally want to understand why innocent people suffer and the search to find the answer causes us to dig deep within our minds and even challenge our faith.

            There are distinguished evils that philosophers have been able to place and categorize different situations into. There is Moral evil, which consists of bad actions such as lying, rape, and murder. Moral evil is caused by such things as loss of property, poverty, physical and emotional harm, and distrust. Then, there is Natural evil, which consists of things such as diseases, tornadoes, genetic defects, earthquakes, and other things of that nature. Natural evils are the evils that atheists usually pose more arguments towards. If God loved every one of his creations, why would he allow an earthquake or a hurricane to devastate and kill hundreds and even thousands of his people? The problem of evil is used as a major standpoint and gives argument between atheists, theists, and agnostics.

Atheists often argue that if there was a God who was Omni benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, evil would not exist. Atheists take notice that evil does exist, and therefore, God does not exist. In order to claim that this argument is false, one of the premises must me considered false. The Greeks claimed the premise of God’s goodness was false, and therefore, it was easy for them to understand the presence of suffering and pain. If the Greeks believed that God was all-loving, it would be far more difficult to understand why there was so much famine and war in the world.

            Many theists argue that knowledge is limited and that even God could not anticipate every evil that could possibly occur. This still is subject to flaw considering that once someone has made their intent known for evil, God could stop them. There is a difference between “God is all powerful”, and “God can do anything”. For example, God can not create a round square. God is incapable of bringing about things that are logically impossible. He can not create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it. Saying that God could do what is logically impossible, is saying that He could do what is good and evil at the same time. If this were possible, it wouldn’t be possible to think that God would exist at all.

            “The greater goods defense is the claim that God allows some evil to exist because it is necessary to the achievement of a greater good” (Lawhead: The Philosophy Journey: An Interactive Approach, Fourth Edition 372).” This argument claims that good could not be reached if some evil was not allowed to exist. The idea is that the suffering that we experience always has a purpose. It is difficult to answer every question when it comes to the problem of evil and we can not explain every particular evil that God allows.

            John Hick’s version of the greater goods defense is more along the lines of us, as humans trying to fulfill the divine intention of our existence and we are still in the process of creation. Men may become perfect eventually, but Hick’s argument states that we must all go through a process of “soul-making”. One of God’s most important gifts that he has given to us, is the ability to make a choice. God put us here and gave us the power to turn towards him and be turned into a “child of God”, or to turn away from him. Hicks’s argument states that either God was to have a world where we suffered a torturous amount or God could have created a world where there would be no suffering at all. If God were to create a world where there was no suffering and no evil, then that would mean some of our free will would be sacrificed. This thought shows that even God had to make a choice.

            There are some criticisms towards Hicks’s argument, of course. Hick assumes that God’s choice is between one extreme or another. As Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare stated, “Even if some underserved and unnecessary suffering is necessary to make possible compassion, it is obvious that a minute percentage of the present unnecessary suffering would do the job adequately.” Also, Hare and Madden have stated that though in life there is “soul-making”, there is also “soul-breaking,” because people are often crushed and hurt by suffering. Not everyone can handle suffering, and end up turning into worse-off people because of it.

            Another very important defense for the problem of evil topic, is the “free will defense.” Basically, this defense states that though God allows evil, it is necessary in order to give his creation the capability to choose. God gave his children the gift of free will. God chose to create a world in which his creatures can make choices at their own will, which in turn, allows there evil to exist. This defense states that if God took away our free will and turned us into his own righteous pets, in a sense, we would all no longer even have the capable of questioning God. The freedom that God has given us, has given us the choice to choose right from wrong; good from evil. God took a risk in creating us, and he could not necessarily guarantee that we would all follow on the path to goodness. Evil exists because, if it did not, we would no longer be free agents. This defense states that the world would be a better one if there is free will, as well.

            There are many questions and oppositions to this defense, however. People often ask why God could not just have created Heaven and have that be all. If Heaven is a place where you have eternal life and no longer commit sin, which it is described as, why could He not simply create a place like that on Earth? God could intervene and make it so we would not commit such sins as rape and murder, could he not? “A moderate amount of human freedom and a moderate amount of moral evil might make a better world (257).”

            Though the greater goods defense can support reasoning for both forms of evil, the free will defense views evil as caused by immoral choices made by humans because we have free will. This defense addresses slavery, murder, and rape, but at first glance, it seems as if this argument does not have a reason for natural evils such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and diseases. “One way in which a free will defense can account for natural evils is to say that in order for there to be free choices, whether these choices are good or evil ones, there has to be a fixed, reliable order of natural causes and effects (257).”

            The evil that is allowed to exist in the world, is necessary in order for free will to exist. We can think of a place where God was capable of making it so we were incapable of making wrong choices. We could imagine a world where God could turn a weapon into something unable to harm someone else when we intended to use the weapon to harm someone else. We could picture a world where God refused to allow any bad or pain to come to someone innocent, however if God were to do such things, it would interfere with the entire concept of free will. We wouldn’t necessarily be able to make our own decisions because we would be limited to what we could think or do. God allows us to make decisions and sometimes people decide to kill other people. If God were to intervene, that would make it so we didn’t have free will, but limited will and evil thoughts would be impossible. As difficult as it is to comprehend, if a person has made the choice to murder someone, that is that individual’s choice. Now, it is not necessarily true that God should allow someone else’s life to be in someone else’s hands, but by bestowing us with free will, He took a risk. God, by giving us free will, risked that we would make some bad decisions that might eventually lead to us committing some evil deeds.

            Many people are incapable of understanding the atheist’s viewpoints. It is difficult for many religious people to understand how someone can live their lives thinking that there is no divine purpose to living. Those who are not theists, feel that there would be no sense of gratification or happiness brought about in their everyday lives if they were to think that there was no divine purpose to their lives. If there is nothing greater that we have planned for us, then our friendships, family ties, and other relationships are meaningless. However, there are many atheists who are good, moral, and caring people. There are many atheists who even do volunteer work and donate their time and efforts to making life more enjoyable for others. Just because someone believes that there is no God, does not mean that the person has to be an unjust and evil individual.

            Atheists often find difficulty understanding the presence of evil if there is a presence of God. They often feel that there shouldn’t even be a need to justify innocent children suffering. If there was an all-powerful and all-loving God, agony and tragedy would not happen to innocent children. Some of these “explanations” wear thin when trying to explain to a suffering child, that the reason he or she is suffering, is because it is God’s will. Atheists 

The Atheist argues that the theist says that the world needs a cause to find an explanation for the unexplainable. Before the rise of modern science, the world and it’s people “worked” in different ways. They used to believe that all natural events, such as disease and the moving of the planets were all caused by God’s activity. Some atheists believe that since the rise of modern science has proved so many things wrong, that it could be possible that God as a hypothesis is invalid now. If suffering is a part of God’s plan, then we shouldn’t fight suffering, but accept it. We are then fighting against God’s will and therefore trying to push back against something that has a greater, divine purpose.

            “Some atheists argue with the psychiatrist Sigmund Freud that religion is a psychological crutch that emotionally weak persons use to get through life. (259)” Religion does help people cope with many things. If a theist loses someone they love, it’s much more comforting to think of that person as “in a better place.” Atheists believe that there is a larger explanation than “it is God’s will.”

            The presence of evil in our world causes much controversy. We can not help but wonder why bad things happen and what kind of a God would allow an innocent child to contract such life-threatening diseases as Cancer or Leukemia. One thing that we all have to recognize is that some questions are unable to be completely answered. There are some things beyond our control or understanding and we can try to come up with an explanation, but sometimes, we just have to have faith. The way I see it, it is not necessarily that atheists do not think that there is not a God, but they believe there is no God. In a sense, they have faith that there is no God.

            Atheists, agnostics, and theists are all working towards the same goal: to answer the unanswerable. There are no answers in the back of the text book for them to check. They are simply trying to answer questions to make life a better place. The explanations to the unexplainable, must simply be thought of, but followed with our faith. Through our own faith, we will find the answers whether that be faith in God, or faith that there is no God. To understand why the things in life are conducted in such a manner; to understand why someone’s child is dying of a fatal illness. There are more things in comment between the three, but people tend to only focus on the differences. Yes, there is a strong possibility that we may never live to know the truth, but the fact that we, as humans are longing to gain wisdom and understanding, should pull us together and allow us to live fuller and richer lives.