The existence of Evil

The problem of evil has remained to be one of the most controversial areas in the philosophy of religion.
Philosophers of religion have identified two sources of evil: natural and moral. 'Natural evil' consists of natural disasters, disease and all the pain and suffering not caused by humans. 'Moral evil' refers to those acts of cruelty, viciousness and injustice carried out by humans upon fellow humans and other creatures. St Augustine defines evil as that 'which we fear, or the act of fearing itself'.

John Hick: 'Can the presence of evil in the world be reconciled with the existence of a God who is unlimited both in goodness and in power?'

Philosophers have identified at least two different formulations of the problem of evil: the logical problem and the evidential problem.

The logical problem of evil is the statement that believers are committed to holding two apparently inconsistent beliefs:

1. God is the all powerful, wholly good and all knowing creator of the universe
2. Evil exits in the universe

 J.L Mackie adds a third proposition that brings out the contradiction:

    3.  A wholly good being eliminates evil as far as it can

The evidential problem of evil:

There are many thinkers including Charles Darwin, David Hume and William Rowe who believe that the amount of evil that exists in the world weighs against an argument that there is an almighty God who is wholly good. Why doesn't God intervene when natural disasters take place that kill many people? Why does God allow illnesses to take place and cause humans to suffer? Why does God allow there to be serial killers?

The evidential problem poses a question: Given the existence of evil, which of the following is the most reasonable hypothesis:

1. That there is an infinitely powerful, wholly good God who created the world; or
2. That there is no such God

For Hume and Rowe the second hypothesis supports the existence of evil.

Malcolm and Plantinga's Ontological Argument

As time has gone on, ontological arguments have continued to intrigue and inspire philosophers of religion. In the twentieth century there have been versions of the ontological argument put forward by Norman Malcolm (1911-1990) and Alvin Plantinga (1932-). Both Malcolm and Plantinga focus on claims about God's status as a necessary being, i.e one who must exist.

Malcolm's ontological argument:
Consider four possibilities concerning God's existence

1. God's existence is necessarily false - it is logically impossible for any being that has God's properties to exist.
2. God's existence is contingently false- it is possible that a being with the properties of God could exist, but it just so happens that there isn't such a being.
3. God's existence is contingently true- it is possible that a being with the properties of God could exist, and i just so happens that there is such a being
4. God's existence is necessarily true-it is logically necessary that any being with the properties of God exists. 

Malcolm argues that statements 2 and 3 simply cannot apply to a being like God. This is because God is the greatest conceivable being and such he must be unlimited, independent and eternal. However 2 and 3 suggest that his existence is contingent, therefore limited and dependent upon other factors.

To Malcolm, God is the greatest conceivable being and God's existence cannot be contingent. This leaves either 1 or 4 as the remaining possibilities. Statements that fall under category 1 are logically contradictory. Therefore through a process of elimination number 4 is left as the only remaining possibility; God's existence is necessarily true. Malcolm says that necessary existence is a predicate of God, not just existence. 

Plantinga:

Criticises Malcolm's argument and offers his own ontological argument in its place. Plantinga's objection to Malcolm is that it is possible for God to exist contingently without losing his independence or his unlimited eternal qualities. He argues that when we say 'God necessarily exists' it means that God exists in every possible universe. Plantinga defines God as a being with 'maximal greatness'. A God that exists in all possible universes is greater than one that exists in only some universes. Therefore God, in order to be the greatest, must exists in every possible universe.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Descartes' Ontological Argument

Descartes is a sceptic who attempted to demonstrate that it is impossible to doubt the existence of God.
His work is generally regarded as the starting point for modern philosophy.

Descartes argued that God is the supremely perfect being and that existence is a necessary part of the meaning of God. He saw existence as a perfection and therefore that God, a supremely perfect being-must have all the perfections including existence..

As with Anselm's argument, Descartes' argument relies on a definition of God, in this case that he is a 'supremely perfect being'. Descartes focuses on this concept of God and notes that a supremely perfect being would have to be perfect in every way, i.e to be all knowing, all powerful etc. To Descartes existence is a perfection just as being all powerful and all knowing are. Descartes' argument assumes that 'existence' is a predicate/quality of God and therefore based on this assumption he is able to conclude that God exists.

Kant's Criticisms:

• Kant argues that we cannot move from the realms of definitions and concepts to reality in the way that the ontological argument attempts to. It is one thing to discuss our concepts but an extremely different thing t talk about what exists in the real world.
• He goes on to say that existence is not a real predicate. He proposes that a genuine predicate is one that describes the thing we're talking about and so adds a descriptive properly to it and enhances our concept of it. However, 'existence' does not do this, it adds nothing to our concept of a subject and therefore cannot be classified as a real predicate. It is essential to Descartes that 'existence's is part of what we mean by 'God' therefore the ontological argument fails since existence is not a real predicate.

Anselm's Ontological Argument

The field of ontology explores what it means for something to exist, it is the 'study of existence'. It is a priori therefore works from first principles and definitions to demonstrate the existence of God.

Anselm of Canterbury was a theologian and a philosopher. He proposed an ontological argument in his Prologion."The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'". Anselm defines God as a 'being than which no greater can be conceived'. He suggested that even 'the fool' can understand this concept and to grasp this understanding itself causes the being to exist in the mind. The concept must therefore only exist in our mind, or in our mind and in reality. If such a being exists only in our mind, then a greater being -that which exists in the mind and in reality-can be conceived. Therefore the fool is a fool as you cannot accept the concept of God by mentioning him and not accept his existence.

Criticisms of Anselm's Argument:

• Anselm makes a jump from concept/idea to reality
• There are a variety of definitions of God; therefore his argument will only work if we accept the definition of God from Anselm

Gaunilo's Island:

He opposed Anselm and gave an immediate response to him he called 'on behalf of the fool'. Gaunilo states that just because a person can conceive of something, it doesn't make it exist. 

Anselm second ontological argument:

• Either god exists or he does not exist
• If God exists, his existence must be necessary
• If God does not exist, then his existence is logically impossible
• God is not a logically impossible thing
• Therefore, God's existence is necessary 
• Therefore, God exists