Reading: Hume, "Evil Makes a Strong Case Against God's Existence", pp. 276-281
Reading Guide The editors' summary is quite good; they helpfully tell you a little bit about each character in this dialogue (Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes). The first few pages consist of a catalog of the evils of this world -- the evils suffered by human beings and by other animals are described in very striking terms. Man is not an exception to the rule that "every animal is surrounded with enemies which incessantly seek his misery and destruction" (277). Even though man can conquer his natural enemies (lions, tigers, and bears, oh my), other enemies arise to take their place. Demea lists a number of physical, psychological and social woes, concluding that "All the goods of life united would not make a very happy man, but all the ills united would make a wretch indeed; and any one of them (i.e., ills of life -RS) almost ... is sufficient to render life ineligible" (278). Philo chimes in at this point, asserting that the only reason we don't kill ourselves is that we're "afraid of death": "We are terrified, not bribed to the continuance of our existence" (278). He also responds to the charge that things aren't really so bad; it's only our "wretched temper" (i.e., temperament) and "delicate sensibilities" that make us miserable.
On p. 279, we have the first statement of the problem of evil (top of the page, right-hand column). Notice that omniscience is not explicitly mentioned. This is likely because omnipotence seems to imply omniscience. On p. 280, Demea proposes his solution, a solution that Cleanthes vehemently rejects. Cleanthes' own solution seems equally unsatisfactory -- insist that the evils of life are outweighed by the goods of life. Philo rejects Cleanthes' solution, but he grants it for the sake of argument. Still, even if Cleanthes is right, a revised version of the original problem rears its ugly head: How can a benevolent, all-powerful God allow ANY misery?
Finally, Philo says that even if he grants that evil is compatible with the existence of God, this doesn't help Cleanthes: "A mere possible compatibility is not sufficient". (281)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
While my issue with Hume’s argument does not undermine the argument in its entirety and I must still acknowledge the problem of evil to be a serious one, Hume’s issue is that his statements are too bold to defend. Certainly many people would prefer non-existence to the life they currently lead, the fear of death being their only motivation to continue living. I do however, doubt that is the maj,ority of people, and even if it is, it is certainly not everyone as Hume claims. Yes, perhaps most people spend the majority of their lives performing tasks they do not enjoy, but for many, the times of enjoyment are worth it. Even at my worst, when I live only for the weekend, the enjoyment of the weekend was always worth the time I disliked during the week. Now, if Hume were to claim that a just God would not let so many people suffer in such horrendous ways, this position would be strong. I realize he believes his statement about most people not wanting to relive the last twenty years while having hope for the next twenty, but how does he explain how often I hear an elder say, what I would give to be young in the world you are entering. Now, perhaps the developed world has led to a population that is much more pleased with life than in the eighteenth century and Hume’s world was different than ours in that respect, but my experience in the developing world and surveys that I have read seem to indicate that less developed regions have populations no less happy than developed ones.
There is something confusing to me about Hume’s argument because I don’t understand how he is defining evil. It seems throughout the first few pages that evil is almost equivalent with unhappiness which I would disagree with strongly if that were the case. I don’t think that unhappiness is incompatible with an omnipotent benevolent God although I would agree with him that evil does exist and is incompatible with the previously mentioned idea of God. When thinking about the contradiction of evil and God I was thinking about the Christian belief that Jesus gave his life in order that we may not be punished for our sins. This seems to make sense to me because if God is benevolent and omnipotent meaning he has the power and the will to destroy/punish evil deeds then in the case of Jesus he punished his son with death so that mankind would not have to be punished. Still there is a problem with this because probably a benevolent God would not punish someone else for my sins, but hey, maybe.
I think that another reason that people do not kill themselves is hope. Hope is a very powerful emotion and it drives people to do extrordinary things. Look at some of the survival stories comming out of Haiti. Furthermore, what about the idea that God placed man here to glorify him. By showing us mercy he glorifies himself. Thus allowing evil or bad things to happen gives God the oppertunity to provide mercy and thus glorify himself.
This has been the most compelling argument I have come across in this class so far. In the middle of 279, which begins, "Is he willing..." Hume lays out some heavy handed questions regarding the powers/limitations/motivations of God. When I read them, I had chills going down my spine. Hume effectively calls into question every assumption of the perfect, all powerful, benevolent Christian god that theologians traditionally accept. I would like to see a response to this, because that theologian has a lot to combat.
Like Whitney said, I see a huge problem with the definition of (or lack thereof) evil. Let me just say that I find Hume's overall argument quite persuasive. However, in order to be bulletproof, I think it must be shown that without a doubt evil does in fact exist. What went through my mind is the possibility that we have not even the slightest concept of true evil. Frankly, we can only judge our happiness based off of the environment we're presented with. Give a basic cadet 4 weeks into basic a Dr. Pepper or a Snickers bar and you'll see heaven reflected in their face. How do we know that our concept of evil is not simply relative to our good environment? I don't honestly believe that the holocaust was good just less good than kickin it at an all-inclusive in the bahamas, but the skeptic in me see that as a potential option and thus one that needs to be discounted.
I think Hume's strongest point is as Dr. Smith has pointed out on the top right of 279, where he states "His power, we allow, is infinite; whatever he wills is executed; but neither man nor any other animal is happy; therefore, he does not will their happiness." He then in the next paragraph asks about if he is either not willing or not able to prevent evil, which is a question that no theist can truly answer, they would simply be lead to "his ways are higher than our ways." I think he doesn't descrive exactly what evil is because he doesn't necessarily have to. I believe Hume thinks evil is somewhat obvious; maybe not on the minute things but there are some evils in the world such as the raping and murder of children, or serial killers and torturers, and I believe Hume is concluding that there only has to be some evil in the world to contradict the idea of a benevolent God.
What I want to know is who ever said that God has to be this wonderful being in the first place. Who said he has to be benevolent? I'm not saying he cant be, but he has to be able to be cruel as well, doesnt he have to punish those who do not follow his word? Who is to say he is not the one causing the suffering? For punishment or like caleb said, to glorify himself or maybe he just wants his creations to suffer. Its not the traditional christian view of God, but who said they have it right?
While Hume claims that God can be willing, able, or both, he continually utilizes such abilties as always creating evil for beings in the world. Is it not possible that God has both the willingness and ability to prevent evil but loves us enough to allow us to create our own perceptions of what is and what is not evil in the world. God gives man the ability to shape his own destiny and does so through the power of free will. The concept of evil is a manmade one considering what one person considers evil another may consider benevolence. By allowing evil to exist, God would himself be evil; however, all that God does is benevolent and He therefore has no conception of what is evil. Man allows evil to exist and brings evil upon himself free from interference of God.
First off, what is evil? Let's say that murdering someone is evil. Well God doesn't directly take a gun and murder us. It is a human who sins and murders another. I would presume that Hume would say that God should have stopped it if he was all-powerful, however we have the choice between good and evil in this world. In a book I read called letters from a skeptic, I think there is a good analogy with God and freedom. The author says, if I give someone 5 dollars and completly control the way they spend it, is it really their money? Well if God gives us freedom and controls what we do with it, is it really freedom? No. I believe that God gave us this choice (free will) and does not interveine in each person's life unless we call upon him to do so. If everyone in this world chose good, what would that be like?
Katie, that is very much the argument I wanted to make. Free will is how God allows evil among human beings, but how do you explain cruel animals? Natural disasters? I'm sure we would all call these things evil- we usually say evil and mean that someone has intent to do something malicious, but anything that causes a multitude of pain and suffering cannot possibly be good... can it?
Post a Comment