|
|
|
4GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
People throughout the ages have experienced great difficulty in reconciling the existence of an all powerful and loving God, with the persistence of suffering and evil in the world. They find it incomprehensible how this God could even allow such things to exist. The philosophical literature in the area is extensive but inconclusive. It is not the intention of the author to review it here, but to tackle this difficult and controversial subject from another point of view.
What Is Evil?
There is, in fact, no universally agreed definition of evil, and the only consensus appears to lie in the negative connotations of the word. Interpretations along the lines of “anything displeasing to God”, may be theologically appealing, but of very limited use in the context of our discussion. As the problem arises from a human perspective, I have chosen an equally broad but human oriented view. First I shall define suffering simply as unpleasant experience anywhere on a continuum from the most mild and temporary individual annoyance to the most unimaginable permanent distress for the entire human race. For practical purposes, evil can then be thought of as anything that is causally associated with suffering or bad experiences. Thus evil and suffering are distinct concepts, but nonetheless strongly related, for without suffering, evil loses its power and meaning, and without evil, suffering is largely devoid of explanation. Suffering, however, is not necessarily evil in itself and the causal connection may not be immediate but more remote and often difficult to identify.
One must be careful with the interpretation of suffering, for much confusion can arise when some negative experiences are reinterpreted as good simply because they eventually lead to an even better outcome than would otherwise have been possible. This is not to deny that such situations frequently do occur, but in pursuing this line of reasoning, one could, with certain assumptions, argue away the existence of evil altogether. The possible benefits of suffering will not be considered in this discussion.
Some Basic Reasoning
It would be arrogant for any mere human being to claim to know the mind of God, however, it is basic theology in most major religions that there are some things that God is unable, or at least unwilling, to do. For example, he ‘cannot' lie, deceive, contradict himself or create a system that is inherently inconsistent. If he were to do any of these, it would be very difficult to describe him as perfect.
Secondly, although good and evil, like beauty and ugliness, are meaningful concepts, they have no separate tangible existence in themselves apart from the things they describe. Good and evil are evaluations or perceived attributes of something, not independent entities in their own right.
Thirdly, anything can only be regarded as evil or bad because a sensitive being dislikes it and may suffer because of it. If there were no such being, human or otherwise, the way things are would be neither good nor bad, but simply ‘the way they are'.
The Real Questions
The issue, therefore, is not 'Why does God allow evil and suffering to exist?' but why does he allow situations we dislike to exist or allow us to be sensitive to them with such intensity? We will begin by addressing the matter of 'sensitivity', which makes suffering possible in the first place.
The Nature of Sensitivity
It is clear that without sensitivity, life and the universe would be meaningless to us and happiness would be impossible. It is also reasonable to assume that if we originated from a loving Creator, then our capacity to be sensitive was intended for happiness rather than suffering. However, valid as such assertions may be, they tend to overlook the more comprehensive nature and role of sensitivity.
Some elementary reasoning would probably convince most of us that sensitivity in both directions is necessary and desirable. If we imagine ourselves accidentally touching a hot stove, we easily appreciate the value of pain in motivating us to withdraw our hands as quickly as possible. The ability to suffer is clearly essential to self-preservation, and historically, people who had no such sensitivity generally did not live very long.
Furthermore, we observe that our sensitivity is not a simple uniform unchanging attribute. While some of it is innate, a major part is learned. As we grow, it progressively expands to encompass interests beyond our narrow and limited selves. It is strongly influenced by our upbringing, especially our embedded values and beliefs, and it can be heightened or dulled by abuse and natural processes. As a result, sensitivity is highly variable across humanity, and this has considerable advantages: Society as a whole thrives on a combination of similarities and differences as fruitful cooperation between people nearly always involves both. Similarities allow empathy and enable interests to be shared, while differences encourage specialisation, variety and cultural richness, which in turn, generally benefit the individual. On the other hand, the variable nature of sensitivity also has immediate implications for suffering and the perception of evil: The same external reality is likely to affect people differently, and it becomes clear that even where general agreement may exist, there is no way that one person's pleasure or anguish can be compared with another's. In this respect, the human view of evil as a causal agent must necessarily be subjective and relative.
Unwelcome Experiences
Given our sensitivities, why should things we dislike be allowed to happen to us? It seems that a major part of the answer lies in freedom and its implications. If God wanted a universe functioning entirely by rigid laws and inhabited by beings that could only behave as they were programmed, then all contact with the unwelcome could probably have been prevented. However, one wonders just how ideal such a situation would really be. For example, those of us who have experienced being loved and value it, cherish the freedom of the lover. After all, being in the arms of a partner who has no choice, is just not the same! The presence of freedom clearly brings expanded possibilities and potential benefits - but only at a price. In the case of the lovers, rejection must also be permitted otherwise freedom is meaningless.
We shall now consider the consequences of freedom more deeply, with special attention to the natural requirement of ‘system coherence' and the inseparable benefits and costs of diversity. We then focus on the important relationship between freedom, motivation and the necessity of evil, and our discussion culminates in what may be called the creator's dilemma. The remainder of the article is concerned with the relative responsibilities of humanity and God, and addresses a few classic questions.
Freedom and Consistency
What human beings seem to idealise is unlimited pleasure without anything they dislike. They want right without wrong, and compatibility without incompatibility. They desire power and choice but no responsibility. They want the delight of surprise and learning without the drawbacks of ignorance. It should always be possible to succeed but never to fail. They value being freely accepted but rejection should not exist. Voluntary love is treasured, but indifference should be banned. Above all, God should let us have freedom but stop others exercising it when we don't like what they are doing. If such a world could have a physical parallel, there would be ‘up' but no ‘down' and objects would have a front without a back.
Any working entity must be balanced and consistent to be viable, and certain necessary principles must be adhered to. One example is our exchange economy. No system that incorporates the useful freedom to borrow and lend, can function without the ‘obligation to repay'. Handled wisely, this freedom can improve the position of the individual and society. However, when it is abused, it is likely to result in extreme hardship. It cannot be any other way, for a system that automatically cancels every debt as soon as the money is borrowed, is clearly an absurdity. Likewise, the benefits of making life more predictable through contracts and laws, cannot exist without enforcement that can be brought to bear whether we like it or not!
To understand why things must work as a coherent system, we need to remember that material realities are neither intrinsically good nor bad in themselves, nor are they aware of how we feel about them. They are merely coherent packages of possibilities brought into tangible being by the laws of the universe and the limited intervention of sensitive beings. It is we who make the value judgements and have the freedom to choose which cohesive package we make a reality. However, we cannot pull such packages apart, discard the aspects we dislike, and expect the remainder to be viable. Neither can we assemble any random collection of items into a working unit just because we happen to like all of them. Absolute freedom is impossible. The universe itself can only exist because there are some fixed and dependable laws that do not change according to our varied, and often whimsical, individual preferences. Thus, we have the freedom to walk off a cliff, but we cannot expect the law of gravity to make an exception because we don't wish to be injured. It comes as a package: we can take it as it is, or leave it and look for another we like better.
While the ability to experience suffering appears to be a necessary feature of our sensitivity, the actual occurrence of most undesirable experiences does not have to be inevitable. However, if we value our freedom, avoiding them must remain largely our own responsibility. We must be able to taste decayed food, but there is no reason why it need enter the mouth in the first place as long as proper precautions are taken. God does not want human beings to be unhappy any more than a moneylender wishes the borrower to end up in poverty, but it is we who must choose wisely. In other words, according to the way we use our freedom within any coherent system, we can bring good experiences or suffering onto ourselves.
Diversity and Conflict
There is another perspective that focuses on the benefits and costs of human freedom itself. It appears to be a universal principle, that any restriction to prevent something undesirable will also preclude many possibilities that are good. Freedom generates diversity, and it is indisputable that variety and difference expand possibilities in ways that uniformity can never do. The existence of free and sensitive human beings who can differ in their aptitudes, preferences, pathways of learning and even reactions to the same material realities, enable vast avenues to be explored that would otherwise be closed. Their ability to cooperate voluntarily, opens extensive opportunities for development and good experiences. However, the necessary common environment that enables this, also opens the possibility of conflict. Where it is not feasible to separate those who have incompatible sensitivities and values, their attempts to make their own preferences prevail may result in escalating appeals to force ending in violence, reluctant submission or ongoing persecution. So once again, we cannot have the benefits of freedom and eliminate all possibility of evil and suffering at the same time.
Paradoxically, most conflicts arise out of the natural pursuit of our own good, rather than any maliciousness towards others. The central problem lies neither in the individual differences, nor in the common environment, but in the size of the 'self' we consider in our pursuit of happiness, and the poverty of options we investigate. As human beings, we live with endemic ignorance, laziness, impatience and other limitations. Most of us are content with a narrowly educated awareness and operate most comfortably at an 'obvious' superficial level with a short-term perspective. An extreme microcosm is the scene of domestic violence: One party may be painfully sensitive to certain types of behaviour in their partner, and react with instant physical force. The 'self' they are concerned about is limited to what is in their own sphere of immediate interests, and even within that context, there is no consideration of other possibly more effective and mutually beneficial ways of accomplishing the same objectives. Neither is the victim always powerless, for often the problem could be diminished considerably or avoided altogether if they modify their own behaviour and seek the good of a greater self that includes their partner.
One of the greatest challenges facing humanity from the local to the global level has always been to coexist happily, and solutions have tended to be limited and impermanent. If individual and collective development is to proceed with less conflict-based suffering, the answers are not likely to lie in the multiplication of laws and restrictions imposed from above, but rather in the disciplined exploration of options which consider the good of an expanded 'self'. First, we must be prepared to look beyond our instinctive, obvious, habitual courses of action and question some of the conveniently biased popular philosophies that support them. We will return to this later in our discussion of responsibility.
Freedom and the Necessity of Evil
Historically speaking, if the account of the Scriptures is accepted, it appears that the experience of suffering is something which humanity brought onto itself by asserting its freedom before it was ready to exercise it with sufficient knowledge and wisdom. This has often been reflected in the behaviour of people who get themselves into situations they cannot handle and suffer dire consequences. In the course of exercising freedom prematurely, the human species evidently also did fundamental damage to itself whereby it became a prisoner of natural processes. Our interdependent and procreative nature, while opening boundless opportunities for good experiences, is such that decisions made by one person can affect other people, including a chain of off-springs. Thus we inherit the outcomes prescribed by a consistently operating universe.
This, however, seeks to account for the presence of evil by looking into the past. It does not explain why the possibility of experiencing suffering is a necessary feature of our existence from a future perspective. One view is that if human beings are to be more like God who loves and voluntarily does good to other sensitive beings, then we could never ‘do good' freely if no possibilities but good ones existed. When people are free, some will choose to ‘do evil' (cause suffering), and to a degree, God must let it happen.
Another consideration is that unconditional happiness may destroy human motivation, make freedom pointless and ultimately be inconsistent with our intended destiny and role in the universe. The issue of motivation is important in both the individual and the social context. Promises of benefit or suffering can be used to support or deter different types of conduct without removing freedom and its advantages. Thus God uses these promises for our own good and so that we can fulfill our role in his plan. Government employs them to maintain social order and avoid anarchy, and they are an essential means of maintaining discipline in management, the military and the family. Nevertheless, again the costs cannot be avoided, for as much as they can encourage heroic behaviour and outstanding achievement, they can also be used to induce unimaginable crimes.
There is a further interesting line of reasoning that may help to explain the phenomenon of evil. Where freedom exists, motivation, decision-making and rational choice all depend on the emergence of preferences, which can only come from a perception of some options being relatively better or worse than others according to our individual sensitivities. Once the ‘better' has been identified, the alternative automatically becomes 'worse', and if it is much better, then the contrast can only be much worse. When we get attached to one of our preferences, strong feelings can develop to the point where the alternative is seen as a calamity. This is illustrated in the classic fictional tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. Neither of them was suicidal before they met and experienced a far greater happiness than anything they had before. It was only then that the thought of being without each other became unbearable. Evil, for Juliet, became anything that could take away Romeo. The argument is that preferences and the existence of evil are mutually dependent, and attachment to very strong preferences generates its own threat of suffering. Here we encounter the Buddhist teaching that ‘who ceases to crave, ceases to suffer'. However, this comfort may come only at the price of surrendering the strong passion that has also led to some of humanity's greatest achievements.
At this point we remind ourselves that in the context of our original problem, we are dealing with human suffering and the human perception of evil. They cannot be separated from individual sensitivity, preference, love, motivation, and the costs and benefits of freedom and diversity. In the background lies the basic agenda of God which gives meaning to the existence of humanity, the universe and everything in it, namely the positive pursuit of good.
God's Dilemma?
So what can God do to make suffering and evil impossible, or at least more limited? Restraining our freedom reduces diversity and adversely affects the meaning and value of love. Reducing our sensitivity curtails motivation and limits the value of freedom. Restricting the range of achievable possibilities is also pointless unless all people dislike the same things and the advantages of human variety are given up. Every which way, the price is always paid in the possible good that is forgone.
Evil People
A sensitive and caring person may find it hard to imagine how any fellow human being could be capable of callous violence and brutality. It is natural to regard these perpetrators of suffering as evil people. Without entering a discussion on whether we have the right to judge another individual, as distinct from his actions, a person who harms a large number of people would generally be seen as more evil than the one who harms only a few. However, this argument may be difficult to defend in many cases, for the character which allows a person to commit premeditated atrocities may be the same regardless of the number. Thus with crimes such as mass murder, although the collective suffering may be multiplied, the nature of the perpetrator has no simple relationship to the scale of the outcome. Another reason why it is difficult to measure the intrinsic evilness of an individual is that he may have had fewer victims, not because he was of better character, but merely because he had less power or opportunity. It may be rather like incompetence: The same fool in a more powerful position or a more sensitive situation can do a lot more damage.
Traditionally, good and evil are strongly associated with the concept of intention. An action is seen as good when the intent is good and vice-versa. The merits of this view are strong in the sense that it is relevant to assessing our own motives before decisions are made, and investigating the characters of other people as causal agents. Nevertheless, the principle also has major weaknesses. Firstly, it does not consider the relativity of good 'for whom'. A person can unintentionally, but knowingly, cause a lot of suffering to others beyond his sphere of interest through the deliberate pursuit of good for himself and his own 'side'. Secondly, it is devoid of responsibility. ‘Intention', by itself, stops short of the obligation to follow up all the effects of one's behaviour, and to be fully accountable for any damage done through the use of power. Whilst reckless drivers do not deliberately set out to harm anyone, even common law recognises negligence as culpable. Intentions may be useful in distinguishing wickedness where a person ruthlessly pursues his own aims or deliberately harms others, from human weakness which we all possess; however, both contribute to suffering in the world, not only the former.
Why doesn't God stop 'evil people' before they cause suffering? Why does he allow them to do things that are clearly contrary to his own commandments? Why did he make us capable of deliberately hurting others? To a large extent these questions have already been addressed in our discussion on freedom.
It is possible that God does intervene where he finds it necessary, but such questions still place the responsibility squarely on his shoulders. Perhaps it is God who is wondering how far he has to let evil and suffering go before humanity heeds his advice and takes the appropriate responsibility.
Responsibility
While suffering is very real to each sensitive being, it is an entirely personal experience. Thus, ‘what is evil' cannot be determined autocratically or democratically, but remains an individual judgement by each person in relation to his own sensitivities. People differ and preference is clearly neither uniform throughout society nor even rigid within the individual, so any consensus is likely to be limited and transient. On the other hand, it is also clear that a workable, just and peaceful society can only exist if people are held accountable for any suffering they cause. If a person wants to exercise freedom, which is power and control, then he must carry the responsibility, and indeed, it would be difficult to imagine any justice without such a principle. Law attempts to define responsibility and enforce it, and undeniably this is a great step forward from anarchy, but the ability of law to control evil is ultimately very limited as history has shown.
The management of evil can only begin to make serious progress when the principle of responsibility is elevated from the legal to the moral plane. Here, the apparently obvious hides some important subtle implications. Let us return to the analogy of the stove. While there is no evil in the sensitivity of the hand, nor in the burning element, suffering does result from any prolonged contact between the two. Thus, although we cannot be answerable for sensitivities in ourselves or in others, and there might be nothing intrinsically evil in either party, the freedom we possess implies that we are responsible, not only for our explicit behaviour, but for the way we voluntarily place ourselves in relation to others. We have no licence to enter a close relationship by choice without due regard for the other person's preferences as well as our own. Hence we need to move towards an awareness of mutual good suggested in principles such as, ‘love your neighbour as yourself', and beyond a merely legalistic interpretation of rights and obligations. Among the implications are, that wherever possible, relationships should be kept at the kind of ‘distance' where extreme disharmony is avoided, at least until changes can be made that allow responsible coexistence at a more intimate level. In other words, we must learn to adapt, or avoid locking ourselves into relationships until we know we can get along.
As pointed out earlier, although intentions, by themselves, are not adequate as a final arbiter of good and evil, they are a necessary and useful starting point in decision making. To be of any practical moral value, they must be supported by a more comprehensive view that tries to be as far reaching as all of the consequences, otherwise the decision is irresponsible. Furthermore, whenever the intended benefit of some people overrides the well-being of the rest of the community, the short term good is pursued at the expense of the longer term, or more superficial considerations are placed ahead of deeper ones, the action is likely to be more evil than good. Altogether, the outlook must be inclusive rather than exclusive and conveniently limited.
The dynamics of evil is a vast subject that is beyond the scope of our discussion, but a few of its features may provide some useful insight. Although the long-term, broader and deeper consequences of an action are generally of greater importance, we are naturally more sensitive to any immediate superficial consequences to ourselves. Hence these tend to have a much more powerful motivating effect. Secondly, it is perhaps ironic that evil doers always require connection with some good to carry on their activities. This is self evident, for any action that serves nobody's interests in any way would be irrational. However, the association with good also serves to disguise the evil and encourage compromise and dependence. A typical example is the sponsorship of sport and education by companies that profit on their customers' addiction to harmful substances. The strategic use of lies and deception combine with ignorance, wishful thinking and convenient rationalisation, to render people more vulnerable to seduction and corruption. In the extreme, it can lead to mass perversion and organised crime where the participants become more and more entangled in the promotion of evil, and every way out threatens to involve intolerable suffering to themselves.
Although human weakness, wickedness and irresponsibility are major contributing factors to suffering in the world, the roots of evil often lie deeper in the unquestioned values, assumptions, beliefs and principles by which people live and society is organised. A classic illustration is the notion of superiority based on race or religion, which has led to countless persecutions throughout history. Even potentially useful principles, when applied without discernment, can be as harmful as those that are patently false. For example, our emphasis on competitiveness, winning and ‘success', with an artificially generated scarcity of rewards, can result in as much destructive behaviour against people as it contributes to the ‘pursuit of excellence'. Ideas, unlike actions, live beyond the reach of legislation and enforcement, yet they can instigate very far reaching outcomes for better or worse at any level from the individual to the global. One is reminded that every major political or religious movement started this way leaving its imprint on society, and individually, much of our own personal destinies are shaped by the tenets we hold. Without addressing the problem at this fundamental level, in ourselves first, and in our fellow human beings through example and education, we have little prospect of making a better world.
A more extensive treatment of the subject of responsibility is beyond the scope of this discussion, but one further issue will be addressed. How far should we go in taking action against what we personally perceive as evil? Evidently, we were not meant to destroy the evil-doers themselves, except perhaps as a last resort in self defence. The objective is to change an evil situation into a good one for all parties concerned: Not to kill the enemy, but to convert him into a friend. The indications are that when we actively seek the good of a larger ‘self' that includes all who are affected by our behaviour, the presence of evil will probably decline of its own accord, even though the possibility must always continue to exist.
Events Beyond Human Control
As much as our responsibility goes further than commonly assumed, some things we regard as evil remain outside our individual or collective control. At this time, the list still includes most natural disasters, famines, epidemics, ageing and illnesses that are not known to be life-style related. Intrinsically, these things are merely natural phenomena, and the evil lies not in their existence, but in our exposure to them. The Scriptures suggest that a ‘paradise' was originally set up by God to protect us from such hazards, but our earliest ancestors made choices that were not compatible with such an environment. Nevertheless, with the progress of science, it appears that our helplessness in the face of 'inevitable' or 'cataclysmic' events may be declining, and perhaps we are destined to be able to avoid most of them completely some time in the future.
On the surface it may appear that natural phenomena are the predominant causes of suffering in the world, but with the exception of unavoidable illness and aging, their role is often exaggerated. In earthquakes, people rarely die from the shaking of the ground but from the collapse of shoddy building construction. The Aids epidemic in Africa was not spread by the forces of nature but by irresponsible sexual behaviour. The emerging evidence also strongly suggests that complacency and environmental mismanagement lie at the heart of much of the suffering associated with natural occurrences. Even where these events might precipitate the crisis, human failings such as corruption, selfishness and negligence are often the major contributors to the undesirable consequences.
By comparison, the greater part of suffering originates directly from human behaviour and the kind of society we have created. Wars and genocide are directed by people . Violent crime is mostly the product of individual character and social circumstances. Oppression and poverty are more the outcomes of greed and the abuse of power. Suicides from mental anguish, loneliness, shame and despair are predominantly a feature of an apparently orderly environment. Deaths and injuries from road traumas and other accidents number millions annually, and relatively few of these are specifically caused by natural incidents. Thus human behaviour and the highly varied individual problems in society lead to far more suffering in total than nearly all the prominent natural events that reach the news. Considering “God's dilemma”, preventing natural disasters may well be the easiest part of the task. However, it would only make a dent in terms of total suffering.
Confidence, Hope and Compassion
Whichever way we rationalise the existence of evil and suffering, circumstances continue to arise where we are held captive of situations that we find offensive. Eventually we might alter our perceptions and sensitivities, negotiate some relief or possibly solve the problem with a creative approach: Survival situations have shown how remarkably adaptable people can be. Failing that, we finally do withdraw from extreme distress, either to insanity or death and perhaps a hope in God's promises.
If such a God exists, then justice requires that no person should suffer permanently as a result of a process he did not initiate, and that he should be fairly compensated or rewarded. This also suggests that there is hope and that finally good will prevail. However, it takes a lot more skill to fix things than to ruin them, and according to the Scriptures, it is beyond the capacity of human beings to 'save themselves' entirely by their own efforts. We are told that ultimately only God can 'deliver us from evil'. To make this possible, we must freely and willingly let him work within us. Like being in need of major surgery, it requires deep trust and cooperation. This is largely what the story of the 'redemption' is about. We are told that the Son of God willingly suffered death by crucifixion, in order to save humanity, and it is here that our ultimate hopes lie. Thus, despite the abundance of suffering, there is also much evidence to suggest that God is far from indifferent to the human encounter with evil. We are assured that it can be overcome, that nothing is allowed to happen to us without God's consent, and no person can be permanently harmed except by his own doing when he fails to use power in a loving way.
There is much that individual people can do to reduce the suffering that already exists, but first it is necessary to tune in to the needs of others with sufficient concern. This is the essence of compassion. It is natural for sensitive beings to try to avoid contact with the unpleasant or try to ignore it, and when we perceive the suffering of others, we often shut it out because we find it too awful to contemplate or too distant to be of immediate relevance to us. At the other extreme, some mistakenly believe that out of compassion they have to suffer in the imagination. However, the real purpose of compassion is to galvanise us to do what we can to help alleviate their condition, not to be uselessly debilitated on their behalf and appear to care without lifting a finger. The proof of compassion lies in the action rather than the feeling. When there is really nothing that can be done, we might still have confidence in the ultimate justice of a loving God.
The Ultimate Paradox?
If God created all things, did God create evil? In the light of our earlier discussion, I believe this may be more a 'play on words' than a real question. Nevertheless it has been a controversial issue for many theologians.
First an important point needs to be clarified. Good and evil are not created in their own right. They are 'evaluations' which cannot exist apart from the possibilities they describe. It is we who have made abstractions out of them and given them an imaginary life of their own. One is reminded of the biblical story where 'God created [the universe] and saw that it was good.' He did not create 'good', but used his discernment to evaluate what he had created. There is a further argument to support this view. If we believe that God is good, which is upheld by the Scriptures, then it becomes nonsense to say that he created 'good', for it would imply that prior to that he was not good. The same reasoning must apply to the abstract quality of 'evil'. A more reasonable interpretation of the question, therefore, is whether God is the origin of evil possibilities, and whether God is the creator of evil phenomena in the world as we know it.
Perhaps a fruitful perspective may lie in the distinction between reality and possibility. It may be reasonable to say that God is the origin of all that is possible, however, it is arguable that the possibilities in themselves are not creations as such, but part of his eternal knowledge. As a sensitive being, he can evaluate each of them, which is consistent with the biblical implication that God 'knows both good and evil'. There is, nevertheless, a vast difference between knowing a possibility and making it a reality. In line with the teaching that God is love, it can be argued that he never initiates anything that leads to inevitable involuntary suffering. However, in creating other 'free and sensitive' beings in his own image, he had to give them a measure of power and access to a range of possibilities , otherwise freedom is meaningless and the potential for good experiences would be severely limited. There is nothing inherently immoral in knowing how evil could be done, and indeed it is probably essential. If love requires freedom, and both of these are necessary for the greatest good to be achievable, then not only do we need to know what we may do, but also what must be avoided . In other words, effective discernment also requires us to be aware of what causes harm, and this is true in almost every professional field. The unavoidable price is the human power to do evil by choice. Thus God is not responsible for evil in the world, except to the extent that his pursuit of the ultimate good involves a necessary risk that we might reject his guidance and set in motion an undesirable chain of consequences.
The Role of Temptation and 'the Devil'
Until now, any reference to Satan has been deliberately avoided so as not to cloud the issue of human responsibility. Some religious traditions attribute the origin and existence of evil to Satan, or the Devil. However, this view is fraught with problems such as the implication that some spiritual being (created by God) could invent a possibility that was unknown to God. This, of course, is absurd. It is more likely that Satan and his followers, like us, were exposed to a variety of possibilities and made a choice. Nevertheless, the biblical story that Satan's temptation originally misled mankind, is not being disputed.
In the context of our discussion, a temptation is essentially an attractive opportunity that ought to be resisted because it could lead to involuntary suffering, perhaps at a deeper level and possibly for other people. To be a genuine temptation the opportunity must have perceived advantages, especially when the risks are denied, disputed or minimised. It is accompanied by a misleading form of persuasion which could originate from anywhere including spiritual sources such as the Devil, our own desires or other people with sinister vested interests. Any evil-doing logically assumes the presence of some kind of temptation, but regardless of the source of persuasion, no person can divest himself of the responsibility for his actions. 'Temptations by the Devil' may be a partial explanation for the presence of evil in the world, but never an acceptable excuse.
Conclusion
Whatever explanations we offer, the existence of suffering and evil still remain among the great mysteries of life. Perhaps it is no more puzzling than why we should be able to feel good, or indeed, be conscious at all. Nevertheless, the greater the evil as we perceive it, the more we are inclined to wonder at its meaning and question the existence of a loving God who would allow such things. However, it is equally reasonable to suggest that if there is such a God, he is a sensitive being who is not only acutely aware of each individual person's suffering, but is also likely to have much farther, broader and deeper vision than any of us who may be inclined to jump to conclusions.
|
|
 |
 |