Evil and Suffering Essay

The problem of malign and pang is perhaps the greatest of all challenges to religious belief. It is the difficulty of reconciling the domain of wickedness in the world with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent idol. It is best explained in the inconsistent triad a vertex dating from Epicurus and Augustine that acknowledges the main problem believers face how chamberpot there be a deity that is all good, powerful and knowing if evil exists, as the problem of evil itself is a contradiction within the belief of a deity.The problem of evil is an extensive problem. Whether malum culpae moral evils we inflict upon one another (murder), or malum poenae evil caused by infixed occurrences (earthquakes) it is the direct cause of the suffering we endure each day.Different religious perspectives require assorted answers the problem of evil, which in itself has numerous debatable aspects, is therefore interpreted in different ways by atheists, agnostics and theists. To theists particularly, the existence of evil in our world poses more than a merely philosophical or apologetic problem it creates a actually personal religious one, as although our painful experience may not challenge our belief that God exists, what may be at risk is our office in a God we can freely worship and be intimate, and in whose love we can feel secure.Some suggest that evil is merely the separate we give to inexplicable, nonsensical occurrences that defy explanation that is why they are evil. However, some believe that evil is necessary, as it is merely a deprivation of good that provides wrinkle and allows us to appreciate the good God has given us.Give an account of two solutions and consider the view that they fail to solve the problem of suffering. 32The problem of evil has been reconsidered and reformulated many times since the time of Epicurus the main theodicies stemming from the Free Will Defence, which states that evil is necessary to defend mans free wil l.Augustine based his theodicy on the teachings in coevals, primarily believing that every God made organism is good. He did not believe it an illusion like Mary Baker Eddy, besides alike Aquinas, views it as a privatio boni a deprivation of good, originating from Adams disobedience in the Garden of Eden. He held that we deserved punishment through natural evil, and it was this that produced a distance from God where moral evil could flourish. He believed that God is justified in allowing evil to stay, as He will then be merciful and save some in Christ, as well as gaining justice through condemning some to hell.However, the challenge of evolutionary theory opposes Genesis on two points. Firstly, it hints to an instant creation rather than a process of evolution stating that the world began perfectly, which completely contradicts all evolutionary theories and evidence modern scientists go for gathered that support an earthly progression from simplicity to complexity. Secondly, Da rwins theory of the Selfish Gene, that every creature, in the long run, acts to maximize the number of its descendants, challenges his theory of real perfection.There is also a logical error, as according to Augustine, evil seems to have created itself out of nothing If the origin of evil is Adam, and God is the creator of Adam, is God not then the origin of evil? Also, the appeal to free will as the source of evil is illogical in a world where there was no knowledge of good and evil. If the creatures chose to disobey they must have known evil, which means it must come from God. Finally, hell appears to be a part of the normal of the universe, implying that God anticipated that evil would enter, which adds a very controversial aspect of theist understandings of God.A well-known view is the Irenaean theodicy, revived by Hick in his book Evil and the God of Love in 1966. In contrast to Augustines theodicy, the key idea of the Irenaean works is that the human race was not created in a state of perfection but in a state of imperfection but leading to a state of perfection. The basis of this theory stems from the biblical teachings in Genesis 1, stating that first of all God created man in His own image, aiming also to make men in his likeness in the second stage of life.The means to attain this likeness is through free choice, which in turn implied the potential to disobey. This is commonly known as the Vale of someone making condensed by Hick into the epistemic distance (a distance that allows us to be responsible and to have the free choice to make that leap of belief to be with God). This is pictured by Michelangelos Creation of Adam, in which Adam is viewed very much in imago dei. Kierkegaard also illustrated the act of attaining true love rather than merely being compliant through the parable of the king and the peasant girl.Scholars such as John Mackie have challenged this theory logically, as certainly if there is an opposite evil for all good, then Go d himself must face equal evils at the end of the cycle. He also conjured up the conundrum of Omnipotence based on the question that can God create rules, which bind himself? and also, the thought that suffering (such as innocent children dying), can never be an convention of Gods love. Many theists would, however, support that evil is merely there to test our faith, but D Z Phillips contradicts this point, saying that It is never justifiable to terms someone in order to help them.Many follow Irenaeas theory, as it is a universalised concept of heaven, however that feature in itself makes it unjust. There is, therefore, no bonus for this Vale of Soul Making, as it questions Gods justice denying genuine freedom and removing any point of moral effort.