Monotheism and the Problem of Evil.pdf

7/25/2019 Monotheism and the Problem of Evil.pdf

1/12

MONOTISM AND HE PROBLE OF EV

Th ain obcv o ths papr i o how ha h pnco vi in his wold appars to b iconciab wh the xnco an omnpotnt omnicint and bnvon God, Who i aimedto b th Craor o th wold, and tha th can b gadd a ono h cognt argumnt for doubting h laubity o monohm

Monothsm, a a rgous hypoths, hod ha th crtiny s a niary pesona bng (God) Who is omnpontomnnt, na ut and bnevolnt and Who has crad thisunivr to achiv a pcc pupo of His own his manha accoding to hi hypothss God i a Pronal Raiy o aanscndnt Pon Who can b worshippd and lovd by und Who alo ov u and ca or u As a Cao of hwod H mmann in t and alo tanscnd ; bu H no

dnca wth i no i H ndint o hu so far as haon of God to h wod concnd boh panhim anddm a ecd by monothim. h hoy also c poy-him and dualic him by mainainng ha h i only onGod Who cannot in any way b nund o limtd b any ohpow his inni sona God aon is th objc o oupay and worhip and w can away rly upon Hi unmtd

powr for atanng gudanc tngh and pa our liv i obvious h, on ths heoy God no an impon forco an inlcua pncp H i ahr a concou pona bngWho can b actd by our pay wohp o tu dvoon oHim

h thoy i conrontd wih many riou dcui andof h h poblm of vl phap h mot omidabl and

ppar o adm o no asfacory outon hi pobm canb tad a foow A nn bng hav to undrgo nxpnc of phyical pan o urng n hr vs at som mo oh n mo o l cu dgr th bcau o cainnatural oc ov which thy hav no conto o bcau o hown bhaviou owad on anohr. i xprinc o phyicaluring i common o both animal and human bing and nondvdua bing compy immun from In addion to

hi physca pan humn bng a o im o ohr hav o


2/12

342 VED 1RAKSH ARMA

undgo an xpinc of mntal agony causd by an nor

nat happnngs (sc as an nrab disas o unmy dmisof a bovd on) wch a ompty byond i contolTs pain or surng s so pvasv n wold o sntntbings at non of m rmns and can rman woly noudby i Gaama Bdda ighly d tat sung i n ndnabl ac o if as sc J is is surng whr physa ormnal wh onsis oblm o v and wch sms tob concilabl wth h omnipon omnsn jus, oving and

bnvon God o monosmTo ndrsand is pobm mo ary i i ncssy o

dvid v ino wo agors I) morl vi and ( 2) naturalv Ev wh is causd by man's own nglgnc, gnoranc owidnss may b trmd moal vil" A sros an accidncasng unimy dats o many nnoen pop o ripplngnjus to m may b rsut of s ngignc on patof som alway mpoys. A pson may sr rom ncabcn o ngs casd by havy smoking simpy bcaus of ignoanc o aa s of obao Mans dibat andwanon ly to s low-bing wih s so widsprad n orword oday an b sad to b st f hs wckdnss or moaptd It is lar om s amps that man ims smor o ss sponsbl for s so of v bas i rsusom cs o is own wl is fo i ason that s

kind of vl s ald moral vil Bu scond cagoy onsttts at typ o vi ovr

wich man has no control and tho h cannot b ld sponsib or i Ths kind of vl may b cald naral vil fo rsuts from opaon o can nata aws hsnatral v cus consdab pain or srng o man bingsand also o o a Foods, icans arqaks,amins pdmis nd voanc oubr a som of th xmps of ths naal v Tosads of sntnt bings ardtoyd o sosy rppld by s na caamis wih dooccr in al parts of word a somtm otr. vn odaywn snc and tchnoogy cam o hav mad trmndousprogss man bcoms q ss agains s naracatastrophs Tus t is obvos a v n orm o pysapan o mnta gony is ahard ralty wich mst b ad by al

sts


3/12

MONOSM AD TH PRBM F EVIL 34

1e mortan ueion now e co deed he : hw

ca the eece o thi widepead evil be ecoled wth teexiece o God Who i ompoet omcet and beevolenCreato of hi wod ? H He cted th evl whch He doeot wa o edicate ? oher wor doe He deberey makeHi eet eig er heley ? o He caot beegaded allgoo, alllovig d eevoet God a heaim Hm to e On he othe had i God ealy wat toremove th ev ad nae to do o the He caot be coderedo e allpowel or omnpote. Morove f God a ceaed thi evi, whee ha t ome rom ? Ha bee ceated byome powe othe ha Go ? I th the cae mie thathere i ome oher powe whch i t ea eqal f o ueioro God. ao ime that God is oly ite ad imied ceh ohe owe eceaily impoe a lmtaio po Hm Thoin cao howeve, e accee o monohet, o hey

claim that thee i oy oe God Who and Who aloe i hCeator o th wold ad Who i a the ame tme te ada-oweul h moothetic vew ecealy ea haGod ha created evil ice here i o oher owe which withoutHi oet could have created i. Now we e aded veryerou dlemma we lly accet he mlco o the mootheic poito Eihe God cnnot eadcae evi deie he atha t i Hi ow ceatio o He doe ot ealy wa to emove t

we accep the rt aeative God cno e sd to be lower o omipoten; and i we acce the ecod aterativeHe caot be coieed to be a-god o benevolet ndedi thi eou dlemma cocering the extece o evi ad telaon to God which cotute the mot omidable obemo moothem ad which aea to me o be atal to t elgiou hyothei

ay hlooher have, howeve, atemted to ecociehe eece o ev thi world wih he eece o an omoe ad enevoen God Some o the o-caed outon ofthi eio oblem claimed o be coet wih moothemae a ollow

Jt i held by ome elgio-mded hloohe tha ai oueig i the elt o o jt eomee o m' ow

which eihe the er hime or h decedan ae ighly


4/12

344 VED PRAKSH VAM

punishd y God I hr man himsl, and no God

who is rsponsl hs suing his is how thory oKrm i popary nrprd y many rgios prsons Bthere a sv sous bjtons whic eem o fal o ishoy. In te r place, it is vy cut o say wha prcsy men y sin If sn" mans h disodnc of God'swill as mos ligios pople conen it o , how do w acykno wt Gods wll is nd o whom is vad '! hppars o e no sisfacoy and unanmuly accep answr os qion Scony i my asd why ar al mncomms n f h do commi t al. Th only asnaanswr o this quson sms o ht mn cmms sin bcs can nna ndncis o nsincs But who hs impndin hm se nral pocivis w ld him o t pa of sin ? ny anwr, cnin w montsm, is t it s GodWo has impland hs innat nsincs n mn Thi mns

ha God s maly sponsi o mans sin, cus cod hav fred him rom hs naural insincs if hd sowild idly on ts y t s vry diul to accoun o ufTerng of anmas and innocnt chidn, hy v noy had t opporunity o cmmtng sin w do no dysusci o h gy dios hypohsis o rith nd himmorliy of h soul Finly, his thory dos grv njusco descndns o t snnr sinc t hds y a rigly

pnsd y God no f hr own sns ut for h sns commitdy r ancsos. l God punshs nncn popl or wha

y msvs hv n don, H can nyhing igosnd s Jn sort a hs srios ocins conclsivly provthis try o unplsl

Th scond soluion o t polm vi is prsnd y sm

phosophrs who suscr o asolut dism Ths po-soprs comply dny h ly o vi nd rgrd it s wholysory Ty od t wa sms to vi s in fac good vwd a larg conx Thy also connd ha is a

whoy suciv xprinc and tr hs no r itnc sa pa o octiv aly Tus, H Bradly nly s s

t, Sinc in Ulimt Riy ll isnc nd ll thogh ndling co on, w my vn sy h vry far in h

nivrs is hus asly god1 imlaly dvocang his iw


5/12


6/12

346 VED PRAKSH VARM

The r teoy poposed by y piosophes o ccot

for e poblem of el regrds pi or suerig s ecessy daodae ftor fo e exisence nd ecognto of good.)[ os o eny te realty of e raher holds ha we uew goo ese of te pesence of el i s wo Ouror cacter becomes stoger an loer when we he togt d conquer io teptaions d eil tendecies witi us.he potagoiss o his teory lso coned it s seingwc ges us sreg an nes s to nre dsps wtcoge d orde A wor ", sys Wlla Temple, wc here w no icor wo e, so a an ife worBt tere o e icory tere s be oppostio To demndhe goo of icoy wihot te existece of a ngonis is oded sometig w o meig3 us, on ts eory,e eisece o e es o wod oay supeio o oe inwic tee s o el o be couee e expoes of tis

eoy mti tt te lue of our or ccer les istrg o gt d oercoe wha is e ey so hod ttt s suering wc genees gene compssion rooudlove i humn eings one anoter, so we canno dey ts getue i o ies

s heory seems o be ore coicg d siscory thne wo eoies entioe oe Bt ke he elie heores it is

so o fee fro mny seio ojecto wch ppear to el to ts plusbiy Jn e st pce it kes te exisencen knowledge of good woly epedet upon te existece dnowedge f el oter words o ts heoy good cotexist d nnot be recogie as goo wihout he exstece nowege of wt i b We ow wh is goo py ecusewe c istigs fro wt s ei Tis eans tat good d

eil are ntely reledtat s o sy e reltio o eil eersino he ery being of good es i wht it is lf tis s ueten goo canno be woy good Secondly, my e sked wyfte , Go costie our min sc a wy tt it is ueo ow goo wtou dsinguising it fom e God is oni-potent; an herefoe if e a esire, He could he gie uste cpcity to recognize good s good wiout te necessiy ofistiguishing fro e hus f mooheis s tue ou

knowege o g ad ts exsence eed no necessiy deed


7/12

MONOTHSM AND PROB OF EVIL 347

pon e knowledge and existence of w is bd. Tirdly, is

e dicu o beiee sueing-especill long nd cuesueing-can n an wy mpoe mn's chrce i common expeience t cte psicl seng conned oe

a ong peiod, oen s cee goodnured nd geneoseaed peson ino n iiabe inconsdee nd selcenrd

indd wose soe inteest i o ge ri f is own sengTis sows seing s no ony unnecessy b cn een ba poste obsace i th impvt f mn's crace

Foly, is thy s to con fo mol eilt i s, does t nswe e cc qesin : w do umn bengdeibeey ommi sins o cimes and ore e elowbengsand ote ceaes ? Ti esion ca lusbly be nsweed(as Lebniz ied o ans ) b sing a mn b hs vynaue i impeec nd bese o hi merecion e is som

mes inoed in al e If thi anwe is ceed as e

en e esponsbili o mns ma l lme fall GodWo ceaed im wi is mpeecon wic s ource o imo e God beng omnpoen cod ve ead mnwiout thj mpeecon and cold e ed rum fmmol el He ad so wed is gmen sws Godand no mn, is ltmtely esonsibe o is mol e llys eo wongl pespposes h i te g moun andso th is jus disibution o seing mongs umn beings is no ey dicl to tha soe mn beings e o

undego oo mc sueing whil es e oo lite sae o i

i no e ow th poponents f s teoy wod esonb ccon o thi obos goss inuse egding the disi-buon o seng T xpain is in ice ey wil peapsal back on e eoy o man sn b is eoy a we \eseen i a om ssfactoy Besdes i iusi coneig

e dstbion o sueing, th pespposiin of th ig amono seing n e wod as e seos implicaion wic

wo pointng o ee o wod s the igh mon o

seng and i good ests nd can be nown simy becse

is seng en pin o seing s s ow ge ae n te

Dine Ode o e wod s impls h i i o only nnecessry nd undesable b o a sio: i agais God o

se o edcae o en o dmini th mon o seng in

wold Ts, le aler wo hcoi s i oy bo


8/12

348 YEO PRKASH VARMA

makes our ers o eradcae o o aevae seng woly

ie ad nesirable Ths ided s a vey serous mplcaonwc consius aa ojecon o e oy n queso. so a hese ojecons, aken ogee co Iusi vey sow hahs eoy aso fais o pove a saisacory souon of eoem o ev

The four souio aso cognzes e eaiy o evi and

ies o accon or i on e ass of ee wil wich, i s sadis Gods gi o man God as ceaed ma wi e capacy ooose eely eween good an evi and s becase of hsfreedom o w ha e s caled "a moa being ' Moay restoh o e kowedge of good and ev ad aso o e aby ohooe freely wha is god and escew wa is bad f ma s

o e geniey free, he cao be compeed even by God o

coose wha is goodha s o say he ms e lef fe o oose

evil as we Ths ccodng o e popoens o s heoy,vil he re u o mas misse of is freedom o w ad ere-ore he, and o God is woy respoie o ev n is word.

free wi heoy lso appears o e very cnvncgand my pilosphes have regarded as a sasfacoy souiono e poem of ev we eamn is heoy more

hoougy and cicaly we sa nd ha s aso labe omany seos objeios wich pov i o e cocusivey n-

nae n e s plac i oes no a all accon or aal

v whch as we have seen is beyod mans conro Cons-dbe sueng s caused o uman eis an ohe eaures

y naa caasophs ad man canno be hed esposbeo is d of seig oreove ere s a grea deal o

:eng i e anma word ad i canno be expaned o h

ypoess o man's ree wi I s geerally eld ha aimasdo no have e eedom o w; an is s so why do ey

ser so mh pai wi Ly emseves do o reey choose ?Secodly even s acceped a ev s he esu o mans

misuse o e eeom o w God s no erey absod romhe reponsbiy fo e evl , as hess cam God s reay

Omnsce, s meas a He was alredy ully aware of he

ac a man migh misse is eeom o he w Bu, des-

pite is nowedge o ms poss miss o is fe wil


9/12


10/12

350 VE PRAKASH VARM

ike l other heoie iee ab, l i to recoce

the preece f evil in thi wo wih the exiece f allpowe-l a enevlen Go

Te th lutin (if t t l b le olo )o the lm o evil ha been popoe y me reigio pho-

phe wh reg it whlly b he pt mn to

ee o otio o th poem They hol tht hmn

neig i vey lmte a m pereive y mal

egmet Rt Wt hi imie piy etig,nte hm mn ot epet compehen he myeowy G Many hig. y St Ae e eyom mehenio, the pem f evl i oe thm .t heer mpee he pt f m o r to qe-ti h met t ie lpower Go he e o k why Go i t re thng difeetly ? Des-pite o g the wr. tly ih worhpe

oe t gi p h th i Ompote beeolen G

W f hm lwy t r th be Th cng the ooet o thi heoy, m ignt o be e

to n otio f h pbm f vil

i, hwee ot o ee h hi r igio ppohtw the oe o evi o tiy the wh wt

exame it citiall etive Pehp it w not beeso t ay tht the avocte o hi ppoah onem he vey ttemt o n a lu he pblem f vli ore to ve thei ow child-lk aih i he omipotecea beevoece f G. let wo eri jetio ce rge git thei view I the t pce, hmn eon eil compee tha the wo pitin( A "pao ig xis i thi wol

.n B) Go he Cetor

o h w bh ompott a eevole are wicnite wth eh othe ct thee mly coicg

rpio re not mch ey e gant t Wecnno net them impy ece hey mitte gint

eo bee udtd i lmte Th it h t ccep he iw that the poem o evil beohmn ertig Sely if re i mtet com-

ehenig G' w then w hll hve ee t e

bout eigio me t lgu hio ot m


11/12

MONOTHS AD RBLM OF EV 351

ta ta ter ypote caot b prov y rao; o cotrary tey cont tat er regious ypot are oyraioa a or ms ccepted as re Many agu-es, as w kow av bee avacd by se phosoperso prov t exence God ad so o prove teir assupio at ts erse rad y Hm aoe A ts estat ts posopers o cpt e coptce o reaso regar o ego maters. How ten ca y od wt

o secotracto a raso absoy ipoen copreeg te probe o ev ? s t o whoy artrary o rec copec of reaso dg a sooo proe o ev w ts copece s y accepd a otr regous matters ? s a ar o ac to say tatt probe o evi s yo an erandg s just ovade te wo sse ordr to save moos ro s

insuperabl cuty wc ee s ata to .In o a te ouio o proe o ev

w ave xd ee ad wc r pod to consw oots ai to solv ti probemat s o say ey o rcoc the prsence o ev n e wor w e xsece o t omipoet ad envoet Crator

vw o ts ordab cy posed y proem

o evl to mootesm soe \ocaes o t teory av ggesed aog Go s agoo H is ot powerus as at ome ses Go s i, ad s opossb ev or H to o crta tgs wic He ws to do"t as og bev sys Dvd o Trbood God s ted by e Jaws o ogc . Ev God cao raa trdepedet comy o persos wot aso produga sto n wc vs pr . rf ompoec eas

aty to o aytg 1e sry God s not opoet, dt pro o ev s o ony soue but rreduie. Buts sp oo o omnpoec s a p cds otoad o wc reecve togt ca remov'4 T samto a avoca o ooes s a ra admisso o e acttat e exstce o ev cano b reconcd t onpoece o Go a tat God s ot ereor onpoet te

ss o g a to o wavr H ws to do But rcIPQ . .4


12/12

352 V AK VAM

d al hi in mipoece "a uey childih n

wc, accdng him mus be abaded The qtonten aris : to e ae o d aytig e wan o do is omniece wa ee an is em ma ? So a a Iw rueblod des give any aisacry asw t isustn L ti mnipoee to be ascribed o Gd mu be xeced t do anyhig e was t d; ad e suabe to do s He s mnien he real sen o

rm. H i w intig ou here ha ke Truebod omther tags o eimu as Hng Rasdall, WlamJames, E S riman and P A Becciav deied hmniece o Gd hs sese hey sut ( me esr her) e Dtine o Divine Fitude by ayig ta Gd'snwdge nd pwe ae limited, theef He s n mn-e in te ene o big ae o now ad do anyhng Hwa On his view eve God canno ue ev alhough

e s Hme allgd ad wnt t overcome itNw i we acet doctine h imiain Gd as

ue, en w sha have abandon mnhem h becausei hat ase we hal have o adm ta n addiin Gd h m e pwe wich i n up t at leas coeualwith Gd d whch eessy moes a lmtat un m ided, s mnteism u duaiic hism and has

ow dculies which I do not pose o dcuss hre rteir dcussin i beyd he puview my per I y watto stes h ac ta e rejecion Gd mnene eces-sary etals the a abndme mnhm We canhus cnclude ha te peece ev e wld is raialyrcociae wh the mhec coceo God andheere my be regaded as a cnluve evidece agaits eory

Deament PhiosphyUivesiy o eli

NOTES

e Prakash ama

F Bdly "Apearnc n Rlit ", p 4122 Bd Bosqut, Th Vl Dsy f h Iv

p. 09, 17.

3 Wm Tm, M Cx 268. D E ubood" ooy o Regi p. 26

Monotheism and the Problem of Evil.pdf

Documents