The Nature of Evil

In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

There is an old logic argument, lately from  J. L. Mackie (1955)  and H. J. Mcloskey (1960), that goes something like this. (paraphrased)

If we believe God exists, and that

     1.       God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.

     2.       A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.

     3.       An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.

     4.       An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

     5.       A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

     6.       If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.

Evil exists (logical contradiction) or God does not exist as omnipotent, omniscient, all good or exist at all.

Consider the following statement WHICH DENIES THE CONCLUSION OF NUMBER 5 ABOVE.  “It is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.”

     1.       If God were to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, would it be possible for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and yet for there to be evil and suffering? Many theists answer “Yes.” If (1) were true, (2) through (6) would have to be modified to read:

     2.       If God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

     3.       If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all-powerful—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

     4.       If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it (that is, he must not be all-knowing)—unless he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

If evil and suffering exist, then either:

a) God is not omnipotent, not omniscient, nor not perfectly good, nor existent; or

b) God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

From (2) through (5), it is not possible to conclude only that God does not exist. The most that can be concluded is that either God does not exist or God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. So, some theists suggest that the real question behind the logical problem of evil is whether b) is true.

If it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering to occur, then the logical problem of evil fails to prove the non-existence of God. If, however, it is not possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, then it seems that (a) would be true. God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

I must confess as a theologian I much favor b). However, in the end we will see it does not matter whether God exists or permits evil.

If  b) is correct, then what is the root of evil?

A biblical interpretation reveals that there are two Genesis creation stories.  The first in Gen 1:26 Makes no effort to explain evil  I should also note it does not subjugate women nor imply earthly life is punishment or sentencing as follows: Gen 1:26-31 KJV

                    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have  dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

                    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

                    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

                    29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

                    30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

                   31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.-

In this first creation story it is clear the earth is good and humankind were made gender equal and rewarded with “dominion”.

The second story is the well-known Garden of Eden story in Gen 2:4 to 3:24 wherein Adam and  Eve’s disobedience is punished with the horrific comments in Gen 3:16-19

However the latter biblical interpretation makes it plain that God did not create the world in the state in which it is now, but evil came as a result of the selfishness and disobedience of humankind. The Bible says that God is a God of love and He desired to create a person and eventually a race that would love Him. But genuine love cannot exist unless freely given through free choice and will, and thus humankind was given the choice to accept God’s love or to reject it. This choice made the possibility of evil become very real.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they did not choose something God created, but, by their choice, they brought evil into the world. God is neither evil nor did He create evil. Man brought evil upon himself by selfishly choosing his own way apart from God’s way by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because of the Fall, the world now is abnormal. Things are not in the state that they should be in. Man, as a result of the Fall, has been separated from God. Nature is not always kind to man and the animal world can also be his enemy. There is conflict both between man and his fellowman, and often, between humankind and Natural Law.

One of the most interesting parts of the Adam and Eve story is Gen 3:22 and 23

           22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

          23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

          24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.-

One wonders who is “US” in line 22. But whomever, it is clear that scripturally, God does not want Adam to have the fruit of the Tree of Life (presumably immortality) thus paving the way for the Jesus Savior’s redemption, but gave humankind the opportunity to eat from both trees..

None of these “Evil” conditions were true before the Fall. Any biblical solution that might be given to the problems mankind faces must take into consideration that the world as it now stands is NOT NORMAL
 .

The Buddhist avows that all life is suffering and that suffering is not normal and caused by desire. For the Buddhist  then, the abandonment of ego is necessary for fulfillment, echoing the conclusion of the Adam and Eve story and Christ’s message of “The Kingdom of God” on earth.

Not all students of evil are Christian, Jewish or Muslim or even Buddhist.  So an alternative to the scriptural concept of Evil is required.

The second, non- scriptural, response to the problem of evil is that the existence of evil is a necessary condition for the existence of certain kinds of good; a “yin to the yang”. There are a number of character traits that are valuable only if evil exists. Compassion, for instance, is of great value, but can only exist if there is suffering. Bravery, too, is a virtue, but only if we sometimes face danger. Self-sacrifice is another great good, but can only exist if there is inter-dependence, if some people find themselves in situations where they need help from others. We were created or evolved in such a way that we would depend upon one another, that we would be drawn together to form a community. If each of us were self-sufficient, safe from suffering, then the great goods that come from suffering would not have been possible.

The remaining question here is why do we need a yin to the yang? Are we to be evaluated? Religions answer “yes” but non-religion says “NO!”

What can we surmise about Evil?

My colleagues and I have studied the situation at length and have formed certain conclusions echoed by the psychologist Philip Zimbardo
.

          1.       We do not find evil in “Natural Law”. The universe, the fang and claw of the tiger. Cancer and the hurricane are not evil, nor is the cat torturing its prey, but rather simply Natural Law at work whether created by God or evolved.

Although these might have horrific and unpleasant results they don’t qualify as “evil”.

          2.       Evil exists only in the context of humankind.  Without humans evil is not possible.

          3.       Evil appears finite, not infinite.  It is purposeful or deliberate and not simply the absence of Good (although the absence of “Good” action may be evil.). Evil is generally defined by society and therefore, flexible, not absolute.  Situation ethics plays a large role in defining what is evil.

          4.       Evil is primarily the result of Free Will choices, and exempts the sociopath, the child, the mentally challenged (and occasionally, the elderly ????). And that “Evil” is not a noun, but an adjective or adverb.

          5.       Evil is purposeful and has an agenda.

We are not agreed, in God’s role as a result of our freewill choices. Some of us are universalists, avowing “all are Saved”; some are unsure……… and some say “What the hell do you mean by “Saved”?

So we are not in accord theologically, nor do I think we ever could be.  Accord requires a close proximity to each other’s idea of God, and those of us who believe in God, all avow that God is personal and is probably beyond Dogma. However, I think we all agreed that God is most probably NOT involved in evil except, perhaps, providing us a yin to the yang. And that God does not have an evil adversary, a position in opposition to the literal scriptural interpretation.  We remain unconvinced of the proof of an adversary.

We did not completely answer the question of any role of God in EVALUATING evil, but we would all affirm evil is a “this world” structure and God would not provide infinite PUNISHMENT for evil deeds but might exact annihilation of continuation as an acknowledgement of Religion or scriptural solutions. What we seemed to be saying is that evil deeds will PROBABLY come back to us in spades in THIS world whether this is the only world or not. But clearly, not always.

 One might ask, If the penalty for evil is in this life, IS THE ONLY THING KEEPING US FROM EVIL DEEDS THAT SOCIETY OR SOMEONE IS WATCHING US? Most of us would answer with a qualified “yes”. But then must deal with the question of, “Are people basically Good or Evil”? We seemed to have answered “Good” which appears to negate the “watcher” situation, but does not.  Anonymity, as we shall shortly see, is a big factor in evil. But we affirm humans are basically good although torn toward evil
.

This does not mean that we avow evil is ONLY in this life and has no place in the next life, we simply don’t know.  But we are convinced that the result of evil, like “sin” is alienation from God if He exists, and alienation from humankind whether He does or not. 

 Since the existence of God can only be a decision of Faith (God’s existence can neither be disproved nor proved by reasoning or science or human tools) it is exempt from analysis.

We come from an “absolute” world where good and evil were highly defined and structured. I remember George Carlin’s routine about growing up Catholic in Philadelphia- “It was a mortal sin to want to feel Ellen up. It was a sin to take her to a place to feel her up.  It was a sin to try to feel her up.  It was a sin to actually feel her up, to enjoy feeling her up, to remember feeling her up and to want to do it again. There were more than seven mortal sins in one feel and the risk was hardly worth it.” This was an absolute value.

But in our current society it seems relativism or evil defined by human situational ethics seems to have won the day.

Does that mean Society has changed?  That there are no longer any absolute values and that Process Theology, where everything is changeable, even God, has won the theological debate?....not necessarily.

Philip Zimbardo avows that;

Evil Is About Power

The EXERCISE OF POWER to:

          1.       Intentionally

          2.       Harm (Psychologically)

          3.       Hurt (Physically)

          4.       Destroy (Mortally)

          5.       Commit Crimes Against Humanity

How do psychologists understand such transformation of Human Character?

          1.       Dispositional; Inside the individual- The bad apple

          2.       Situational; External- The bad barrel

          3.       Systemic; the broad influence of political, economic, legal or other power- The bad        
                 barrel  MAKERS.

Seen in this way Evil takes on a much more social or secular humanist dimension, but may even support both Genesis stories.

Social Processes that Grease the Slippery Slope of Evil

          1.       Mindlessly taking the first small step

          2.       Dehumanization of Others

          3.       Anonymity (De-Individualization of Self)

          4.       Diffusion of Personal Responsibility

          5.       Blind Obedience to authority

          6.       Un-critical conformity to Group Norms

          7.       Passive tolerance of Evil through Inaction or Indifference.

These are aided or enabled by the social conditions that permit or enable any of the systemic causes of evil.

According to Zimbardo, the “Lucifer Effect” is a celebration of the mind’s;

          1.       Infinite capacity to make us behave Kindly or Cruelly  

          2.       Caring or Indifferent

          3.       Creative or Destructive

          4.       Make us Villains or Heroes

Note that the humanist definition of evil above is also the religious definition of evil IF FREE WILL EXISTS.

Evil cannot exist without free will.  The proof of that is that it is not found in Natural Law.

I have one final comment on Evil.  Is it possible that good and evil are nothing more than a war between the neo-cortex, the center of higher reasoning and the ”old Brain”, the lizard brain, the Amygdala that senses danger, where instincts and gut feelings originate, the part of the brain that houses primal thoughts, subconscious or involuntary processes?  That part responsible for the four f’s of Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing and ….er….reproduction.  The ancient Hebrews knew little of these functions. It is true that the old and new brain are in some kind of competition.  Could it be that competition is the root of what we call evil, our base desires?  Since we may argue that evil cannot be found in nature, is it within us?  Is it God driven or primally driven? Could the fall from grace, the Eden story, be an ancient Hebrew attempt to explain good and evil working from a mistaken premise that God is responsible  rather than the reptile brain?

If it is a war between our natures, how does moral behavior enter the picture or does it? What role might God play in that role?

If, in fact, evil is primarily an exercise in human primality, in the human exercise of power, Then we should begin to teach against it in a much more effective manner than we are currently using.

In conclusion, no matter how you view the foregoing, evil needs to be taught against not as moral failure but as an over exercise of power. As the Rock guitarist Jimi Hendrix stated, “The world will not know peace until the power of love overcomes the love of power”.

Blessings,

John P. Middleton

June 2013

Sources:

(1)Philosophy of Religion www.philosophyofreligion.info

(2) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

(3) University of Illinois Press, American Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp. 335-341