A Level Philosophy

Under the process theodicy, God could be described as dipolar, in that he has two separate “poles”, one a mental state and one a physical. The physical “pole” is the material world itself, which acts as God’s body, and he is partly distinct and also immersed in the world, as we are in our bodies. Therefore, because God is involved with the world, He suffers also when evil is committed, and A.N. Whitehead described him as “a fellow sufferer who understands”.

God’s role in creation was to begin the evolutionary process which resulted in man as he is today, but He does not have total control over us as a race or individuals and we are able to freely choose to ignore Him. David Griffin states that “God does not refrain from controlling his creatures because he chooses not to but because he cannot” – and this is based around the central idea of God not being omnipotent. This means that God is not responsible in whole for the evil in the world, but still has to face some responsibility for beginning the evolutionary process knowing full well that He would be unable to control its result.

God therefore tries to help people to live in the best way they can and to maximise the harmony in the universe, to prevent evil and keep it dominated by the good that exists, through His use of “persuasion and lure” but He is unable to force them to anything.

The theodicy as a whole tries to explain why God took such a risk in his creation of humanity, and it does so by arguing that the universe He, and we, are a part of, has managed to outweigh the evil present with the goodness and harmony we create. We are the best possible option for the universe, and without us it would be. However, there are many issues with this theodicy. One criticism calls into question whether it is a theodicy at all – the word itself means “A justification of a deity, or the attributes of a deity, especially in regard to the existence of evil and suffering in the world; a work or discourse justifying the ways of God”, however since this theory removed the omnipotence of a God, then it does not justify anything at all.

Also, if we consider the theory to its full extend it has the effect of removing God’s omnipotence – his unimaginable power. This is why many Christians do not approve of the theory, as it removes a key characteristic from God himself, and many would call into question the worthiness of worshipping such a God. Also, if God cannot guarantee anything then there is no longer a promise of heaven to those who make an effort on Earth, and the innocent may not be rewarded as they fittingly should.

Also, we must consider if the good in the world really does outweigh the evil that is present – for those that suffer they must surely argue that this is not the case. A starving African mother would probably argue a very different case to a Texan billionaire, as evil, just like God, is personal, and although on a world level good may overcome evil, this may not be the case for individuals.

The basis of the next argument lies at the heart of many modern day theodicy’s, and also older ones of Aquinas and Iraneus. The free will defence argues that the world was designed to give us free will, as without the true ability to choose we would not be free nor would we be truly human. It argues that we, as a human race, would not be able to fully develop unless we were free to choose how we act. Richard Swinburne argues the following:

“The less he allows men to bring about large scale horrors, the less the freedom and responsibility he gives them. [We are]… asking that God should make a toy world, a world where things matter, but not very much; where we can choose and our choices can make a small difference but the real choices remain God’s. For he simply would not allow us the choice of doing real harm… He would be like an over-protective parent who will not let his child out of sight for a moment.”

He argues that without choice man would not be truly free, and that God does not intervene as that would take away human responsibility and the freedom that lies at the heart of this. He argues that natural evil is necessary to help us, for example in warning us about dangers, such as living in volcanic regions. Also, he argues that certain evils that exist are unacceptable, such as the unpleasantness of a headache, which could possibly be construed as evil because of its pain. To summarise his argument, he believes we should have free will to help us develop as humans.

However, both Swinburne and the free will defence have numerous issues. To begin with, the defence leaves the issue of a loving and omnipotent God allowing suffering to occur as unresolved, and also does not account that not all of the human race has the ability to exercise free will. Also, it is entirely possible for us to be unable to do something yet to be free, or have free will. For example, we cannot fly, or levitate off the ground, or synthesise many vital nutrients our body requires. Does this mean we do not have free will? Of course not. Therefore, it is entirely possible that God could have created us so that we are unable to commit evils such as genocide whilst still leaving us with free will. We freely choose to do things that we can do, not freely choose to do anything. If we cannot do something, such as commit an evil, then we are still free.

Also, the free will defence does not explain why people turn against God, or do not let the power of God into their lives, regardless of whether they have suffered or not. Swinburne’s argument is also flawed. To take an example – why does God create natural disasters? According to Swinburne this is to help us; to warn us not to live near volcanoes. However, why does the earth need volcanoes at all? If God is all powerful then surely a world without them could be created, and they could be replaced with a controlled method of releasing molten rock onto the surface of the earth.

The problem of evil and suffering are great issues that religious believers must face, and are challenges to their justification of God. As an atheist, the presence of evil and suffering in our world goes on to strengthen my point of view and my denial of the existence of God, and neither the free will defence nor the process theodicy go any way to arguing the case – we are still left with many unanswered questions.