Description

Write a 6-8 page essay. Choose a work of art (or a body of work by a particular artist) and discuss the ways in which it represents and/or responds to the problem of evil. What is the artist trying to accomplish in this work? On which aspects of the problem of evil does the work concentrate? On which historical tradition of thought is it drawing, downplaying, changing, etc. In other words, how does the work engage with (supporting or challenging) the thinkers we have read for the course? This is not meant to be an opinion exercise, but a critical analysis. You must put the work/artist in conversation with the material we have been studying. You will briefly present and summarize your analysis to the class (3-4 minutes max).

Thesis: Thetheodicy offered by Van Inwagen does not provide a satisfactory response to the problem of evil; this is because it fails to consider the reasons that God would have for allowing evil to exist.The problem of evil seeks to reconcile God’s existence with that of evil. It seeks to explain the possibility that God, who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, could exist while at the same time allowing evil to exist. From the argument presented in the problem of evil, if it is absolute or relative that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then it is impossible for such a God and evil to co-exist .
The theodicy attempts to explain how an absolute or relative good God allows the existence of evil. The theodicy addresses the problem of evil by explaining how the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is consistent with the existence of evil or the bad things and suffering that are evident in the world (Adler and Elgin, 2007, p. 764).The theodicy presented by Van Inwagen does not seek to prove that God exists but aims to explain that the amount of suffering that exists in the world does not prove that God does not exist. Free will plays an important role for Van Inwagen to solve the problem of evil . Van Inwagen thinks that if people have free will, then evil is the result of free will (Adler and Elgin, 2007, p. 764).Van Inwagen indicates that by allowing us to have free will, God had to allow us to choose whether we should do good or evil; otherwise, it would not make sense for people to be given the free will to choose, and then be forced to choose that which is good. Therefore, this implies that evil can exist.
In Mackie’s argument, he indicates that according to him, all the arguments that seek to support the existence of God have been proved to be false. However, he posits that this should not convince someone that God does not exist. In his argument, he states that one can accept the rational criticism of the existence of God and still believe that God exists because, there is no rational explanation that can explain the existence of God (Adler and Elgin , 2007, p. 757).
According to the article, “The traditional arguments for the existence of God’s existence is possible, butthe theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit thatno rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all thatis essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in someother, non-rational way .”(Adler and Elgin, 2007, p. 757).Mackie stops the way of the theologian described above by showing that philosophy may be used to criticize the arguments of God’s existence as well as showing that God does not exist. According to Mackie’s argument, most religious beliefs cannot be supported through the use of rational thinking. Most of these beliefs can be seen as positively irrational since there are different parts of the theological doctrine that are not consistent with one another (Adler and Elgin, 2007, p. 757).Therefore, according to Mackie, it is important to be clear about what the “problem of evil” is, the reason this argument attempts to prove that the belief in the existence of God does not have rational support and can be shown to be highly irrational . Mackie explains the problem of evil regarding the existence of God as follows: “God is omnipotent, and God is wholly good, and evil exists ” (Adler and Elgin, 2007, p. 758).In this respect, the three prepositions have a contradiction if the rational reasoning is used. This is because, if any two of the three propositions were true, then the third one would not be true. For instance, if God is omnipotent, then the existing evil in the world would rationally prove that God is not wholly good . The other two propositions may be disqualified in a similar manner.
Mackie argues that the above argument present a contradiction, and thus, it requires that one should have a reduction of these propositions. This means that for the group of propositions to be rationally true, one of them must be false. In this regard, Mackie considers different solutions that seek to explain which one of the propositions should be considered to be false. In his solution, Mackie presents ‘Adequate solutions’ and ‘Fallacious solutions ’ (Adler and Elgin, 2007, p. 759).
In his arguments, Van Inwagen provides a “defense ”. He tries to show that the argument from evil that he considers are false. The theodicy offered by Van Inwagen is not a satisfactory response to the problem of evil . Van Inwagen attempts to respond to the particular version posed by Mackie by describing the contemporary literature presented by Mackie as focusing on the logical arguments from evil and theistic responses given for the arguments. Such logical argument presented by Mackie are no longer supported by philosophers as they have now shifted their attention to the evidential problem of evil. To be a satisfactoryresponse to the problem of evil, Van Inwagen should consider raising his argument and provide more than just a “defense.” Van Inwagen can achieve this without the need to modify his stories that he has used to develop his “defense”. Van Inwagen uses stories that show that God is justified in allowing evil in the world; however, Van Inwagen does not provide God’s reason for allowing such evil. This maybe referred to as “modest theodicy”. Van Inwagen should use “immodest theodicy” which would provide the God’s reason for allowing such evil in the world. A theodicy that would satisfactorilyrespond to the problem of evil should leave open the possibility that there is a reason why God would allow evil to exist, and such reason may be unknown to human beings .
References
Adler, J. E., & Elgin, C. Z. (2007). Philosophical Inquiry: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Hackett Publishing. 757-771 .