Emptying Good-and-Evil: Masao Abe’s Approach to the Problem of Evil

2007 ◽  
pp. 187-200
2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 238-243
Author(s):  
William Hasker

The problem of evil is one that perplexes both believers and non-believers. The best approach to the problem is to see evil and suffering as the outcome of general policies God has adopted in creating and governing the world—policies which on the whole are good and beneficial, but which in specific cases lead to suffering for humans and other sentient creatures. Chief among these policies are the policy of allowing human beings to exercise free will in choosing between good and evil, and the policy of creating and sustaining a world of nature that operates according to its inherent laws, with divine interventions into the natural order comparatively infrequent. This approach benefits persons suffering from various evils by releasing them from an often fruitless search for “God’s reasons” for the evil in question, and enabling them to focus on the grace and strength given by Christ to live courageously in spite of their suffering.


1969 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-202
Author(s):  
John Bowker

In his recent book, Evil and the God of Love,1 Dr John Hick examined various Christian responses to the problem of evil. He traced two related, but in important respects different, paths of thought, which correspond to the two main ways in which the genesis or origin of evil have been understood: either as a capacity for goodness which has not yet been realised (with life, therefore, as a ‘vale of soul-making’), or as an original defect which has vitiated all subsequent life. The former is a ‘minority’ report, which Dr Hick called ‘Irenaean’, since the first person of renown to put it forward in reasonably articulate form was Irenaeus. The latter is the dominant, or majority, report, which Dr Hick called ‘Augustinian’, since Augustine's formulation of it became deeply and profoundly influential in subsequent Christian thought. The differences are not absolute, but the contrasts are clear: ‘Instead of the Augustinian view of life's trials as a divine punishment for Adam's sin, Irenaeus sees our world of mingled good and evil as a divinely appointed environment for man's development towards the perfection that represents the fulfillment of God's good purpose for him.’2


Author(s):  
Gavin Rae

This chapter outlines the genesis of the problem of evil by highlighting that it came to the fore as a conceptual problem with the rise of monotheism where the aim was to reconcile the monotheistic principles with the existence of evil. Whereas Judaism maintains a strict monotheism with the consequence that God is considered to be both the source of good and evil, Christianity developed a ‘soft’ monotheism wherein the ‘evil’ aspect was cast out of the kingdom of Heaven. Exploring this difference through the Judaic figure of the satan and the Christian notion of Satan shows how the problem of evil came to the fore due to socio-historical-conceptual alterations taking place during the inter-Testament period. Contrary to the commonly held assumption that ‘evil’ is an atemporal category, this chapter shows that it is a thoroughly historical one dependent upon a particular metaphysical schema.


Oriens ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 318-369
Author(s):  
Sajjad Rizvi

Abstract Despite the extensive work on the Safavid thinker Mullā Ṣadrā Šīrāzī (d. 1045/1636) nowadays in metropolitan academia, certain areas of philosophical and theological concern remain understudied, if studied at all – and even then, there is little attempt to consider his work in the light of philosophical analysis. We know of a venerable philosophical tradition of analysing the question of providence as a means for examining questions of creation (ex nihilo or otherwise), the problem of evil, determinism and free will, and the larger question of theodicy (and whether this world that we inhabit is indeed the ‘best of all possible worlds’). I propose to examine these questions through an analysis of a section of the theology in al-Asfār al-arbaʿa (The Four Journeys) of Mullā Ṣadrā (mawqif VIII of safar III) and juxtapose it with passages from his other works, all the while contextualising it within the longer Neoplatonic tradition of providence and evil. The section of the Asfār plays a pivotal role in outlining a wider theory of divine providence: following the analysis of the Avicennian proof for the existence of God as the Necessary Being and her attributes, and before the culmination on the emanative scheme of creation (or the incipience of the cosmos – ḥudūṯ al-ʿālam), Mullā Ṣadrā discusses the question of divine providence where one can clearly discern the influence of previous thinkers on him, namely Avicenna (d. 428/1037, al-Šifāʾ and Risālat al-ʿišq) al-Ġazālī (d. 505/ 1111, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn), and Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638/1240, al-Futūḥāt al-makkīya). The section can be divided into four discussions: defining providence as well as the nature of good and evil, accounting for the ‘presence’ of evil in the cosmos, the ‘best of all possible worlds’, and erotic motion of the cosmos as well as the erotic attraction of humans for one another and back to their Origin. What emerges, however, is an account of providence that is subservient to Mullā Ṣadrā’s wider ontological commitment to the primary reality of being, its modulation and essential motion – the tripartite doctrines of aṣālat al-wuǧūd, taškīk al-wuǧūd and al-ḥaraka al-ǧawharīya – and fits within his overall approach to the procession of the cosmos from the One as a divine theophany and its reversion back to the One through theosis. Thus, an analysis of providence and evil demonstrates that underlying significance of Mullā Ṣadrā’s metaphysical commitments to a modulated monism.


Oriens ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 269-317
Author(s):  
Mathieu Terrier

Abstract The problem of the goodness of God, the freedom of man and the origin of Evil, i.e. theodicy, proves to be particularly acute in Twelver Shiʿi Islam, because of the historical awareness of evil within the community and of the fundamental dualism, metaphysical as well as moral, of the doctrine. However, this problem was the subject of various essays by Iranian Shiʿi philosophers of Neoplatonic inspiration, trying to harmonize the teachings of the Shiʿi tradition (i.e. the ḥadīṯs attributed to the Impeccable imams) with the arguments of the Avicennian philosophy. The first part of the article focuses in detail on the works of the philosopher, theologian and lawyer Mīr Dāmād (m. 1041/1631). His reflections on the problem are not collected in a single book, as they are in Leibniz, but scattered in works belonging to different fields (fiqh, kalām, or philosophy per se), in Arabic or in Persian. He deals successively with the problem of human freedom (qadar) versus divine determinism (ǧabr); with the Imami notion of badāʾ, i.e. the apparent change of the divine Will in the course of history; with Good and Evil with regard to the ontological categories of essence (ḏāt), accident (ʿaraḍ), existence (wuǧūd), and non-existence (ʿadam); with the execution of eschatological threats and the punishment of the damned – thus embracing all the dimensions of the problem and phenomenon of evil. The second part of the article considers some logical and unexpected developments of Mīr Dāmād’s theses in the works of two of his students, Mullā Šamsā Gīlānī (m. 1064/1654), in a brief epistle on perfection, and Quṭb al-Dīn Aškiwarī (m. between 1088/1677 and 1095/1684), in a monumental history of universal wisdom. This should make appear that the problem of Evil was a powerful catalyst for the emergence of a “Shiʿi philosophy” in the 11th/17th century. Le problème de la bonté de Dieu, de la liberté de l’homme et de l’origine du mal, c’est-à-dire de la théodicée, s’avère particulièrement délicat dans l’islam shiʿite duodécimain, du fait de la conscience historique du mal dans la communauté et du dualisme foncier, moral et métaphysique, de la doctrine. Ce problème fit pourtant l’objet de véritables essais de théodicée chez des philosophes shiʿites iraniens d’inspiration néoplatonicienne, s’efforçant de concilier les enseignements de la tradition shiʿite (les ḥadīṯs attribués aux imâms impeccables) et les arguments de la philosophie avicennienne. La première partie de l’article se concentre sur l’œuvre du philosophe, théologien et juriste Mīr Dāmād (m. 1041/1631). Ses réflexions sur le problème ne sont pas rassemblées dans un même livre, à la différence de Leibniz, mais disséminées dans des ouvrages de différents domaines (fiqh, kalām, philosophie per se), en arabe et en persan. Il traite successivement du problème de la liberté humaine (qadar) vs le déterminisme divin (ǧabr) ; de la notion imâmite de badāʾ, le changement apparent de la Volonté divine dans le cours de l’histoire ; du bien et du mal au regard des catégories ontologiques de l’essence (ḏāt) et de l’accident (ʿaraḍ), de l’existence (wuǧūd) et de l’inexistence (ʿadam) ; de l’exécution des menaces eschatologiques et du châtiment des damnés – embrassant ainsi toutes les dimensions du problème et du phénomène du mal. La seconde partie de l’article étudie les prolongements, à la fois cohérents et inattendus, des thèses de Mīr Dāmād chez deux de ses élèves, Mullā Šamsā Gīlānī (m. 1064/1654), dans une épître sur la perfection, et Quṭb al-Dīn Aškiwarī (m. entre 1088/1677 et 1095/1684), dans une histoire de la sagesse universelle. Le problème du mal apparaît ainsi comme un facteur d’émergence d’une authentique « philosophie shiʿite » au XIe/XVIIe siècle.


Perichoresis ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-24
Author(s):  
Edward N. Martin

Abstract Carl Henry devotes a few chapters directly (and a few indirectly) in volume 6 of his God, Revelation, and Authority [GRA] to the problem of evil [POE]. The author examines Henry’s contribution as a theologian, noting that GRA is a work of theology, not philosophy proper. However, Henry had a PhD in Philosophy (Boston, 1949), and one finds present several presuppositions and control beliefs that are philosophically motivated. Observation of the text reveals several of these. Chief here is Henry’s working assumption that to understand and explain the nature of evil, one must first understand and explain the nature, origin and etiology of good. This point and its implications are developed at length in this article. Unsurprising is Henry’s contribution exhibiting an awareness of methods and theodical approaches traditionally used by philosophers of religion such as Rowe, Plantinga, and Hick. Surprising is the fact that Henry does not clearly take a side on the nature of human free will. What he does say seems to underdetermine his exact position. Finally, the importance of Kant vis a vis Henry’s theodicy and entire theological program is emphasized as well.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashok Nagpal ◽  
Ankur Prahlad Betageri

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 105-131
Author(s):  
Bruce Russell

I begin by distinguishing four different versions of the argument from evil that start from four different moral premises that in various ways link the existence of God to the absence of suffering. The version of the argument from evil that I defend starts from the premise that if God exists, he would not allow excessive, unnecessary suffering. The argument continues by denying the consequent of this conditional to conclude that God does not exist. I defend the argument against Skeptical Theists who say we are in no position to judge that there is excessive, unnecessary suffering by arguing that this defense has absurd consequences. It allows Young Earthers to construct a parallel argument that concludes that we are in no position to judge that God did not create the earth recently. In the last section I consider whether theists can turn the argument from evil on its head by arguing that God exists. I first criticize Alvin Plantinga’s theory of warrant that one might try to use to argue for God’s existence. I then criticize Richard Swinburne’s Bayesian argument to the same conclusion. I conclude that my version of the argument from evil is a strong argument against the existence of God and that several important responses to it do not defeat it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document