I just wrote a lengthy argument outlining
Swinburne’s assertions and why I agreed with them instead of Mackie’s
interpretation of God and the existence of evil. Until it came time for me to
rationalize why I believe that God would create a world filled with suffering.
It’s possible that my understanding is limited by my human perspective of the
universe and that I simply don’t understand why we have to live in such a
tragic world. But I don’t think that’s why I refuse to believe that an all
good, all powerful God would allow as much evil as there is in the world. I
refuse to believe that “my grandma’s God” would allow famine, genocide,
disease, or any of the other truly evil things in our world. Swinburne argues
that God must create a world with both good and evil for either one to exist. Mackie argues that this limits the power of
God and would make him not omnipotent – ergo, not God. We have discussed things
that are logically impossible to exist, such as square circles (squircles) and
how it is impossible for God to make such a contradiction. Swinburne makes a
similar argument when discussing the possibility of God creating a world
without contrasting forces of good/evil. That it is a logical impossibility to
have a world with good but not evil. Well if omnipotence means “all powerful”
then an omnipotent being could certainly create a squircle, in the same way this
being could create a world with just good. It is the limits of our perception
that keep us from ascribing certain powers to the theoretical being. A truly
omnipotent being would not be bound by the rules of logic and rational thought.
A difficult concept to accept, but one that rationally has to be concluded.
Essentially:
1.
God is an omnipotent being.
2.
An omnipotent being is capable of making or doing anything.
3.
The rules of logic would fall under the category of “Anything.”
4.
God can make or break any rule of logic.
5.
God is not bound by the rules of logic.
C. God could
create a world that Swinburne argues is logically impossible because God is not bound by the rules of
logic.
Provided I did that correctly, it would seem that God is
capable of creating a world that is not bound by any logic or rational thought.
That begs the question: Why would God allow or cause so much suffering? And
while I don’t believe that an omnipotent being would be limited by the rules of
logic, I do believe that some sort of rational order rules the universe. I
believe that a being that is so seemingly contradictory doesn’t exist in the
way we have described it:
1.
God is omnipotent
2.
God is all good.
3.
Evil exists.
Which means that either God isn’t omnipotent (he isn’t God
if he isn’t omnipotent), isn’t all good (while this may be irrational, I can’t
believe in a God that is at least partly evil), or that evil doesn’t exist (evil
definitely exists, we have all seen and experienced it). Basically, God has to
exist as I describe him but he can’t exist as I described him and therefore I
can’t believe in his existence.
You write, "Swinburne argues that God must create a world with both good and evil for either one to exist."
ReplyDeleteI believe that you have misinterpreted Richard Swinburne's theodicy. According to Swinburne, there are two possible worlds that God could create:
1. A world with no evil. In this world, everyone is programmed so that he or she can do nothing that is morally wrong. In short, all human beings in this world are robots capable of doing only things that are morally good or neutral.
2. A world with free will. In this world, everyone is allowed to do whatever he or she wants within the laws of nature. Because this freedom exists, people are capable of choosing to do either good or evil.
Swinburne argues that there is more good in the second world than in the first world because it is better for humans to be free and capable of doing evil than to be unfree and programmed to do only good.
In the first world, we would not be people. Instead, we would be machines. In the second world, evil is the necessary byproduct of allowing humans to make their own decisions.
According to Swinburne, free will and an all-good world cannot coexist. God chose to give us free will because freedom is more important than goodness in the grand scheme of things.
Freedom, which must include the ability to do wrong if it is legitimate, is more good than a lack of evil in the world. This is what Swinburne argues.
My argument was that God is capable of doing anything if he really is omnipotent. While this isn't exactly what I was arguing, you could continue my argument to reason that if God is capable of literally anything then he could conceivably create a world where humans are both free and all good. It's a cop-out to say that God is bound by certain rules when he is supposed to be the creator of the universe. And I understand what Swinburne is arguing, I disagree.
ReplyDelete"[I]f God is capable of literally anything then he could conceivably create a world where humans are both free and all good."
ReplyDeleteIf I am not free to commit evil, am I really free?