Every day the media carries reports of wars, diseases and many evil things. There are times when reflections on this state of affairs involve a religious dimension. People from many faiths might pray for a better world and sometimes hope that their prayers might be answered.
When I was a child we used to discuss this problem among ourselves during the long walk home from Sunday School.
In Sunday School the preacher used to tell us about God, how powerful He was, how he could perform miracles and that He knew everything that we did, and how nothing could be concealed from Him. This fired our imaginations and we would discuss possible limits to His power.
The Problem of evil
A short while ago a British celebrity and renowned atheist, Stephen Fry, reminded me of our youthful discussions when he drew attention to a much debated piece of theology known as the problem of evil. Speaking to a TV host on Irish station RTE’s ‘Meaning of Life’ programme, 7th May, 2017, Stephen Fry was asked by Gay Byrne, the show’s host, what he were to do if he did meet God after his death.
Fry responded: “I’ll say: bone cancer in children, what’s that about? …How dare you create a world where there is such misery that’s not our fault? It’s utterly, utterly evil…Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”
On Fry’s interpretation, God – if He exists – is some kind of omnibenevolent superman with powers to eradicate pain and all evil, and must ultimately bear responsibility for harms and wrongs in this world.
The original statement of the problem is attributed to the Fourth Century BC Greek philosopher, Epicurus, in the following argument.
1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid. If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. However, it is unclear precisely how the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God guarantees the non-existence of evil.
Objections to Fry
There is, however, an objection to Fry’s question, which suggests that it cannot be answered by an omnibenevolent being. Asking God why He permits evil would be both morally and logically incoherent, as an omnibenevolent being would not be in a position to provide reasons for allowing evil which are morally acceptable. Giving reasons for evil does not make evil acceptable or virtuous.
There is a Jewish-Christian Feminist idea of God as a Being who suffers in response to evil which calls for believers to share in God’s suffering. It draws attention to the two Mary’s expressing sympathy for the suffering of God at the crucifixion of His son. Fry’s attempt to cajole God into behaving like some tough leader of a SWAT team would obviously be off the mark in this context.
Limits to the God’s omnipotence
Discussions on the problem of evil have frequently focused on the logical limits to God’s powers, as seen in medieval debates regarding His omnipotence. One frequently debated question was this: if He is omnipotent, can He make a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift? Either way limits to His omnipotence are revealed.
Or consider the clash between His omniscience and omnipotence. If He is omniscient then He knows what will happen in the future. And if He is omnipotent then He can prevent it happening, in which case success in prevention reveals limits to His omniscience, because if it does not happen He cannot be said to know that it would happen.
These questions are quite fun and have little to do with practised religion but nevertheless open up fascinating inquiries into the relationship between logic and language, as they focus on our understanding of fundamental rules governing thought and its expression, such as contradiction, and the limits of language. But these are conceptual matters, not to be confused with arguments appealing to empirical evidence. They invite investigation into our understanding of unlimited power, unlimited virtue and knowledge.
Consultations on Science and Theology
Several years ago I attended weekend consultations at Windsor Castle between theologians and scientists. One weekend we discussed how God might initiate change in the world. Discussions continued over drinks in the bar, and I recall a discussion on causality where I argued that whilst scientists and others might look for causes as an explanation of events, there are times when a causal search is meaningless, such as the search for the cause of our idea of causality, without which we could not make sense of the world.
Eventually the topic turned to a problem known as ‘The God of the gaps’, according to which Divine intervention might be considered in areas where there are gaps in scientific knowledge. I found myself in debate with the former Archbishop of York, Dr John Habgood, a member of The Science and Religion Forum, who was toying with a theory God need not actually intervene in any causal chain, but simply had to exist and that would bring about a specific result.
My response was met with mirth when I suggested that this made God appear like a newspaper proprietor who does not write the editorials, but the editor knows exactly what to say and why.
So what could Fry have said in the proposed meeting with God?
He might have said something like this. ‘Well God, I have to admit that I never believed in your existence. That was a mistake, wasn’t it? I suppose I could echo Bertrand Russell’s question and ask you why you made it so hard for me to believe in you.
But then I might offer you an apology. You gave me health, talent, intelligence, wealth, and a position of authority where I have been widely regarded as an influential opinion leader. But with all of this, I cannot claim that the world is a better place for my existence. It is probably worse. Quite honestly God, I blew it, wasted the gifts that you gave me. I sucked up to the media and its worldly rewards, and never really attempted to confront the evil that was before my eyes. Add to that, I made an idiot of myself on a TV show where I blamed you for all the failings of my generation and myself.
And God might well reply as follows: ‘I have no objections to your criticism of me Stephen, I admire freedom of speech. Come on in’.
Note
I wish to express my appreciation to the custodians of Windsor Castle who made it possible for free and unlimited debate on science and religion at these consultations. Spending weekends at the official residence of the royal family was a privilege and an opportunity to learn about the monarch’s understanding of people.
I recall a dispute over a painting of the Crucifixion where Christ was depicted in an unflattering manner. His arms, for example, were badly deformed, and there was an opinion that the painting should not be displayed. The Queen offered her opinion. She said: ‘if He were a carpenter in those days, this is how his arms would look’. She made it clear that the painting should stay.
If God is omnipotent. can He travel faster than c, the speed of light, or has Einstein got him pinned down to a mere 300,000 Kilometres per second?
Praise God from whom all blessing flow; including war, pestilence and cancer. Better still, forget about him and study the problem then do something about it.
Life is simpler without God whose existence or otherwise always seems to resolve into an argument about ‘it depends exactly what you mean by omnipotence;’ the meaning of words.
Thanks Mike. I should have made it clearer. Discussions of omnipotence and the examples of limits to God’s power are not relevant to religion. They belong to logic and form the basis of the sciences, and are not about the meaning of words in any trivial sense. I am sure life is simpler without dealing with problems arising within either science or religion. Or anything for that matter.
Many thanks for a most interesting post, David.
Belief in God can be (and continues to be for me) a huge comfort and strength in times of trouble (and I’ve known my fair share) so for me that is plenty of reason to believe. I do not have all the answers to why there is suffering in the world. Neither do atheists! So to my mind belief should not be based entirely on that.
And yes, David, I sympathise with your comments over God welcoming freedom of speech. The book of Psalms has many examples of the writers being very frank with God and the book of Job is another. Belief in God must be totally honest.
For me, I do not believe this world is here by pure chance and that therefore there is Someone behind it. I have no problems whatsoever with the Big Bang theory and evolution. These are methods of creation as far as I’m concerned and I agree with the Victorian view that what Darwin was trying to do was look into the mechanics of how God did things when the world came into being. I also think it okay to accept I don’t have the answers to everything (and sometimes think it is just as well!).
I believe God wants us to strive for betterment and we are at our best as a species when we strive. There is no one single answer to the problem of suffering. Our focus must be to prevent where possible and alleviate where not. Also with evolution, there must be a certain amount of the numbers game in which most of the time good genes get through but sometimes the bad ones don’t – hence the tendency to disease etc. I hope and pray that the breakthrough in mapping DNA will be a major key to correcting things like that so in time disease can be eradicated.
I also believe in a simple faith. Theology and words can complicate things to my mind unnecessarily. This does not mean I do not think but I accept there are things I do not know and will not get to know.
Life is full of contradictions. Man is at one and the same time brilliant (in terms of what we can achieve and have achieved) and good (does lots to help others) but also evil (wars, the Holocaust etc etc).
So therefore, for me, it is not a contradiction to say there is pure evil in this world (sadly too obviously true) and that a loving God exists. The two can co-exist at the same time and to my mind do. I also believe a loving God would never force people to believe so it is down to us to work out what we believe and why.
Taking God out of the equation will not remove suffering and evil from the world.
Evil is done in the name of God, which I totally despise. Faith (and the way you behave as a result) should be a credit to the God you believe in.
One of my favourite books in the Bible is the book of James which can be summed up by his statement “Faith without actions is dead”.
And I should point out that much good to allievate suffering is done by those who share my faith – the Salvation Army, Christian Aid etc, who are using their belief quite rightly to fuel what they do to help others. I was also pleased recently to read on FB of Sikhs helping to feed the homeless etc.
So yes we need to focus on solving the problems in the world but for many of us, including me, our faith is key to trying to do that.
Thanks Allison, a lot to consider. At the risk of talking about the meaning of words I think it is important to examine what role ‘belief’ plays when talking about religion. Belief in God is only superficially similar to belief in natural facts, such as the speed of light. You can believe facts about the speed of life and then forget them. Belief in God involves sharing a way of life.
We had Stephen Hawkings at Windsor Castle and his theories of the Big Bang etc. did not rebut beliefs held by people of faith.
Darwin scarcely touched on faith and historians now acknowledge the row was nothing more than a storm in a Victorian teacup.
As I mentioned, many of the arguments about omnipotence etc are not strictly relevant to religious practice, to a religious life. Like you I admire the Salvation Army and my Grandad who fought in the 1st Great War told me of the wonderful work they did helping and caring for wounded soldier often giving their lives.
I don’t think any believer in God could ever claim to understand the omnipotence issue. But I’m not sure we really need to fully understand it anyway. You’re quite right about belief in God involves sharing a way of life but it is vital that is a positive thing and something that commends God to others. (This is where the religious extremists completely miss the point. You are hardly going to commend belief in a loving God if you yourself do not act in a loving and compassionate way).
The Windsor Castle gathering sounded fantastic and I envy you for being there! I like HM’s comment about the carpenter’s arms. She’s right of course. One thing I loved about the Indiana Jones film where the search is on for the Holy Grail is that the right cup was not a highly decorated one, but a simple one, made out of wood, the act of a carpenter.