I was in a seminar discussing different works on God's existence based on the amount of Evil in the world. We use book Evil and the Hiddenness of God put together by Michael Rea, which is a compilation of different essays taking the both sides. As an agnostic brought up Catholic, I found this to be a fascinating course. The prompt asked us to use the works of multiple theorists to try and prove the existence of God. This is my response:

The problem of evil and of divine hiddenness has long been contemplated separately, but they are closely related to doubts of God’s existence and the extent of his power. The problem of evil questions how an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity can allow evil to exist in the world he made. Alvin Plantinga in “The Free Will Defense” states that these are not directly contradictory. He proposes that God has reasons for allowing evil to exist because his omnipotence does not mean that he can go against logic; for example, he cannot make prime numbers into prime ministers or married bachelors in the same way he may not be able to “eliminate the evil without bringing about a greater evil” (Plantinga 77). Michel Rea tries to explain why God remains hidden to humanity in his essay “Divine Hiddenness, Divine Silence,” and continues on this idea of God having reasons that humans may not have considered or can comprehend. The two different kinds of reasons he considers are the ones “for our sake” and those that “have directly nothing to do with us” (Rea 160). Some of the reasons considered for the sake of humans are for us to make independent decisions, develop our souls, develop a non-self-interested relationship with him without the coercion of his overpowering presence. The that do not involve us are to for his complex personality and communication preferences that are relatively unknown to humanity. Although he refers to them as separate options, together they form a more robust explanation of his reasons. Therefore, God has logical limitations along with legitimate and intricate reasons for allowing evil in the world and for remaining hidden that are for the sake of humanity and for the sake of God’s own personality, some of which we can explain and some of which humans may never understand.

J.L. Mackie criticizes God’s allowance of evils by claiming that God could create a world full of perfect people who always freely choose what is good. As discussed in class, Plantinga responds by saying that a significantly free person is only free if they can take actions that have moral significance, such as whether or not to take a bribe, which then creates moral good or moral evil, depending on their choice. Plantinga’s claim is that although God can create the world and the creatures within that world, but he cannot choose their dispositions and preferences or they cease to be free. This means that, like making a married bachelor, God cannot logically make a world of free willed beings without allowing it to also contain moral evils. Instead of being unique individuals, humans would all be smaller copies of his goodness and morality. If he were to reveal himself, it would have a very similar effect as selecting the dispositions for his creations. According to Rea, in God’s overwhelming presence “we would effectively be coerced into submission” (Rea 161) because there would be a tangible force scrutinizing our actions. Much like behaving when a parent or teacher are around, God is the ultimate moral authority whom many fear or want to impress and would make the decisions of his preference because they more concrete proof to know he would be watching. Although this theory account for moral evils, Plantinga cannot use the free will defense to explain the evils that occur naturally, the continued suffering of innocent animals, or their existence before humans.

John Hick takes this farther by claiming that free will and the evils in the world is how humans develop their souls. In the beginning of the process, humans “transitioned from one level of existence, that of animal life, to another and higher level, that of eternal life” (Hick 93). In this second part of evolution is development of human perfection, which, unlike physical evolution, has to be accomplished by each individual as is not something gradually accomplished by the population over generations. Hick explains that evils in the world are an integral part of morally significant decisions, and that experiencing evils set the ground for a person develop virtues, such as “moral integrity, unselfishness, compassion, courage, humor, reverence for the truth, and perhaps above all, the capacity for love” (Hick 95). This is why there are not only moral evils, but also natural evils, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and ailments. The suffering of innocent animals appears to be part of these natural evils that allow humans to grow, as well a byproduct of humans’ physical and moral evolution from animals that has remained. The conditions God set up for human to evolve are still around today, continuing the evolution of other animals, which still need to adapt to the changing environment that humans are slowly taking over. Grace M. Jantzen points out that “human inference in the natural world from genetics to the ozone layer, the line between natural and moral evil is even thinner” (Jantzen 59), which illustrates the vastness of contemporary human influence was not a moral issue of our distant ancestors and affects all other living species today. However, Hick’s soul development explanation can be quite lofty does not account for all individuals, but only the few whose souls fully develop before they die. These kind of utilitarian values leave his readers to grapple with the sacrifice of many for the ultimate good of soul development, especially the innocent.

Marylyn McCord Adams would partially disagree with Hick’s concept due to her notion of horrendous evils. She defines them as “evils the participation in (the doing or suffering of) which gives one reason prima facie to doubt whether one’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great one in the whole” (Adams 126). The primary goal for her is to prove that overall, good outweighs evil in order to reconcile God’s existence with his allowance of evils in both individual live and the world as a whole. She is careful to make the distinction between good balancing off evil and defeating it. Having more mutually exclusive good in the world than evil is what she considers to be balancing off, while having an “organic unity” between good and evil where they are part of a whole defeats evil with an overwhelming amount of good. The way Plantinga describes the need for both in order to have free will and the way Hick talks about the need for evil in order to make perfection, shows how closely related good and evil are when in the tapestry of morality and human life. Adams’s is trying to show the importance of individuals amidst the lofty and generalizing ideas of theorists such as Plantinga and Hick who write-off the large part of humanity that suffers seemingly meaninglessly as necessary. If being the victim of a horrendous crime or committing one affects someone in such a way that they cannot believe that their life was a good one, then good not only failed to outweigh evil, but was also defeated by it. It also means that the soul of that person cannot fully develop because there are certain virtues, such as the capacity for love, that require confidence in one’s self and perceived value in one’s life. It also does not seem fair to those who do experience these horrendous evils in comparison with those who don’t because those who have not, do not have to come to terms with those experiences. The people who do experience these evils will have a much harder time accepting God for “allowing” such events to occur and developing their virtuous soul. Similarly, Fyodor Dostoevsky used the character Ivan Karamazov to also challenge the idea of a God who allows the seemingly needless suffering of innocent children for the greater good. Adams resolves this with life after death:

Thus, the good of beatific face-to-face intimacy with God would engulf… even the horrendous evils humans experience in the present life here below, and overcome any prima-facie reasons the individual had to doubt whether his/her life would be worth or could be living. (Adams 129)

The concept of heaven and a relationship with god after death is essential to the concept of soul making because there would otherwise be little reason to develop a soul that does not survive death It explains where the wronged individuals and innocent children who are unable to fully develop souls are recompensed for their defeated lives. This explanation, however, does not account for those whose souls are incomplete due to their own actions, such as murderous psychopaths. Hick believed that those with incomplete souls would continue developing them after death; this could mean that those responsible for their incomplete souls continue to develop their souls after death with effort, while the innocent complete their souls with “face-to-face intimacy with God” (Adams 129) If such intimacy were enough to complete both the wronged souls and those corrupted in life, then the efforts of life to complete one’s soul would be negated as well as the idea of freely making significant moral decisions.

Such a relationship is another reason why God remains hidden. Although his power is often mentioned, Rea says that his actual presence would make it much harder to develop a non-self-interested relationship with an all-powerful deity. This is in part because people would fear him, because of those who would wish to manipulate his power or their relationship for selfish, earth-bound needs, and because some would only love or revere him for his power, rather than his perfectness. Laura Waddell Ekstrom claims that experiencing the evils that make us question the existence of God are not only a religious experience, but also bring us closer to him by “driving us to seek God or in causing doubt, reinforcing unbelief, or in generating questions concerning God’s nature and existence” (Ekstrom 135). Similar to and quite connected to Hick’s concept of using evil to learn virtues in soul-making, Ekstrom sees suffering as a way of learning about and experience God, especially his capacity for suffering. Since capacity for love as well as sorrow is supposed to be beyond our comprehension, suffering in humans is like a shared experience that can cultivate empathy, which is a virtue, and therefore strengthen one’s relationship with God as well as their soul. In general, learning this empathy would allow one to form more meaningful relationships with their in their life. Not everyone sees suffering in this way, though, and as Adams said, some suffering is too damaging for healthy growth to derive value from it. Many don’t search for a relationship with God because they have never learned about him, while others “want atheism to be true” (Rea 160) because they cannot accept a reality with omnipotent being examining and critiquing their lives.

His is silent for those who do not, cannot and want to believe in him, like the tormented Mother Teresa, may also be for his own personal reasons. Despite causing great rifts in beliefs and sorry at feeling as though he is absent, Rea suggests that God has a distinct personality that prefers silence as his way of developing relationships and communicating; he uses the example of walking next to someone without looking at them or touching them, and, although there was no visual or auditory communication, just feeling their presence can be very fulfilling. Our perceptions and conceptions as humans are also very limited, especially when compared to a perfect deity. We know very little about God, and may jump to conclusions when we do not know the reasons:

Maybe our suffering in the face of divine silence is unreasonable, due more to our own immaturity or dysfunction… of our own untrusting, uncharitable interpretations of divine silence, or an inappropriate refusal to accept God for who God is and to accept his preferences about when and in what ways to communicate with us. (Rea 163)

Although almost no one will know what he is truly like until after death, God’s silence is only a hindrance to faith for those who let it. Rea mentioned that even Mother Teresa who was deeply troubled by God’s silence was able to accept it to an extent. As the creator of life and the one to allow free will, he allows humans to question his existence despite the results.

Perhaps stringing together the theories of others for a robust theory trying to explain his motivations, is not enough. Faith in God is as important as the theories we devise to prove he exists; what can look like solid proof to a theist may be easily refuted by an atheist or simply considered by an agnostic. When crafting his robust argument for atheism, William Rowe uses an evidential argument which is much easier to physically prove, but still tries to take the position of “friendly atheism” because he acknowledges that God is part of the lives of others: “And theists tend either to reject the view that the existence of evil provides rational grounds for atheism to hold that religious belief has nothing to do with reason and the evidence at all” (Rowe 43). Since God does not contact humans regularly, his existence is neither refutable nor verifiable; the atheistic side will use the lack of evidence as proof, as well as the large amount of senseless evil, while the theist will use faith. When faced with hard questions, the theist will usually turn to faith. The character Alyosha from Dostoevsky’s “Rebellion” when confronted about his faith and the torment of the innocent his god allowed, he replied by referencing the innocent blood of Jesus who was killed for the benefit of and by the sinners. His brother, Ivan, on the other hand, takes neither the atheist not the theist position, but that of denial: “It is not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket” (Dostoevsky 22). His denial of God is the same as that of the philosopher Thomas Nigel who rejects God not because he fears the authority of an omniscient and omnipotent being, not matter how benevolent. Ivan’s objection is the utilitarian approaches that both Plantinga and Hick take when defending the evil in the world; he even rejects Adams’s response of heavenly reward when he says. Ivan simply cannot morally reconcile God with the quantity and quality of evil that exists in the world. Therefore, he rejects God despite knowing that he exists.

Whether or not to believe or to at least seek God is mainly up to the individual to decide. If they chose to, they have to be willing to constantly seek to understand God’s silence and actively search for him. They must embrace suffering, but not cause it, and allow it to help them grow and connect with God letting him guide you morally: “perhaps you will freely come to recognize that acting wholly by your own lights is unsuccessful and that you need my help” (Ekstrom 140). Most importantly is that those who choose to follow must accept the morality he displays. This is the same morality Ivan Karamazov rejected because, in the end, it is not whether or not God exists amid the evidence against him of the large amount of evil in the world, but whether or not people chose to accept his existence. Choice is what gives worth and meaning to horrendous suffering and divine hiddenness. Belief, on the other hand, is a gift many have yet to receive.

Book referenced:

Rea, Michael. Evil and the Hiddenness of God. Stamford, CT, Cengage Learning, 2015.