Perhaps Beversluis thinks that God could have improved things immeasurably by eliminating cancer from the world. But how could anyone (who is not omniscient) possibly know that or even have reason to think it true. Try this thought experiment. Try to imagine what our world (with exactly the same persons in it) might have been in the absence of cancer. Our experiment won’t be at all technically accurate, of course, and may even be incoherent, but it may also be pedagogically useful. To begin with, then we must delete from the world (in our imagination) all the pain and suffering caused by this terrible disease as well as all the psychological torment experienced by both cancer victims and those who love such victims; then we must delete all the good—such as the courageous endurance of pain—for which the cancer is a necessary condition; then we must delete all the free choices—and all the consequences of such free choices—that either would not have been made at all or would have been made differently if our world had been devoid of cancer. As one can see, things quickly get complicated. If God exists and there is an afterlife, some of the choices may be choices that result in eternal joy and happiness for some persons. But that is just the beginning of our experiment…Trying to figure out what a world of free persons would be like in the absence of cancer is not like calculating where the planets would be if they had been in certain specified positions last year…Once one begins to think through such complexities as these—which we have barely touched upon—the anti-theistic argument from evil begins to look less and less plausible.
Talbott, T.B. (1987) “C.S. Lewis and the Problem of Evil,” Christian Scholars’ Review, 17(1): 36-51
8 comments:
'Perhaps Beversluis thinks that God could have improved things immeasurably by eliminating cancer from the world. But how could anyone (who is not omniscient) possibly know that or even have reason to think it true.'
We have eliminated smallpox from the world.
Well, somebody has to play God, don't they?
I can't believe this Mr. Talbott is serious. Following his line of reasoning, we should forbid the practice of medicine and the dispensing of pain relieving medications. Think of all the courageous actions we are depriving people of by curing their ailments!
t.
You make many good points, John.
I think the christian concept of a god who is all-powerful, all-good and works within human history results in the problem of evil. Perhaps that is one advantage polytheism has over monotheism, evil is easier to account for under it. Of course, neither hold a match to the theory of evolution. Under it the philosophical problem of evil simply vanishes. All one needs worry about then is the practical problem of how to reduce evil.
t.
You asked the question, "He’d say we have an ethical obligation to lessen human suffering, wouldn’t he? Then why doesn’t God do this?"
I don't believe there is any single Theodicy that is sufficient to explain great evils. So I also believe that giving a single answer to your question is a mistake. However, there is a simple and profound answer: God does not eliminate evil because he gave that job to us. To me it sounds like a stupid plan. We do this job in spits and sputters but we don't do it nearly as well as God would. But it also seems ingenious. We gain our greatest sense of accomplishment and sense of fulfillment when we do something in this world to assuage the suffering of another being. This is not only a good thing, it is the best thing we have going.
Mike D. writes 'We gain our greatest sense of accomplishment and sense of fulfillment when we do something in this world to assuage the suffering of another being. '
God, of course, is already fully accomplished and fulfilled. His moral character is perfect already, so he has no need to perfect it by helping suffering people.
I hope the fact that I didn't respond to a couple of your e-mails has not affected the tone in which you conduct discussions here; I sometimes put an e-mail aside because I am not sure what to say in response, and sometimes I never get back to it. I am afraid I am not up to C. S. Lewis's well-known standard from responding to mail. But do not take that personally.
Talbott has a more detailed version of this in his book "The Inescapable Love of God" (1999) that I recommend reading
>> I can't believe this Mr. Talbott is serious. Following his line of reasoning, we should forbid the practice of medicine and the dispensing of pain relieving medications. Think of all the courageous actions we are depriving people of by curing their ailments! <<
But the act of curing, finding cures, agonizing over medical research for the sake of those suffering, etc, are examples of compassion that we wouldn't see apart from suffering. Talbott's not saying that we shouldn't cure or treat illness, but rather the act of curing or treating is a demonstration of love made possible by illness.
Talbott argued that a sense of separation from God might be necessary for us to become "perfected saints", just as suffering may be necessary for a fully-developed sense of self-awareness, which is another potential argument against the anti-theistic argument from suffering.
The position of Christian Universalism adds more weight to the position (since, in that model, everyone will eventually be in perpetual bliss)
-- Pat Casanova
It's even worse than that, Tim.
If Talbott really, truly believes that inflicting and allowing suffering is justified because of a "greater good", then he should torture every sentient being as much as possible. He should also encourage everyone else to do the same to maximise the "opportunities for compassion" to manifest themselves.
Post a Comment