Philosophy of Religion Course Notes
"The Problem of Evil" by Mill and Hick

In these notes I am going to deal with the readings by Mill, Hick and others concerning the Problem of Evil. This is not a new problem for us, as we considered it to some degree when discussing the differing concepts of God. Mill does a good job of cataloging all of the potential ills and suffering which have and can affected humankind throughout the years.

Mill: Nature

Mill's main emphasis is on the "evils" which occur in the natural world, evils for which humans would be condemned if they had perpetrated them upon others. Mill considers death, disease, natural disasters, etc. to be evils on a grand scale, mainly because they result in a great deal of human suffering.

Mill also considers several possible responses to the problem of these evils:

The only acceptable response to the Problem of Evil that Mill will accept is one which claims that God is not omnipotent in the sense that she can "whip Satan anytime", but rather is omnipotent in the sense that "God cannot at once and altogether subdue the powers of evil, ..........but could and did make them (humans) capable of carrying on the fight with vigor and with progressively increasing success" (pg. 244). In this manner, human beings are considered to be the allies or 'weapons' in the fight against evil (Satan). Thus, rather than see ourselves as passive victims of a fight which is not our own, we should see ourselves as active and essential participants in a battle between good and evil.


Page 1





Hick, The Irenean Theodicy:

Any attempt to make the existence of an All-knowing, All-powerful and benevolent God consistent with the existence of evil is known as a Theodicy. The particular Theodicy that Hick appeals to is attributed to the Hellenistic (Greek) philosopher Ireneaus. This Theodicy first divides the evil in the world into Moral evil and Non-Moral evil.

The existence of Moral evil is explained by claiming, as many Theodicies do, that God allows the existence of Moral evil because human beings have free wills. The existence of a free will is necessary for the proper worship of God, and to avoid the metaphysical pitfalls of a religious fatalism (predestination). If we wanted the evil to stop, it is up to us to make it happen.

The real problem for any Theodicy is the existence of Non-Moral Evil. The editor of the text identifies four categories of this evil:

The key to understanding these causes of human suffering may lie in an examination of the second and the third categories. Humans have learned to minimize the suffering caused by these categories of 'evil' by either adapting the environment or by learning how to avoid the dangers associated with them. (Relatively few people suffer because of dangerous animals any more, as we have learned to identify and avoid (or eliminate) them. In the case of hostile environments (including space) we have learned to adapt our immediate environment through shelter or clothing to compensate for the harshness of the environment. If the environment is too harsh, we have learned to just stay away. (There are those notable exceptions, but by and large these people choose to ignore the danger and suffer the consequences).

Why would God create a world with the potential for such suffering? Hick's answer involves interpreting the creation story in Genesis in a non-literal fashion. Rather than regarding the story as an account of what has already happened, he suggests that we consider it an account of what is currently taking place. The idea here is that we are an integral part of God's creation. In essence, we have not yet reached the final 'day' of creation. God is still, in a way, creating humanity (using us as tools and as that which is shaped). This earth is seen as a factory for making souls. This creation requires the possibility that we suffer in order to provide incentive for improvement.

Think of it this way - Suppose I came into class the first day and announced that a certain percentage of you were going to get a B, and another percentage were going to get a D or F in the course. I had already decided which student would get which grade, and therefore there would be no tests, assignments or readings which were required.

Would there be any reason to be in this course?

Would you learn anything about the Philosophy of Religion while you were here?

Of course not - at least, you would not learn anything because I made you learn. None of us likes exams (trust me), yet we all realize that without the continual 'tests' this 'school' puts you through, none of us would learn very much. I would not learn how you were doing or what you were thinking, and you would have no incentive to learn - and no way to measure how much you have learned.

Consider the recent floods in North Dakota. In spite of a raging river, no lives (as of today) have been lost. There was property damage, but we already know how to repair that - and in the grand scheme of things it is minimal considering the amount of damage and loss of life has been suffered in the past from floods. The same can be said of many other natural disasters. Most of those who suffer the most either did not prepare for the 'disaster', or ignored the warnings to evacuate the area.

What about diseases and death? First of all, death itself is not necessarily an evil. Maybe the suffering which leads up to it needs explaining, but the death need not be considered evil. Hick points out that in one sense, diseases are yet another 'test' we have to 'pass' - if nothing else, we have much less death and suffering from diseases now than we did in the past (globally speaking, that is). We know how to avoid most diseases and how to treat those we cannot avoid. It can be seen as a sign of immense progress (especially considering where we were 200 years ago) that the most persistent problems are the treatment of AIDS, cancer and genetic ailments. Even with these persistent diseases, Hick points out that these sorts of problems are not without solutions, since this is a world in which certain physical laws apply without exception. Without these 'problems', there could be no science, no consistent laws of causation, etc. In fact, a 'Paradise' without suffering would be the worst sort of world for motivating people to learn and to advance morally.

Two consequences of this view:

Hick notes two consequences of this view for our ideas on life after death.


Discussion Questions:


End of notes on "The Problem of Evil"

copyright 1997©Michael J. Connelly,
Longview Community College
One of the Metropolitan Community Colleges
"Where a Smart Future Begins"
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Inquiries to:connelly@longview.cc.mo.us
last update: 4/24/1997

(file address: www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/socsci/philosophy/religion/evil.htm)