PAPER NO. 83

THEISM

It is clear that matter exists and that matter is not eternal, that the soul exists and that the soul is not eternal.

Only some is eternal, in contrast to material monism, spiritual monism, and dualism (see The Logos Papers).

Introduction

  1. If only some is eternal, then God the creator exists. What is eternal brought into existence, or created, ex nihilo (from nothing) what is not eternal. The creator is God.
  2. Creation ex nihilo is not being from non-being. In creation, God is eternal. In creation, God acts to bring creation into being. The universe did not appear from nowhere as an uncaused event.
  3. Creation is not a change of God’s being. Theism is not pantheism. The analogy for creation of matter is in the experience of a mental event causing a physical event, as in the intention to move one’s arm and the movement of one’s arm. The analogy for the creation of spirit is in the experience of procreation—life flows from parents and becomes other than parents, without the parents being decreased.
  4. Creation is not a unique event in time, but that by which time comes to be. Time is not a thing in itself, but a relation between things created—of physical things in motion or in thought as a succession of ideas in finite minds. Time began with creation. There was no time before creation. God is eternal in the sense of being timeless (outside time).
  5. Creation is not a completion of God’s being. In creating, there is no need in God that is being fulfilled. God creates because He is. To be is to express one’s being. In creating, the nature of God is being expressed. Creation is revelation necessarily, intentionally, and exclusively. There is no knowledge of God apart from creation and its history (providence).
  6. God the creator is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Man as the image of God has these attributes in a finite, temporal, and changeable way. What distinguishes the divine and the human nature are the three incommunicable attributes. Historic theism is more or less conscious and consistent in understanding the nature of God.
  7. General revelation is what can be known of God by all persons, everywhere, at all times. Special revelation, written as scripture, is what can be known of God through transmission alone. Scripture, as redemptive revelation, assumes the existence of moral evil in the denial of clear general revelation.
  8. Theism is not fideism. Theism is grounded in the clarity of general revelation. Fideism is belief without proof or understanding what is clear. As truth is inseparable from meaning, so faith is inseparable from reason.

Hume and the Problem of Evil

  1. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume presents the problem of evil as seen from three points of view:

    1. Demea, the orthodox believer, who speaks of God analogously (God is like man in having wisdom, but unlike man in that God’s wisdom is infinite).
    2. Cleanthes, the rational empiricist, who speaks of God univocally (God’s wisdom is essentially like man’s—greater, but still finite.)
    3. Philo, the skeptic-mystic, who speaks of God equivocally (God’s wisdom is totally unlike man’s—perfect but incomprehensible).
  2. Demea and Philo agree that religion arises from a sense of misery. This view is common (Marx, Freud, popular theism).

To critique this view, consider:

  1. Is this true of all religion or some?
  2. What is religion?
  3. Are all or only some persons religious?
  4. Does religion arise or only change?
  5. If religion is the set of beliefs by which we give meaning to experience (including misery), can religion arise?
  1. Demea and Philo also agree that the world is full of misery (natural evil) and wickedness (moral evil). Consider the many attempts to avoid facing the full extent of this (see The Extent of Natural and Moral Evil section below).
  2. From 2 and 3 above, evil should bring man to God. But to what God? Philo springs on Demea the problem of evil: if God is all good and all powerful, why is there evil? The problem is either a contradiction (these three (G ∙ P ∙ E) are contradictory) or remains unsolvable. (He does allow, for all we know, the possibility of an easy solution).
  3. First solution (Philo): God’s goodness is perfect but incomprehensible.

Response: This is an appeal to an unknown. If God’s goodness is unknowable, then all religion (prayer and praise) ends.

  1. Second solution (Demea): We know in part now. We will have full knowledge in the future (afterlife) when we see the whole picture (in which all difficulties are answered).

Response: Appealing to the future begs the question. This assumes that to know anything one must know everything, which is impossible for finite beings.

  1. Third solution (Cleanthes): There is more good than evil in the world. 

Response: Knowledge of the amounts of suffering in comparison is impossible (e.g., the intensity of pain is incomparable); and why should there be any suffering at all?

  1. Fourth solution (Cleanthes): God’s power is great, but finite.

Response: Even with a finite deity, one would expect a better world. Furthermore, God cannot be creator and finite.

  1. Fifth solution (Philo): No natural evil is necessary; God is indifferent to good and evil (he is amoral).

Consider:

  1. Animal pain is not necessary—not for death, accident, learning, or appreciation.
  2. Evil could be greatly reduced by secret divine intervention (small miracles).
  3. Greater natural endowment or diligence would vastly improve life.
  4. The excesses of nature are not necessary.

Response: God created the moral sense of man with infinite, deliberate, wisdom. God cannot be creator and be morally indifferent.

The Extent of Natural and Moral Evil

  1. Nature vs. nature
  2. Nature vs. man
  3. Man vs. man
  4. Man vs. woman
  5. Man vs. self
  6. Bad attitude
  7. Ignorance is bliss
  8. Island of bliss in a sea of misery
  9. Suicide
  10. Hope
  11. Retirement
  12. Nature
  13. Knowledge
  14. Family and friends
  15. Full extent and cause of natural evil
  16. Full extent of denial of reason/logos
  17. Full consequence of denial of reason

The Free Will Solution to the Problem of Evil

  1. The Free Will Solution to the problem of evil is frequently used. It affirms that:
  1. Natural evil is due to moral evil.
  2. Moral evil is due to free will.
  3. Free will is necessary for human dignity.
  1. Response:
  1. Free will makes moral evil possible, not actual.
  2. If moral evil becomes actual, that does not make it necessary.
  3. Free will does not have to make moral evil possible (God is free without the possibility of evil; in the final state man is free without the possibility of evil).
  4. One can pass from innocence to virtue without moral evil (temptation is not sin).

The Ironic Solution to the Problem of Evil

  1. Introduction

    1. The problem of evil is an intellectual problem. It is a problem for man as a rational being. The concern is to know why there is evil (how can it make sense if God exists?), not merely how to remove it practically. As such, if it is to be solved, it will require a clearer, deeper, and more consistent understanding of good and evil.
    2. Definition of ‘good’:

      1. Good for man as a rational being is the use of reason to the fullest.
      2. Reason is used to understand the nature (meaning) of the world.
      3. The nature of the world as created reveals the nature of God.
      4. Therefore, good for man is the knowledge of God.
    3. Definition of ‘evil’:

      1. Evil for man as a rational being is the failure to use reason to the fullest.
      2. It is the failure to understand the nature of things.
      3. Therefore, evil for man is the failure to know God.
      4. It is to neglect, avoid, resist, or deny reason in the face of what is clear about God.
  2. Why is there moral evil?

Consider the parable of the prodigal son.

Moral evil (unbelief) serves two purposes:

  1. Evil as unbelief serves to obscure the revelation of the divine nature. (The younger son, living daily with his father, had a clear revelation of his father’s love, yet failed to see it because of his unbelief about what is good.)
  2. Evil as unbelief serves to deepen the revelation of the divine nature. (The sequence of events brought about by unbelief deepens the revelation of divine justice and mercy.)

There are two parts to this solution:

  1. If evil (unbelief) is removed abruptly, then the revelation will not be deepened; if evil (unbelief) is not removed, then the revelation will not be seen.
  2. The solution is to remove evil gradually. Evil (unbelief) in every possible form and degree of admixture and conflict with the good (belief) is allowed to work itself out in world history. In this conflict, good eventually overcomes evil. Consider worldview conflicts in world history.

The assumptions of this solution:

  1. There is a clear general revelation.
  2. There is no other way to deepen the revelation.
  3. The good as the knowledge of God justifies evil.
  1. Why is there natural evil?

    1. Natural evil consists in toil, strife, and old age, sickness and death.
    2. Natural evil is not original; natural evil is due to moral evil; natural evil is imposed as a call back from moral evil.
    3. Natural evil is imposed to restrain, recall from, and remove moral evil. It calls man to stop and think deeply about basic things.
    4. Natural evil assumes the existence of self-deception and self-justification when we neglect, avoid, resist, and deny reason in the face of what is clear.
  2. The Ironic Solution

It is the nature of evil to reverse the order of things, to call good evil and evil good, to blind a person to the nature of good and evil. With this understanding of good and evil, the problem becomes transformed. The problem is not resolved; rather, it is, ironically, dissolved:

  1. Because of all evil in the world I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and all powerful.
  2. Because of all the unbelief in the world I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and all powerful.
  3. Because of all the unbelief in me I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and all powerful.
  4. Because I have neglected and avoided the use of reason (shut my eyes and closed my ears) I cannot see what is clear about God.

The solution to the problem of evil thus understood is objectively easy but subjectively difficult.

This paper was originally developed for an Introduction to Philosophy course.


© 1992/2004 Logos Papers Press