Monday, October 4, 2010

Thoughts on the Idea of Omni-Beneficence

In philosophy the idea that evil exists yet God is both Omnipotent and Omni-beneficent is often considered a contradiction. The idea goes that a god who is all-powerful and who creates evil by allowing evil to happen, cannot be all-good. One of the arguments against this idea is that the universe must be better because of the existence of evil.

The allowance of evil, is good. It is good to allow evil to happen. This seems very backwards but is something that governments often practice. Freedom of speech is one instance, people can say just about anything they want (within bounds) without repercussion. If one wishes to write tirades about the US and calls for its destruction, we cannot stop them from saying it. Society might be more "harmonious" if all speech was censored like china does, if all cars had sensors that recorded speeds and positions and ticketed you if you went over the speed limit then there might be far fewer deaths from reckless driving, but the idea that keeps us from implementing these programs is the idea of freedom of choice, privacy, opinion, etc.

In this way God seems to be the originator of laissez faire, the world will not swallow you whole if you kill a man, lightning won't strike a rapist, all sorts of evil happen without any repercussions, poetic justice is not always served. The world will not end because of any act of man. Even if nuclear war erupts the earth will continue spinning, the universe will continue it's dance.

The idea for Christian justice comes in the afterlife. Hell justifies the allowance of evil on Earth and attributes it to freedom of will. His allowance is not to be mistaken for His approval, merely His tolerance. The Bible is very clear on that. (although I am reminded of Dr. Manhattan in "the Watchmen")

An interesting thought: freedom of choice (if it exists) seems to be a necessary part of Omni-beneficence, choice implies the ability to do anything (free will) and therefore to will and do evil.

Thus due to Omni-beneficence He allows evil, a strange paradox.

However, if freedom of choice does not exist, if we are all as predictable as a clock then what is the purpose of this construct? What makes the allowance of evil better? Well this seems to come down to the idea of trust. One must trust that there is an ultimate plan that justifies the existence of this massive and complex machine and whatever evil that comes with it. If you cannot trust in that, then there really is nothing that can objectively convince you of omni-beneficence.

No comments:

Post a Comment