TheProblemofEvil---AUniversalIssueSeenFromWesternPerspectives.pdf

1 The Problem of Evil-A Universal Issue Seen From Western Perspectives Contents Abstract (English) Abstract (Chinese) 1Introducing the issue - 3 2Biblical basis of the problem of evil - 4 2.1Adamic myth 2.2The new testament between God and Man 3Theological perspectives on the problem of evil - 5 3.1Philosophical methods 3.2Augustine s theodicy3.3Pre-Augustine and post-Augustine reflections 4Intellectual exploration and trends of development - 11 4.1The trends in modern ages 4.2Contemporary significance 5Conclusion - 13 AcknowledgementReferences Appendix 2 The Problem of Evil -A Universal Issue Seen From Western PerspectivesAbstract:Human race had had the capability to land on Moon, to travel in the outer space for decades, but no one in the race dare to declare his control of his inner space after thousands of yearefforts. This article is going to give a brief glance on western people s perennial efforts in dealing with the problem of evil, which is believed to be an irreducible nature of beings in western theology. I ll present the arguments hold by Augustine and his profound influence on later reformers and the whole Christianity. Though it s mostly concerning with the theological aspects, I also paid attention to the philosophical explanations and its practical meaning for us. Then the introduction of modern situation, starting from Nietzsche, would stimulate the readers interest in connecting the reality with the abstract concept of evil. And my own designed survey, to some extent, will show the contemporary attitude towards the issue. Key words：evil, Bible, Augustine, theodicy, 摘要尽管人类登上月球、遨游太空的梦想早在几十年前就以实现，但至今人类几千年的努力也没能让我们真正的了解自己的内在世界。本文将对西方神学中认为是人性中不可克服的罪恶因素进行简单分析；将具体分析奥古斯丁对这一问题的观点，及其对改教者和整个基督教是影响。虽然文章的大量分析是来自神学观点，但也引入了哲学思想。而接下来对于现代状况的介绍，尤其是尼采之后，希望能引导读者把理论与实践相联系从而分析实际问题。我的调查分析将从一定程度上反映当代人对于罪恶问题的态度。关键词 ：罪恶，圣经，奥古斯丁，神正论3 1.Introducing the issue The most important thing in the world is to know oneself. -Montaigne (1533-1592)When someone tells a lie, pretends to be what he isn t, or tried his best to survive by any kind of means; we always say “ That s Man!” and it seems that most of us have a consensus on Man (ourselves). However, what s Man indeed? In retrospect of two-thousand years of western culture, great minds had made their perennial efforts to get a fixed definition of human kind or at least some essential traits which might be called the nature of human, but the question not only has not been settled, on the contrast, the various answers which lead to different directions have caused “ a seriously cultural and ethical crisis ”1. Just as Max Scheler who first smell the crisis protest: in any period, we have never been so integrative about ourselves like today, since there are three distinguished humanics: one based on science, another on philosophy and the third one on theology; and each of them is separate from others.2Back to the classical Greek philosophy, we can easily detect Socrates definition: human is an existence that has reasonable responses to those rational questions.3This definition concerns the knowledge and morality aspects of human, as Aristotle stated the search of knowledge is part of human nature4, and knowledge helps us to establish the moral system which guides us to be more rational about our knowledge. As Stoicism insisted, Socrates also held the same basic view that the privileges and the first responsibility of being a man is to inquiry himself, to ask what s the relationship between him and the sense inside him that governs all.5From this point, Stoicism made humanities strongly feel the obligation of being harmonious with Nature in knowledge while being independent from Nature in morality. That is to say man should make full use of their wisdom and freedom to search for knowledge. This freedom is thought to be the fundamental virtue in Stoicism but turned to be the essential evil and fault in theology (Christianity), which had been the master of human cognition in human culture from two thousands of years ago. Numerous theologians, such as Augustine, John Calvin, and Tertullian, gave their own understanding of human, and mostly according to Bible, the only holy book for the followers of the religious. The one based on science started in Renaissance when a culture was created to free man to discover and enjoy the world in a way not possible under the medieval Church s dispensation. Sciences advanced in logical progression and some scientists even tried to establish an ethical theory through mathematics (Spinoza) or geometry (Pascal), which they thought to be the only sensible understanding of the relation between Man and universe. As in 16th century the Copernican theory proved Sun to be the center of the universe, the emancipation of natural science from theology started and proceeded with giant strides, the dominant position of God was doubted. Especially, in 19th century when Darwinism presented lots of facts and observations for the origin of species by means of natural selection and the descent of Man, an obvious definition of Man was given; all solutions to Man seems to be easy. However, the settlement is still far away from the final goal, not only a strong and immediate opposition from theologians spurted and never ceased, but more and more complexity of human beings come to us. In the recent 100 years, all means of searching for the final and exclusive definition have been adopted, such as, Dewey (1859-1952, the advocator of symbolism philosopher) gave focused on human work (the symbolic activity) and said it to be the center of circle in the explanation of the nature of human;6Sigmund Freud gave prominence to sex instinct 4 and laid out his analysis about superego which was developed later by philosopher Nietzsche. While these scientific and philosophic interpretations appear to be rational and modify the notion of rationality, people become more confused about the nature of human. Notwithstanding the confusion, referring to “ human nature” , we are easily and definitely caught by the question whether Man are born good or evil. Both in the west and China, two different arguments are repeatedly claimed and supported; the problem of evil did and does worth people s efforts in the process of studying ourselves. For example, in China, Confucius made the original goodness of human nature the keynote to his system, whilst Xun Zi insisted the opposite. As the great influence of western ideology, the necessity of knowing it must be fulfilled. Therefore, I d like to invite you to travel along the route of western experience in seeking the truth of human evil, from the biblical times to the period that we call postmodern. 2.Biblical basis of the problem of evilBible, the only holy book for the followers of God, contains two parts-Old Testament and New Testament. While the former is on God and the law of God; the latter concerns the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Testament means agreement, that s the agreement between God and Human. Its very first version is in Hebraic, and was translated into more then 200 languages for the wild spread of Christianity all over the world. As the only authority Scripture, its stories are the basis, either of the western culture, or of all the theological studies. t, we can also trace he problem of evil back to the Bible. 2.1 Adamic mythAdamic myth Probably the first of the ancient Hebraic stories to be used to account for the sinful state of the world was that of the angel marriages: “ the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose” , thus the divine and human essence mixed. Surveying this situation, “ the Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, ” “ and the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth,” 7 the Great Flood became the punishment on human. This brief passage was elaborated into the story of the Watchers in the Book of Enoch whose writing probably covered the last two centuries B.C. before Christ. However, towards the end of the pre-Christian era this story lost ground and was gradually replaced by the story of the fall of Adam and Eve, which has been take as the origin of sin. Since Eve was tricked by the serpent, “ she took of its fruits (the Tree of Knowledge) and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.” 8 But the Adam myth itself, as we find in its primitive simplicity in the early pages of the Book of Genesis, must be distinguished from the later interpretation of it adopted by St. Paul, and the further development of this by St. Augustine, and of course from its literary presentation in the greatest epic in English, telling: Of mans first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste Brought Death into the world, and all our woeThe dramatic fall story which lived most vividly within the Christian circle and outside is not only a simple narrative about the first man and woman, every role involved gets its own symbolism meaning, even the serpent was sometimes treated as the fall angel, and sometimes the Devil. The studies on it are various and formed a systematic body of teaching 5 which we would talked about later in different views on evil. The Test for Job Job, a praised figure in Bible, is a lawabiding and God-fearing innocent man. Yet, for his goodness, Satan denigrates Job in front of God, he was tested by God. Job first lost property and children, and then was attacked on health. Unlike his friends, even in his physical and spiritual anguish, he spoke for all humankind-all the decent, compassionate, good people who have known or experienced what Job has been afflicted with. His behavior has made him a nonesuch for the God s follows. Though the result of the story-Job was rewarded twice of what he lost-turns to a fair solution-is satisfactory, a philosophical question is remained: why God allow the innocent to suffer and what can help human avoid evil. 2.2 The New Testament between God and ManWhen we seek the New Testament basis of the doctrine of the fall of mankind in Adam and Eve it is thus to Paul that we turn, and especially to Romans. Paul s teaching is terribly difficult to interpret; but nevertheless the following relative points present a wide measure of agreement among Pauline commentators. A.Death is a consequence of sin. B.Mankind forms a corporate whole in relation to God, and morality came upon this racial unity as a result of the result of the sin of our first ancestor, Adam. C.The conjunction of sin and death has descended from Adam to all his children through a tendency to sin that is part of our inherited psychophysical make-up. D.The inherited sinful tendency then produces actual sins, which are branded as such by the prohibitions of the law. E.As sin and death came thus through one man, Adam; so they will be abolished through one man, Christ. F.As well as evil men there are evil spirits.9 All these six points clearly present in Roman when Paul went to Roman to proclaim the gospel to the barbarians. Where is the gospel from? According to the New Testament, though human had done unexcused sinful activities, God still love them and sent his only son Jesus to help human to overcome their evil. Jesus “ is the way, the truth, and the life ” , he is “ inthe Father, and Father is in him. After the Crucifixion of Jesus, human got the opportunity to “ have life in his name. ” 10 3. Theological perspectives on the problem of evilThe setting within this subject cannot be treated explicitly without connection with Christian faith, which present its coverage of a third of the population and the land of globe. And the logic and philosophic methods helped the formation of theological theories that I will introduce in the following. 3.1 A paradox and some major approachesBefore we get into the systematic views of the great minds, I think it s necessary for us go through one word, two poles of thought, and three controversial propositions: TheodicyThe word “ theodicy” which coined by Leibnizmeans the justification of God, which is concerned with reconciling the goodness and justice of God with the observable facts of evil and suffering in the world.11 This conception, raised by Augustine, was greatly accepted, we even can read from Milton to “ assert providence and justify the ways of God to man.” In latter part, we ll have a close look on it on 3.2.6 Monism or dualismChristian thought concerning theodicy has always moved between the opposite poles set by the inherent logic of the problem-monism and dualism: Monism, the philosophical view that the universe forms an ultimate harmonious unity, suggests the theodicy that evil is only apparent and would be recognized as good if we could but see it in its full cosmic context: “ All partial evil, universal good.”Such methods as to unify the whole visible world in one substance are also adopted by many contemporary scientists, such as, Dalton who tried to identify atom as the basic and essential particle in the material world, while Avogadro say it to molecule. Since Spinoza took unification as his aim, he deduces his monistic doctrine from the idea of substance, that is, all things have necessarily flowed forth in an infinite number of ways, or always follow the same necessity. As Spinoza stated each finite thing is making its own proper contribution to this in finite perfection. Then the solution obviously emerged: evil is just an illusion of our finite perfection. Dualism, insisting that good and evil are utterly and irreconcilably opposed to one another and their duality can be overcome only by one destroying the other, postulates two deities, one good and the other malevolent In the last part of Bible the final battle between good and evil supported dualism, so most western thinkers accept and take it. This type traces its ancestry back to Plato, the originator of so many of the elements of Western thought; He said “ for evil we must find some other causes, not God.” 12 In 19th century John Stuart Mill stated a form of external dualism which pointed out that nature s evils seem to arise from malfunctioning in a system that is basically designed for preservation and enhancement of life, rather than from any deliberate cosmic aim to produce pain and suffering.13 And then various forms of internal dualism dealt with the moral evil that Mill does not say emerged, but its puzzling obscurities seems more than that in Plato s. For he insists that God is, on one hand, unqualifiedly good and, on the other hand, the source of surd evil. On contrast to external one, Edgar Sheffield Brightman discussed the internal dualism but also involved in the same obscurity. Three propositionsThis obscurity naturally leads to la certain question: Can the presence of evil in the world be reconciled with the existence of a God who is unlimited both in goodness and in power. Evil, as a theological problem, arises for any philosophical or religious view that a