RE: The Problem of Evil, Christians, and Inconsistency
August 29, 2014 at 3:07 am
(This post was last modified: August 29, 2014 at 3:21 am by Michael.)
The problem of evil is certainly one I find challenging, and I can't pretend to have a perfect answer. But I think we can get beyond some of the assumptions of the Epicurean problem of evil outlined in the OP.
If I may start with a story, Pickup. Abbot Christopher Jamison is a Benedictine monk who was headmaster of the well-respected Worth school in England. He recounted that parents of prospective children would come and visit and would often say something along the lines of "I just want my child to be happy". He said he wondered why he never heard "I just want my children to be of service to others", or "I just want my children to love".
And this highlights something about the problem of evil Epicurus proposed. If we step back and, instead of launching into the problem, think about presuppositions of the problem then we begin to see the problem tells us as much, if not more, about Epicurus than about evil. Underlying the problem proposed is an assumption that the universe should be organised so that the end result is that everyone is happy. What Abbot Christopher gently challenged is that very notion. And so, as parents, do we subvert all things to ensuring the happiness of our children? Would we encourage them to ride rough-shod over others to secure their own happiness? Do we encourage them to dismiss any environmental concerns that might get in the way of their happiness? Surely not.
But as we start to go deeper along these lines of thoughts we begin to explore and understand what true happiness might be. And we might begin to explore the thoughts of another Greek philosopher, who had quite a different view of ultimate happiness than Epicurus, and we might find alternative Greek philosophy more in line with Christian thought. For Epicurus happiness meant an absence of suffering, freedom from pain. And we see that reflected in his 'problem of evil'. We might simply accept that and rush headlong into his problem. But we can also challenge it. For Plato, true happiness came from acting with virtue, knowing that we had done the right thing.
We can illustrate that with another story, that of Maximilian Kolbe. Kolbe was far from a saint in all his life, but he is known for one amazing act of heroism. He volunteered to die in place of a stranger, a father and husband, in the Nazi German death camp of Auschwitz. He, with others, was placed in a bunker and left to die of dehydration. After two weeks, it is told, that he was still alive, so was finally killed by an injection of carbolic acid. This is about as far away from an Epicurean ideal of happiness than you can get. Yet, it very much fits to a Platonic idea of 'happiness'; dying knowing absolutely that you die out of love for others. This, of course, mirrors the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, and many martyrs have been 'happy' to follow the example of our Lord. Jesus, to Christians, was, and is, the image of what the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is like, and he suffered pain for a greater cause; he showed us another way, the Kingdom Way; and it is not necessarily a way without suffering. For Christians, suffering is subservient to the goal of love. Or as C.S.Lewis put it (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), 'perhaps God doesn't necessarily want us to be free from suffering; he wants us to love and be loveable'.
And so, if you'll forgive that circumlocution, I'd want to shake up the assumptions behind the Epicurean problem as presented. Before we launch ourselves into the problem, do we actually accept the Epicurean world view that lies behind it? So, as parents, do we really just want our children to be happy (from an Epicurean perspective)? Should all things organise themselves around our children's Epicurean happiness? Or does Abbot Christopher point us to a re-ordering of priorities, even for our own children. Can the example of Maximilian Kolbe help us see something that Plato saw that Epicrus did not?
Just a view from a different angle.
If I may start with a story, Pickup. Abbot Christopher Jamison is a Benedictine monk who was headmaster of the well-respected Worth school in England. He recounted that parents of prospective children would come and visit and would often say something along the lines of "I just want my child to be happy". He said he wondered why he never heard "I just want my children to be of service to others", or "I just want my children to love".
And this highlights something about the problem of evil Epicurus proposed. If we step back and, instead of launching into the problem, think about presuppositions of the problem then we begin to see the problem tells us as much, if not more, about Epicurus than about evil. Underlying the problem proposed is an assumption that the universe should be organised so that the end result is that everyone is happy. What Abbot Christopher gently challenged is that very notion. And so, as parents, do we subvert all things to ensuring the happiness of our children? Would we encourage them to ride rough-shod over others to secure their own happiness? Do we encourage them to dismiss any environmental concerns that might get in the way of their happiness? Surely not.
But as we start to go deeper along these lines of thoughts we begin to explore and understand what true happiness might be. And we might begin to explore the thoughts of another Greek philosopher, who had quite a different view of ultimate happiness than Epicurus, and we might find alternative Greek philosophy more in line with Christian thought. For Epicurus happiness meant an absence of suffering, freedom from pain. And we see that reflected in his 'problem of evil'. We might simply accept that and rush headlong into his problem. But we can also challenge it. For Plato, true happiness came from acting with virtue, knowing that we had done the right thing.
We can illustrate that with another story, that of Maximilian Kolbe. Kolbe was far from a saint in all his life, but he is known for one amazing act of heroism. He volunteered to die in place of a stranger, a father and husband, in the Nazi German death camp of Auschwitz. He, with others, was placed in a bunker and left to die of dehydration. After two weeks, it is told, that he was still alive, so was finally killed by an injection of carbolic acid. This is about as far away from an Epicurean ideal of happiness than you can get. Yet, it very much fits to a Platonic idea of 'happiness'; dying knowing absolutely that you die out of love for others. This, of course, mirrors the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, and many martyrs have been 'happy' to follow the example of our Lord. Jesus, to Christians, was, and is, the image of what the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is like, and he suffered pain for a greater cause; he showed us another way, the Kingdom Way; and it is not necessarily a way without suffering. For Christians, suffering is subservient to the goal of love. Or as C.S.Lewis put it (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), 'perhaps God doesn't necessarily want us to be free from suffering; he wants us to love and be loveable'.
And so, if you'll forgive that circumlocution, I'd want to shake up the assumptions behind the Epicurean problem as presented. Before we launch ourselves into the problem, do we actually accept the Epicurean world view that lies behind it? So, as parents, do we really just want our children to be happy (from an Epicurean perspective)? Should all things organise themselves around our children's Epicurean happiness? Or does Abbot Christopher point us to a re-ordering of priorities, even for our own children. Can the example of Maximilian Kolbe help us see something that Plato saw that Epicrus did not?
Just a view from a different angle.
