Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The question of evil’s existence in a world supposedly created by a perfect God is a perennial philosophical problem. Theodicy, the attempt to reconcile the existence of God with the existence of evil, has occupied theologians and philosophers for centuries. The core of the issue lies in the apparent incompatibility of divine attributes – omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), and omnibenevolence (all-good) – with the undeniable reality of suffering and moral wrongdoing. If God is indeed the ‘Absolute Creator’, possessing complete control and foresight, the question arises: can the responsibility for evil truly rest with human agents, or does it ultimately fall upon the Creator? This essay will critically examine this assertion, exploring the arguments surrounding free will, divine determinism, and the nature of moral responsibility.
The Argument for Divine Responsibility
The premise that if God is the Absolute Creator, responsibility for evil cannot belong to humans, stems from the idea of divine determinism. If God created everything, including the conditions that lead to evil actions, then He is ultimately responsible. This line of reasoning suggests that human actions are merely the unfolding of a preordained plan. Several arguments support this view:
- Divine Foreknowledge: If God knows all future events, including evil acts, then these acts are, in a sense, already determined. God’s knowledge implies a lack of genuine openness in the future, making human choices illusory.
- Divine Causation: The doctrine of creation *ex nihilo* (from nothing) implies that God is the ultimate cause of everything that exists. Therefore, even the inclination towards evil must ultimately originate from God.
- Total Sovereignty: A truly Absolute Creator would possess complete control over all aspects of creation. Allowing evil to exist, even if for a greater purpose, seems to diminish God’s sovereignty.
This perspective often leads to pessimistic theodicies, such as the idea that evil is an inherent part of the created order, a necessary consequence of existence itself, and thus unavoidable even by an all-powerful God.
The Counter-Argument: Free Will and Moral Responsibility
The most prominent counter-argument centers on the concept of free will. This argument, often associated with thinkers like Augustine and Alvin Plantinga, posits that God granted humans genuine freedom to choose between good and evil. Evil, therefore, is not a result of God’s actions but a consequence of human misuse of this freedom.
- The Free Will Defense: This defense argues that a world with free creatures is inherently more valuable than a world of automatons, even if it means the possibility of evil. God values freedom so highly that He allows the risk of evil to preserve it.
- Libertarian Free Will: This philosophical position asserts that human choices are not causally determined by prior events. Humans have the power to do otherwise, making them genuinely responsible for their actions.
- Moral Responsibility: If humans lack free will, the concepts of moral praise and blame become meaningless. Punishment and reward would be unjust if individuals were not truly responsible for their actions.
However, the Free Will Defense faces challenges. Critics argue that even if humans have free will, God could have created a world where humans freely choose good more often. Furthermore, natural evil (suffering caused by natural disasters) poses a problem for the Free Will Defense, as it is not directly attributable to human choices.
Intermediate Positions and Nuances
Several intermediate positions attempt to reconcile divine responsibility and human agency. These often involve modifying traditional conceptions of God’s attributes or the nature of time.
- Process Theology: This theological perspective, developed by Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, views God as being *in* the world, rather than completely *above* it. God influences, but does not completely control, the unfolding of events. Evil arises from the inherent limitations of the creative process.
- Open Theism: This view argues that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. The future is open and contingent, allowing for genuine human freedom and unpredictable outcomes.
- The Problem of Evil as a Mystery: Some theologians argue that the problem of evil is ultimately a mystery beyond human comprehension. God’s reasons for allowing evil may be beyond our limited understanding.
The debate also hinges on differing understandings of ‘responsibility’. Is responsibility solely about causal origination, or does it also involve moral culpability? Even if God causally allows evil, it doesn’t necessarily follow that He is morally culpable for it.
Theological and Philosophical Implications
The resolution of this debate has significant implications for our understanding of God, morality, and the human condition. If God is ultimately responsible for evil, it challenges traditional notions of divine goodness and justice. If humans are fully responsible, it raises questions about the extent of divine control and the meaning of divine providence. The question also impacts our approach to suffering, forgiveness, and the pursuit of a just world.
Conclusion
The assertion that if God is the Absolute Creator, responsibility for evil cannot belong to the human agent, is a complex one. While the logic of divine determinism presents a compelling case for divine responsibility, the intuitive appeal of free will and moral accountability offers a strong counterargument. Ultimately, the debate remains unresolved, with various theological and philosophical positions offering nuanced perspectives. A complete answer requires acknowledging the limitations of human understanding and the inherent mystery surrounding the problem of evil. The question forces us to confront fundamental questions about the nature of God, the meaning of freedom, and the enduring challenge of suffering in the world.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.