Leibniz on the problem of God and Evil
For my philosophy class tomorrow we have to write an 800-1100 word paper on one of two arguements: either Leibniz's argument that God and evil can coexist, or Mackie's arguement that they can't. Well i kind of ditched one of the classes about Mackie's argument, so i've stuck with Leibniz. I think i would have prefered to knitpick Mackie's but oh well. I think i'll get an A on this one. Anyways, for anyone that's interested:
INTRO
John Templeton was once a well-known Christian evangelist. Upon being asked why he converted to agnostic, he spoke of a photograph he saw in a Life magazine. It was a picture of a black woman in Africa holding her baby who had died because of the drought. “Is it possible to believe that there is a loving or caring Creator when all this woman needed was rain?” The message: God, as an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all good entity, cannot exist when evil also exists in the world. Either God is lacking in one of those three qualities, or He does not exist.
Gottfried W. Leibniz, a German philosopher and mathematician, disagreed with that stance and argued that the coexistence of evil and the Christian God is not in fact contradictory. Leibniz’s arguments however were not about proving that God did exist, but rather that there is the possibility of God’s existence, even with evil in the world. He does this by showing how evil can lead to a greater good that may not have been achieved without the existence of evil in the first place.
OBJECTION 1
In Leibniz’s view, the first objection to his stance comes initially in 2 parts. 1) Whoever does not choose the best is lacking in power, knowledge, or goodness, and 2) God (if He exists and did create the world) did not choose the best in the creation of this world. Therefore an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God cannot exist. Leibniz’s answer is a succinct disagreement with the idea that God did not necessarily choose the best in the creation of this world.
Prosyllogism
In response, Leibniz’s objecting voice (whom shall be referred to as the Notorious Diddy Dog, or tNDD for short) seems to take the stance that Leibniz does not fully comprehend the argument and extrapolates by saying,
“Yo L, you’re not feeling me. Let me break it down for you. The best things are not full of crap, not when you can make them without it having crap in it. Damn boy, it would be better to not make it at all! And the Big G made a world full of crap, a world that could have been made without crap, or just not have made it at all!”
So L’s other voice (Sebastian Theodore Wellington III, or STW3) responds with,
“Pish posh and poppycock. My good man, whilst I do concur to the contention that evil does endure within our cosmos and that it is comprehensible for a world to be conceived sans evil or even not be at all, I must repudiate that the optimal avenue is invariably one that circumvents evil. Can not a portion of evil begat a greater good?”
STW3 continues on to give examples of how some evil may even be necessary for a better outcome. One such example he gives is of a battle in war. After all, are not casualties usually necessary in order to win the day? An even more momentous example is given with the connection of Adam and Jesus. After all, what would be the worst possible thing that can ever happen in reality? How about taking the most perfect and innocent being ever, one that did nothing wrong but rather always did the loving and right thing to do, and take Him, torture Him, then kill Him in the most excruciating way possible (random fact, the word ‘excruciating’ was invented to describe the pain of a crucifixion because there was no word they had to describe such pain at that time). This, the worst of evil acts, lead to the best thing humans could ever have… the opportunity (through faith and baptism) to live eternally, in joy, with treasures that out-strip anything this world has to offer.
As is demonstrated through these examples, it is logically conceivable that the existence of evil does not necessarily lead to the non-existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God.
CRITICISM
To begin with, what is the definition of the best possible world? How is the word ‘best’ being used? Is it being used rightly in conjunction with God being all-good? I would contend that Liebniz fell victim to a common flaw of human nature- to believe that we are the center of the universe. Is it not possible that there is a higher purpose to all that was Created than to simply make us feel happy? It seems like ‘good’ is being define as the things that bring us pleasure/happiness; the best is what pleases us most.
Any one of us as finite beings have seen less than .001% of the physical world, less than .000001% of current reality, and almost 0% of all of reality since the beginning of time. We cannot see how everything has, does, and will interweave through time nor the progression that it has, is, and will take. Where has every single act, breath, or molecule lead us? Is it logically conceivable that all of it, collectively is leading towards the best of possible outcomes?
Compared to all that there is to know and understand, how much does any one of us know? Yet here the premise is that we can possibly understand the full nature of good and evil. The argument I see is:
1) I am a finite being that knows and understands very little.
2) I do not understand how God and evil can coexist.
3) Evil exists.
C) Therefore, since my limited knowledge and cognitive capabilities does not allow me to understand everything, God does not exist.
It’s as if we’re saying that God was created for us, when it is much more logical to reverse that (that is- we were created for God). It seems to me that Leibniz’s definition of the best possible world is one that serves us optimally. I would contend that the definition of the best possible world (that is- reality and all of Creation) is one that serves its purpose perfectly (whatever purpose God created everything for).
And yeah, i know my essay has holes in it. I'm not trying to say i know more than you guys (maybe more in some areas, but also less in others). So if you want to knitpick me, i don't mind... it helps me get smarter (and probably you too!) :-)
INTRO
John Templeton was once a well-known Christian evangelist. Upon being asked why he converted to agnostic, he spoke of a photograph he saw in a Life magazine. It was a picture of a black woman in Africa holding her baby who had died because of the drought. “Is it possible to believe that there is a loving or caring Creator when all this woman needed was rain?” The message: God, as an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all good entity, cannot exist when evil also exists in the world. Either God is lacking in one of those three qualities, or He does not exist.
Gottfried W. Leibniz, a German philosopher and mathematician, disagreed with that stance and argued that the coexistence of evil and the Christian God is not in fact contradictory. Leibniz’s arguments however were not about proving that God did exist, but rather that there is the possibility of God’s existence, even with evil in the world. He does this by showing how evil can lead to a greater good that may not have been achieved without the existence of evil in the first place.
OBJECTION 1
In Leibniz’s view, the first objection to his stance comes initially in 2 parts. 1) Whoever does not choose the best is lacking in power, knowledge, or goodness, and 2) God (if He exists and did create the world) did not choose the best in the creation of this world. Therefore an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God cannot exist. Leibniz’s answer is a succinct disagreement with the idea that God did not necessarily choose the best in the creation of this world.
Prosyllogism
In response, Leibniz’s objecting voice (whom shall be referred to as the Notorious Diddy Dog, or tNDD for short) seems to take the stance that Leibniz does not fully comprehend the argument and extrapolates by saying,
“Yo L, you’re not feeling me. Let me break it down for you. The best things are not full of crap, not when you can make them without it having crap in it. Damn boy, it would be better to not make it at all! And the Big G made a world full of crap, a world that could have been made without crap, or just not have made it at all!”
So L’s other voice (Sebastian Theodore Wellington III, or STW3) responds with,
“Pish posh and poppycock. My good man, whilst I do concur to the contention that evil does endure within our cosmos and that it is comprehensible for a world to be conceived sans evil or even not be at all, I must repudiate that the optimal avenue is invariably one that circumvents evil. Can not a portion of evil begat a greater good?”
STW3 continues on to give examples of how some evil may even be necessary for a better outcome. One such example he gives is of a battle in war. After all, are not casualties usually necessary in order to win the day? An even more momentous example is given with the connection of Adam and Jesus. After all, what would be the worst possible thing that can ever happen in reality? How about taking the most perfect and innocent being ever, one that did nothing wrong but rather always did the loving and right thing to do, and take Him, torture Him, then kill Him in the most excruciating way possible (random fact, the word ‘excruciating’ was invented to describe the pain of a crucifixion because there was no word they had to describe such pain at that time). This, the worst of evil acts, lead to the best thing humans could ever have… the opportunity (through faith and baptism) to live eternally, in joy, with treasures that out-strip anything this world has to offer.
As is demonstrated through these examples, it is logically conceivable that the existence of evil does not necessarily lead to the non-existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God.
CRITICISM
To begin with, what is the definition of the best possible world? How is the word ‘best’ being used? Is it being used rightly in conjunction with God being all-good? I would contend that Liebniz fell victim to a common flaw of human nature- to believe that we are the center of the universe. Is it not possible that there is a higher purpose to all that was Created than to simply make us feel happy? It seems like ‘good’ is being define as the things that bring us pleasure/happiness; the best is what pleases us most.
Any one of us as finite beings have seen less than .001% of the physical world, less than .000001% of current reality, and almost 0% of all of reality since the beginning of time. We cannot see how everything has, does, and will interweave through time nor the progression that it has, is, and will take. Where has every single act, breath, or molecule lead us? Is it logically conceivable that all of it, collectively is leading towards the best of possible outcomes?
Compared to all that there is to know and understand, how much does any one of us know? Yet here the premise is that we can possibly understand the full nature of good and evil. The argument I see is:
1) I am a finite being that knows and understands very little.
2) I do not understand how God and evil can coexist.
3) Evil exists.
C) Therefore, since my limited knowledge and cognitive capabilities does not allow me to understand everything, God does not exist.
It’s as if we’re saying that God was created for us, when it is much more logical to reverse that (that is- we were created for God). It seems to me that Leibniz’s definition of the best possible world is one that serves us optimally. I would contend that the definition of the best possible world (that is- reality and all of Creation) is one that serves its purpose perfectly (whatever purpose God created everything for).
And yeah, i know my essay has holes in it. I'm not trying to say i know more than you guys (maybe more in some areas, but also less in others). So if you want to knitpick me, i don't mind... it helps me get smarter (and probably you too!) :-)