اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Religion
Lecture Series: “God and Evil” by Mohsen Kadivar
In his lecture series 'God and Evil', Mohsen Kadivar examines the problem of evil from the perspective of the philosophy of religion: from critiquing atheistic arguments and classical defences to the shift from theodicy to anthropodicy and the emotional dimensions of suffering.
Why did God create such a bad world?! Where is God in this world full of evil? Which group is right: atheists, those who deny the absoluteness of God's knowledge, power, and benevolence, or the defenders of ontological freedom and human free will? Which philosophy of life and approach do Islamic teachings defend: relinquishing the absoluteness of God's knowledge, power, and benevolence, or relinquishing the absoluteness of ontological freedom and human free will?
.
.
Session One | Sunday, May 17, 2020
Watch Video on YouTube: Lecture, Q&A
Evil is divided into natural and moral; and theoretical and practical.
The theoretical problem of evil pertains to the "logical and philosophical/epistemic relations" of propositions related to God's existence and attributes with the problem of evil.
The existential or practical problem of evil, instead of abstract and general analysis, deals with the personal experience of human beings, relying on human emotions and passions.
The theoretical problem of evil is divided into the logical and philosophical problem of evil. Solutions to the theoretical problem of evil are of two types: defense and theodicy (or divine justice).
Formulation of the Problem of Evil:
If God knows, can, and wills the good of His servants, He should have prevented the occurrence of evil. But He did not prevent it. Therefore, either He was unaware of the existence of evil (denial of absolute knowledge), or He lacked the ability to prevent the occurrence of evil (denial of absolute power), or despite His knowledge and power, the pain and suffering of His servants did not matter to Him (violation of pure benevolence). The existence of evil is undeniable. Thus, either God does not exist, or God is not omniscient, omnipotent, or purely benevolent.
Three Solutions of Theists:
1_ The atheists' argument from evil is only complete if God's power extends to logical impossibilities. Theists who believe that limiting God's power to logical possibilities ties God's hands are, from this perspective, incapable of answering the problem of evil posed by atheists.
2_ God had a "necessary and sufficient moral reason" for the existence of the evils we observe, such that in God's comprehensive plan for the world, these evils were necessary for the realization of a greater good. A purely good being would never allow a morally evil state to occur, except for the sake of achieving higher goods. This answer has at least three versions: holism or the aesthetic view, evil as a necessary byproduct of natural laws, and evil as a catalyst for the growth of moral virtues.
3_ Moral evils are the product of the wrong choice of a free being and the selection of an evil option. If humans were not free and autonomous, such evils would never occur. To think that God is obliged to deprive a human of free will when they intend to commit evil is a contradiction: depriving a free being of free will, and a logical contradiction is impossible. Depriving humankind of free will is a far greater evil than the commission of evil by humans. All the evils committed by humans are considered insignificant compared to the abundant good of their free will. Thus, once again, God has "sufficient moral reasons" for creating a free being, even if this free being commits evil.
By relying on these three points, the problem of evil as formulated by atheists is incomplete, and the problem of evil does not pose a difficulty for the existence of God or the absoluteness of His attributes. At least four other points remain, which will be discussed in the next session.
.
.
Session Two | Sunday, June 7, 2020
Watch video on YouTube: Lecture, Q&A
God and Evil is a philosophical endeavor (philosophy of religion) with a theistic approach to solving the problem of evil.
Human knowledge is limited to a very small part of the material world (and not all of it). Humans do not perceive the necessary connection between evils and greater goods, nor those greater goods themselves. Nor is it necessary for the wisdom behind all evils to be apparent to humankind.
Valuable debates have taken place between William Rowe and philosophers of skeptical theism (Bergmann, Alston, Wykstra, Perrine, etc.). We have no reason to suppose we are acquainted with the necessary connections between possible goods and possible evils. Among contemporary approaches in the philosophy of religion, skeptical theism is one of the strongest and most justified defenses of theism regarding the problem of evil.
Non-believers do not consider the existing world, filled with evils, to be a good world, and believe that by eliminating evils we would have a better world. From the perspective of theists, the material world is the best possible world, due to the congruity between the act and the agent.
Proving the best of all possible systems relies on the philosophical proof of God's "consummate wisdom." Such a thing cannot be proven through empirical means and limited human knowledge. With limited human knowledge, proving that a world better than the existing one is possible is precluded, unless we believe in the self-sufficiency of human knowledge.
According to religious texts, a partial connection between some moral evils and natural disasters is undeniable (particular affirmative), but proving a universal connection of every natural evil to moral evil, specifically sin (universal affirmative), is rationally unprovable and is, at the very least, beyond human knowledge. On the other hand, the proposition that natural and moral evils have no connection whatsoever (universal negative) is also unacceptable in light of religious texts.
What cannot be rationally refuted is the connection of "some natural and moral evils" with some sins, but which evil with which sin? The answer to this question is beyond human knowledge, and any application of specific instances of occurred evils to sin requires certain proof, a proof that, to the best of my knowledge, is unavailable.
In existentialist philosophy and theology, the magnitude of metaphysical evil causes natural and moral evils to be assumed as mundane. In the traditional paradigm, the triad was "God, Evil, and Divine Justice."
In the modern period, the triad of "Human, Suffering, and Human Justice" is proposed. With the shift to "anthropocentrism," it is the human who must "manage and rectify" evil, not merely "explain and justify" it. "Suffering" takes the place of evil. Theodicy (the compatibility of God with the existence of evil based on God as pure good) transforms into Anthropodicy or human justice (human as good). The difference between these two approaches is very profound. The subject of the next session will focus on a critical analysis of this approach.
.
.
Session Three | Sunday, June 28, 2020
Watch video on YouTube: Lecture, Q&A
The logical incompatibility and philosophical reason for negating God's existence or denying the absoluteness of His attributes is not complete, and from a theistic perspective, justified reasons have been presented for the existence of evils in the world.
Exiting the rational model and entering the emotional, affective, and existential model of evil means feeling aggrieved by God and experiencing a sense of God's absence, silence, and indifference. When
The God of open theology is a passive, temporal, ignorant, and impotent God.
Theology of Protest: The Holocaust is a turning point in emotional and affective approaches to the problem of evil. Through faithful protest against a God whose power is not limited by any rational or moral rule, the suffering person seeks to draw His errant goodness and grace toward themselves.
God can change history but, for unknown reasons, does not use His power: an omnipotent being who is not benevolent. One must protest against Him so that He changes His ways and divine justice and morality draw closer to human justice and morality.
Job (as narrated in the Bible) and the madmen of Attar's *Musibat-nama* have served as material for the theology of protest.
Theology of God's Weakness: A "weak, powerless God" is introduced in place of an executioner, torturer, and irrational God who suffers alongside those who suffer. When God is the agent of our suffering, Christian interpretations of suffering amount to a recommendation of "self-harm." We have been taught the sanctification of a "sadistic God."
Why didn't God intervene in the suffering of that little boy in Auschwitz? Therefore, God cannot; He is helpless. God is on the gallows alongside those who suffer! Although this approach has moved beyond the executioner, torturer, and irrational God, it has not lost its faith in a weak, powerless God.
A critique of these two approaches will come at the end of the descriptive discussion of existential, emotional, and affective approaches.
.
.
Session Five | Sunday, August 2, 2020
Watch Video on YouTube: Lecture, Q&A
Critique of Emotional and Affective Approaches to the Problem of Evil
Process Theology The two attributes of God's omniscience and omnipotence are relinquished in order to preserve His pure benevolence. A God who is not purely benevolent is a contradiction, but a God lacking absolute knowledge and power is not!
Death of God Theology: It is no longer permissible to speak of a living, active God who is extremely violent, unjust, and deserving of being killed. Let us not search in vain for some kind of metaphysical reality. God is not the focus of this theology, and evil is resolved with the help of humans.
Review and Critique of Emotional and Affective Approaches
First Critique. If one considers the response of theology based on reformed epistemology to the logical problem of evil and the response of skeptical theology to the philosophical problem of evil to be complete, then there is no need to address the claims of the emotional and affective approach.
Second Critique. These approaches consider other solutions to be ahistorical, abstract, observer-centered, second-order, theoretical, non-tragic, and non-mysterious. The entire argument lies in proving these premises. One cannot critique rational solutions from an emotional and affective perspective.
Third Critique. Emotional and affective approaches have not been able to solve the problem of evil. Perhaps they have, if we assume the solution to be emotional catharsis, temporary psychological relief, and consolation. It can be said that these approaches are more psychotherapeutic and psychoanalytic in nature.
Fourth Critique. Emotional and affective approaches have placed the human being in God's position from the outset. The absence of suffering and the feeling of satisfaction for every human being is the most obligatory of obligations. Where and with what reason has anthropocentrism been proven? They have presumably arrived at it through spiritual emotions and affects. But how much rational value does it have?!
Fifth Critique. A study of the circumstances of the proponents of emotional and affective approaches shows that adopting such an approach has a cause, not a reason. One must sympathize with these sufferers. But a complex philosophical problem demands a rational solution.
Sixth critique. Emotional and affective approaches are "irrefutable." When a matter becomes personal, what room is left for the intersubjective, which inevitably becomes abstract?
Seventh critique. In the domestic version, emotional and affective approaches claim to follow the God of the Quran and negate the God of the philosophers, namely the "School of Separation" (Maktab-e Tafkik). By separating demonstration (burhan) from the Quran, the interpretation of revelation is practically reduced to an untrodden and weak path.
According to George Mavrodes: The problem of evil is solely a problem for "some persons," not for everyone. The problem of evil depends on the individual perceiving their own beliefs as incompatible or in conflict with one another. The problem of evil does not exist apart from particular individuals. It is unlikely that we will have a solution to evil that is convincing for everyone.
This solution is separate from Reformed epistemology and does not employ the teachings of that school.
.
.
Session Six | Sunday, August 23, 2020
Watch Video on YouTube: Lecture, Q&A
Defensible Approaches in Modern Theology to the Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is not merely theological or exclusive to theists; it is a philosophical problem that atheists also face in the meaning of life.
The focal point in the problem of evil is not its existence, but the attention to evils and their incomprehensibility.
The main premise of the logical form of the problem of evil has been seriously contested, and it has been proven that there are greater goods that morally not only permit but necessitate the existence of the evils present in the world. God's morally justified reason for the occurrence of moral evils is human free will.
The case for the logical form of the argument from evil has been closed with the free will defense, and atheists must think of another argument to consolidate atheism.
The existence of gratuitous evils as evidence for the non-existence of God is one of the hottest topics in contemporary philosophy of religion. The most important critics of this philosophical approach are skeptical theists: there is no gratuitous evil in the world. Every evil leads to a greater good or prevents a greater evil.
From the fact that we do not see a greater good, one absolutely cannot conclude that no greater good exists, especially when there is a vast epistemological distance between us and God. Skeptical theism holds a robust position in contemporary philosophy of religion.
The division of approaches to the problem of evil into traditional theology and modern theology has counterexamples on both sides in our discussion and is neither comprehensive nor exclusive.
The various approaches to the problem of evil are divided into logical and philosophical approaches that affirm the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly benevolent God, and approaches that deny it. The majority of pre-modern philosophers fall into the first category. Contemporary theological approaches based on Reformed epistemology and skeptical theism also belong in this category.
But the second category consists of process theology and open theism, which, for different reasons, deny God's omniscience and omnipotence; existentialist theology; and the emotional and affective approaches of protest theology and the theology of God's weakness, which, while acknowledging God's existence, have solved the problem of evil by disregarding God's omniscience and omnipotence. The death of God theology has also considered the problem solved by eliminating God.
Reformed epistemology is a position in religious epistemology according to which belief in God can function as a basic belief. This view stands in opposition to evidentialism/foundationalism.
This type of epistemology, on the one hand, accepts belief in God in the same sense as presented in the Abrahamic religions, and on the other hand, considers belief in God to be a basic belief that does not need to rely on any other belief.
.
Source: Official website of Mohsen Kadivar
.
.
Discussion7 comments
در باب گفته های خانم نیایش: مشخص است که اطلاعات شما در این زمینه خوب و بالا است.اما یک نکته: مباحث شر به درد افرادی می خورد که به دنبال مباحث معرفتی برای کاهش شر هستند و تغییر نگاه به آنها واقعا کمک می کند اما برخی افراد مانند کودکان کار و ... نیازمند به کمک مستقیم خیریه ها و افراد نیکوکار و ... هستند.بحثهای معرفتی زیاد به درد افرادی نمی خورد که نیازهای اولیه اساسی آنها روی زمین است.اما تنها این گروه نیستند که درگیر شر هستند. این هم درست است که خدای ادیان موفق تر از خدای فلسفه در بحث شرور است.
در باب نظر اول یعنی نظر آقای حجت: بحث شر در بحث بالا با فرض خدا در تضاد است و سعی بر این است که این تضاد بحث شود. می توان بحث شر را بدون پیش فرض خدا طرح کرد اما بحث عوض می شود و زمین بازی عوض می شود.بنابراین نقد شما وارد نیست.
اقای محمد شما خودتان میگویید که شر با فرض خدادر تضاد است خوب بحث همینجاست که ایندو با هم قابل جمع نیستند وجود شر بدون خدا که حل شده است طبیعی است ادعای شما فاقد معنا ست
کلمه «اثبات» نقش مهم را در کل این متن بازی میکند. اگر کسی ابتدا به معنی و معیار «اثبات» بپردازد، درگیر برخی مسائل نمیشود.
سیاهچاله ها (اثبات شده اند) سیاهچاله ها اشیای بسیار پُرجرمی هستند که حتی نور هم نمی تواند از چنگال گرانش عظیم آنها فرار کند.اثرات سیاهچاله ها از طریق رفتار اجرامی که به دور آنها می چرخند قابل مشاهده است,,, مانند( شرورِ در جهان). اما سفید چاله (هنوز اثبات نشده) سفیدچاله در نسبیت عام , یک منطقه فرضی در فضا-زمان است که امکان ورود ندارد , اما ماده و نور می تواند از آن خارج شود,, سفیدچاله بجای اینکه مانند سیاهچاله ها همه چیز را ببلعند,, همه چیز را مانند فواره سفید نور به بیرون پرتاب می کند. شاید (شرور) به نوعی همان سیاهچاله ها باشند که همه چیز را می بلعند و در خود فرو می برند و به هیچ موجودی رحم نمی کنند و (خیر) همان سفیدچاله باشد که نور را به صورت فواره ایی سفید به بیرون پرتاپ می کند,, در جهان سیاهچاله ها اثبات شده اند ولی هنوز هیچ سفیدچاله ایی توسط دانشمندان اثبات نشده است؟ شاید سفیدچاله ها در درون سیاهچاله ها مخفی و نهفته باشند و علت اینکه هنوز هیچ سفیدچاله ایی به طور یقین اثبات نشده ,, دلیلش این باشد که باید در درون سیاهچاله با شجاعت فرو رفت تا به سفیدچاله رسید.. الخیر فی ما وقع..
همه چیز روی هواست ابتدا خدارا مفروض میگیرید بعد خیرمحض بودن او را هم مفروض میگیرید بعد هم میگویید لابد برای شروری که اتفاق میافتد دلیل منطقی دارد وخیر بزرگتری دارد که ما انسانها از ان بیخبریم ! لازم است تذکر دهم که اگر خیر بزرگتری درکار باشد حتما باید بتوان به ان رسید حتما لازم است که انسانها منطقا بدانند وبفهمند که خیر بزرگتری درکار است درحالیکه عملا اینطور نیست این انسانها هستند که در معرض شرور قرار دارند پس باید دلیل انرا بدانند اینکه گرفتن اختیار از انسان مختار تناقض است اشتباه است به هیچعنوان تناقض نیست چون در زمانهای مختلف اتفاق میافتد ودلیل موجهی برایش هست وشرط وحدت زمان را ندارد متذکر میشوم که مختار بودن انسان هم اجبارا به او داده شده که با توجه به غیراصیل بودن اختیار انسانی بیشتر موجب مزاحمت برای انسان بوده تا اینکه دستاویزی برای کمال باشد اینکه وجود شرور سبب کمال انسانی میشود ادعایی عبث است چه بسیار انسانهایی که در اثر شرور به کمال نرسیدند که هیچ سقوط هم کردند ویران شدند وعصیان ورزیدند چونکه شرور مافوق ظرفیت انان بوده است نه فلسفه اسلامی ونه غربی هرگز نتوانسته ونمیتواند به شرور پاسخی منطقی بدهد
خدای فلاسفه یک خدای خشک و عبوسی است که نه غمگین می شود و نه شاد,, نه رنج می برد و نه لذت را می شناسد. اما خدای ادیان ابراهیمی خدای مهربانی است , که هم با موجوداتش غمگین می شود و هم شاد ,, هم رنج می کشد و هم لذت. در الاهیات خدای گشوده تا اندازه ای به برخی از مسائل شر پاسخ داده شده است ,, البته انتقاداتی هم به این الاهیات شده است. در الاهیات خدای گشوده , انسان با خداوند شریک می شود . در این الاهیات (شر) به عهده خداوند نیست,, بلکه شر از عملكرد نابجای موجودات در جهان هستی ایجاد و پدید می آید. در این الاهیات , خداوند خودش را با (اختیار دادن) به انسان محدود کرده است,, زیرا خواسته است که جا برای اختیارِ انسان باز بشود. در این الاهیات خدا عالم مطلق و قدرت مطلق نیست ,, بلکه قدرت او و علم او با عملکرد موجودات منجمله انسانها تغییر می کند. خدای الاهیات گشوده مانند خدای پیامبران با موجوداتش رنج می کشد و لذت می برد. در الاهیات خدای گشوده,, خدا( درون زمان و درون تاریخ ) است , او موجودی فرازمانی و فراتاریخی بیرون از هستی نیست . در این الاهیات (خدا و انسان) با یکدیگر ارتباط و تعامل دارند.