Mostafa Malekian's Lecture Series on the Problem of Evil

This term's discussion is about evil and the relation of the problem of evil to the divine attributes and the educational issues consequent upon the problem of evil. The problem of evil is, in one respect, a unique problem in the philosophy of religion and theology. From ancient times to our own day, there has constantly been difficulty concerning whether the existence of God has been proven or not.

Views on Proving the Existence of God

There are three views on this matter:

First View: The existence of God has been proven

By proof, rational and philosophical proof is meant; to substantiate their claim, these individuals must adduce at least one rational argument for the existence of God, an argument that is not subject to any criticism whatsoever, possessing no flaw or defect, whether in terms of material logic or formal logic.

Second View: The existence of God has not been proven

This view holds that no one has been able to prove the existence of God through rational argument; that is, the existence of God has not been proven. One who makes this claim must, to prove their assertion, demonstrate flaws in all the arguments that humanity has so far adduced for proving the existence of God. If someone can show that all the arguments presented for proving God's existence, without exception, are flawed, they can say that the existence of God has not been proven.

Third View: The existence of God is unprovable.

This position says that the existence of God cannot be proven at all. The previous position says nothing about the future; rather, it says it has not been proven so far, but we do not know otherwise; it is possible that in the future, a philosopher or thinker may emerge who can present a flawless argument. But the third position says it is unprovable; that is, do not expect at all that in the future someone will come who can present a rational argument for the existence of God. One who makes this claim must, to prove their assertion, show that God is a being whose existence the mental faculties of humanity lack the power to prove. Not past humanity, but future humanity is likewise such that with these mental faculties, it cannot make any headway in proving the existence of God. Even if humanity could demonstrate the weakness of all the arguments, it still would not have been able to prove that it is unprovable; rather, it must also demonstrate something else; that is, show that our cognitive faculties are so limited that they cannot be effective in proving a being like God. Of course, other ways are conceivable for proving this claim, including the way of the paradoxical nature of the concept of God, which we will not enter into...

---

Table of Contents

Session One Some Sources on the Problem of Evil Outline of This Semester's Discussion Evil and Its Relation to the Discussion of Divine Attributes Views on Proving the Existence of God First View: The Existence of God Has Been Proven Second View: The Existence of God Has Not Been Proven Third View: The Existence of God Is Unprovable Views on the Non-Existence of God Conceivable Positions on the Non-Existence of God Summary of Positions on the Existence of God Evil as an Argument for the Non-Existence of God Attributes of God Apparently in Conflict with the Existence of Evil Agreed-Upon Attributes Non-Consensual Attributes Statement of the Argument from Evil for the Non-Existence of God The Tradition of Discussion in Islamic Philosophy and Theology The incompatibility of the existence of evil with God's absolute benevolence The statement of Thomas Aquinas Entering into the core of Aquinas's argument Comparing Aquinas's argument with other arguments The argument for the incompatibility of evil with all three attributes of God a) The compatibility of the existence of evil with the absence of omniscience in God b) The compatibility of the existence of evil with the absence of omnipotence in God c) The compatibility of the existence of evil with the absence of absolute benevolence in God Epicurus's argument on the incompatibility of the existence of evil with certain attributes of God

Completion of the exposition of Epicurus' argument for the incompatibility of the existence of evil with God's attribute of "Divine Justice" The argument for the incompatibility of the existence of evils with God's attribute of "Divine Wisdom" Reasoning based on the two attributes of "Divine Justice" and "Divine Wisdom" among Westerners Delimiting the meaning of evil Classifications of evil *The first classification of evils: The fourfold classification Natural evil Moral evil Emotional evil Metaphysical evil Some explanations concerning emotional and metaphysical evils A- Explanations of emotional evils Emotional evils having a perceptual existence Pain and suffering being confined to the perceiving subject The perception of pain and suffering being confined to the non-corporeal dimension The division of pain and suffering into "physical and psychological" involves a degree of laxity ب-توضیحات شرور مابعدالطبیعی بیان «لایب نیتس» در شرّ مابعدالطبیعی تدقیق در بحث *تقسیمبندی دوم از شرور تقسیم ثنایی إشكال به تقسیم ثنایی شرور طبیعی و اخلاقی از دیدگاه دین و نقد کلیّت آن *تقسیمبندی سوم شرور تقسیمبندی ثنایی دوم *تقسیمبندی چهارم شرور

The Tripartite Division A General Critique of All Classifications The Cause of the Emergence of the Problem of Evil in the Human Mind Evil from the Common Perspective Evil from the Perspective of Philosophers and Theologians The Difference Between the Common View and the Theological and Philosophical View on Evil An Allegory for the Viewpoint of Philosophers and Theologians An Objection to the View of Philosophers and Theologians from the Common Perspective Session Two A Brief Overview of the Discussion in This Session Lack of Comprehensiveness: The Problem with Some Solutions No Need for a Unified Answer to the Problems in the Discussion of Evil *The First Solution: The Non-Existence of Evils The Motivation of the Proponents of This View The Difference Between the View that Evil is Non-Existent and the View that Evil is a Non-Entity The Meaning of a Non-Entity The Lack of Need for a Creator for a Non-Entity pan>The exposition of 'Allamah Hilli in Kashf al-Murad *Critique of the first solution  Textual critique Rational and philosophical critique First objection: The problem in distinguishing a non-existent matter from an existent one Confusing philosophical discussions with linguistic ones Second objection: Examining whether the argument is a priori or a posteriori Exposition of the a posteriori argument for evil being non-existent The problem with the exposition of the a posteriori argument The a priori argument

The conclusion of the argument based on whether the reasoning is a posteriori or a priori The a priori argument regarding the privative nature of evils The problem with the a priori argument regarding the privative nature of evils The problem with the ancients' mode of expression regarding the privative nature of evil The third problem: The assumption of the possibility of a world without privative matters Quoting a statement from Hume Session Three A review of the previous session's discussions The difference between the non-existent and a privative matter The difference between evil being non-existent and evil being privative The explanation of resolving the problem of evil by asserting the privative nature of evil The statement of another problem with accepting the privative nature of evil and its answer A review of previous problems with accepting the privative nature of evil The absence of a clear criterion for distinguishing a privative matter from an existential one The problem with the a posteriori expression The basis of the ancients' approach to induction The problem with the ancients' expression regarding inductionStatement of the a priori argument for the privative nature of evil Critique of the a priori argument for the privative nature of evil Objection of some Westerners to the privative nature of evil Response to the objection of the Westerners Objection to the response to the objection of the Westerners Objection to the response to the objection of the Westerners First objection Second objection Third objection A brief overview of the first to third views on evil

*Second solution: Evil is non-existent Statement of the second view in resolving the problem of evil Eastern roots of the theory of the privative nature of evil Life as a dream Advocacy for the theory of the privative nature of evil in the West A review of the life of Mrs. Mary Baker Objections to the Hindu theory First objection: An unsubstantiated claim Second objection: Failure to solve the problem of evils Third objection: Denial of God's benevolence Mrs. Mary Baker's exposition First premise: The theoretical and practical consequences of rebellion against God Mrs. Mary Baker's argument for the first premise Second premise: The world as "Maya" Conclusion of the two premises: Baker's formulation The advantage of Mary Baker's formulation over the Hindu formulation Not being a matter of all or nothing

Immunity from the second objection for Hindus Critique of Mary Baker's theory First objection An unfounded claim Response to the first objection Objection to Mrs. Mary Baker's response: the reason being more general than the claim Second objection Referring everything to sinful man Session Four A review of previous discussions

Examining the Second Objection from the Previous Session Referring Everything to the Sinful Human Presuppositions of the Second Objection One: Human Volition and Freedom of the Will Reasons for the Presupposition of Free Will The Ancients' Argument Critique of the Ancients' Argument John Stuart Mill's Critique The Hypnosis Example Return to the First Objection Two: Objection to the Principle of Free Will A Review of the First and Second Views on Evil The Third Solution The Total Good in the World Exceeding the Total Evil in the World The First Formulation of the Third View Conceivable Hypotheses about the Universe Examining the Conceivable HypothesesFirst assumption: absolute good Second assumption: predominant good Third assumption: equal good and evil Fourth assumption: predominant evil Fifth assumption: absolute evil Created worlds Proving God's benevolence Objections to the first account of the third view First objection: an unwarranted claim Second objection: the impossibility of understanding the greater good of the natural world

First: Lack of comprehensive knowledge of the world Second: Inaccuracy of assessment in quantitative and qualitative terms The second exposition of the third view Objections to the second exposition of the third view First objection: Lack of comprehensive knowledge of all beings Second objection: Inaccuracy of assessment in quantitative and qualitative terms Third objection: The problem of induction The third objection to both expositions of the third view Objection regarding the failure to secure God's benevolence First response to the third objection and critique of the response Securing God's benevolence by explaining the reality of the natural world Second response to the third objection and critique of the response Self-love as an obstacle to stating the objection Introduction to the fourth view on evils The necessity of evil for the existence of good A preliminary point in the preamble to the fourth view Two expositions of the fourth view Fifth Session *The Fourth Solution A small evil is a necessary concomitant of the existence or perception of a great good The First Exposition of the Fourth Statement A small evil is a necessary concomitant of the "existence" of a great good The Second Exposition of the Fourth Statement A small evil is a necessary concomitant of the "perception" of a great good Islamic and Western Sources of the Fourth Statement Islamic Sources of the Fourth Statement The exposition of "Ghazali" in "Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din

Objection to the statement of “Ghazali” Where is the compensation for otherworldly deficiencies? “Ghazali’s” response to the objection Every otherworldly harm is a benefit for another Objection to “Ghazali’s” response Why the pleasure of the people of paradise with the torture of the people of hell “Ghazali’s” response Preferring the perfect over the imperfect is justice The dialogue of the author of “Ghurar wa Durar” with “Zakariya al-Razi” The non-universality of the rule that preferring the perfect over the imperfect is justice Continuation of “Ghazali’s” exposition Narrative confirmations of the fourth view The exposition of “Ayn al-Qudat Hamadani” in “Tamhidat” The exposition of “Mulla Ismail Mazandarani” in “Thamarat al-Fu’ad fi Nabdh bi al-Masa’il al-Ma’ad” The pre-Islamic roots of the fourth view The exposition of “Chrysippus” on divine providence The exposition of “Plato” in “Theaetetus” Critique of the First and Second Accounts of the Fourth View on Evils Common Objections to the First and Second Accounts  First Objection: Incompatibility with God's Absolute Knowledge and Power Second Objection: Evil is Not Scarce Response to the Second Objection An Unsubstantiated Claim Third Objection The Gratuitousness of the Existence or Perception of Abundant Good with the Assertion of the Necessity of the Existence or Perception of Scarce Evil Fourth Objection Doubting the Rule of “Preferring the Perfect over the Deficient is Justice”

The Fifth Problem Some Instances of Evil Fall Outside the Rule of “Preferring the Perfect over the Imperfect is Justice” The Third Exposition of the Fourth Statement Evil as the Cause of Good The Third Exposition’s Failure to Utilize the Rule of “Preferring the Perfect over the Imperfect is Justice” Critique of the Third Exposition of the Fourth Statement The First Problem: The Problem of John Stuart Mill From Evil, Evil is Born, and from Good, Good Session Six The Second Problem with the Statement on the Non-Existence of Evil, with Regard to the Fourth Statement The Absence of a Criterion for Distinguishing the Existential from the Non-Existential A Review of Previous Discussions John Stuart Mill’s Critique of the Third Exposition of the Fourth Statement on the Problem of Evil The Second Problem with the Third Exposition of the Fourth Statement Its Contradiction with God’s Absolute Power The Contradiction of John Stuart Mill’s Statement with the Foundations of Religions Response to the Second Problem of the Third Exposition of the Fourth Statement The Complexity of the Causal System Critique of the Response to the Second Problem The Greater Good Resulting from Evils The Fourth Formulation of the Fourth View on Evils The Necessity of Evil for Attaining Good David Hume's Formulation of the Fourth Formulation of the Fourth View Another Example from Hume for the Fourth Formulation and Its Critique David Hume's Objections to This Formulation Hume's First Response to the Objection Hume's Second Response to the Objection

Hume's third response to the problem Critique of Hume's problems Summary critique Detailed critique Neglect of God's attribute of benevolence Response to the critique of Hume Why human desire and welfare conflict Summary of the fourth solution The fifth solution regarding evils Seeing the world differently Problems with the fifth view Summary problem with the fifth view An unwarranted claim Answer to the summary problem of the fifth view Some proponents of the fifth view  Islamic sources Ghazali's words in the book 'Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din' Baghdadi's view in 'al-

فَرقُ بَینَ الفِرَق قول «شهرستانی» در «المِلَل وَ النِحَل قول «عین القضات همدانی» در «نامه‌ها سخن «ابو منصور ماتریدی» در کتاب «التوحید» و سخن «دمیری» در «حیات الحیوان الكبری منابع مسیحی و غیر اسلامی سخن قدیس «ایرنائوس» و «خروسیپوس» رواقی جلسه هفتم مروری بر مباحث جلسه پیشین قول پنجم در باب شرور:دیگرگونه دیدن جهان دو تقریر مهم قول پنجم

First Exposition of the Fifth Statement The World as a Place of Perfection, Not Pleasure Second Exposition of the Fifth Statement The Non-necessity of God's Benevolence Entailing Human Benevolence Critique of the Fifth Statement Problem with the Reasoning First Problem: Unfalsifiability Second Problem: Assuming a Third Option, the World as a Resting Place for the Body and a Place of Perfection for the Soul David Hume's Exposition of the Third Option Response to the Second Problem: Practical Impossibility Third Problem: The Structure of the World Contradicts the Perfection of the Soul Response to the Third Problem A Smooth World Contradicts the Perfection of the Soul Fourth Problem: The Problem of J. L. Mackie in the Book "The Miracle of Theism" The Ultimate Failure to Provide a Concrete Instance of the Good Outcome of Evils *Sixth Solution: Attributing the Evilness of Evil to Human Perception The Difference Between the Sixth Solution and Other Responses The difference between the sixth solution and the assertion of the non-existence of evils The affinity of the sixth solution with the content of certain Quranic verses The sixth solution in other words Critique of the sixth solution The first objection Conceivable interpretations of what is meant by good and evil Statement of the objection, based on good being agreeable Being contrary to fact The Quran's statement on the claim of the sixth solution being contrary to fact Statement of the objection based on good being in accordance with expediency

Denial of God's Absolute Benevolence Response to the Last Objection The Going Astray of the Damned Contradicts God's Absolute Benevolence Statement of the Prophetic Narration and the Ash'arite View The Contingent Nature of Human Wills Second Objection: The Absolute Denial of God's Benevolence Third Objection: The View of the "Privation and Possession" Opposition Between Good and Evil Session Eight *Seventh Solution: The Free Will Defense or Defense of Free Will The Seventh Solution's Basis on Limiting the Conceivable Possibilities at the Time of Creation to Two Assumptions Why the Possibilities Are Limited Presuppositions for the Superiority of Creating a Free Human Being Alongside the Existence of Evil First Presupposition Second Presupposition The Free Will Defense or Defense of Free Will Discussion on the History of the Seventh Solution Critiques of "Mackie" and "Flew" on the Seventh Solution First Objection The Assumption of a Third Option A Free Human Being and a World Free of Evil An Explanation of Dilemmatic Arguments and How to Respond to Them Return to the First Objection of Mackie and Flew Gleaning a Digressive Point on Infallibility from Mackie's Remarks Mackie's Valid Mathematical Induction in the First Objection A Response to the First Objection of Mackie and Flew, and a Critique of the Response The Validity of the Assumption of Exclusivity by Setting Aside the World The Second Objection of Mackie and Flew»

The Incorrectness or Baselessness of the Presuppositions of the Seventh Solution Examining the Presuppositions of the Seventh Solution:  The First Presupposition The Return of All Evils to Moral Evil Objection to the First Presupposition The Existence of Evils Before the Emergence of Humanity Critique of the Objection to the First Presupposition The Necessary Connection Between the Perception of Evilness and the Existence of Humanity Summary of the Discussion on the First Presupposition The Second Presupposition The Creation of the World for Humanity Objection to the Second Presupposition A Baseless Claim The Third Presupposition Human Perfection Through Voluntary Actions Objection to the Third Presupposition A Baseless Claim Ninth Session *The Eighth Solution  Holism Spinoza's Account The perception of evil depends on the human perspective, not on reality Some sayings of mystics in harmony with the eighth solution Critique of the eighth solution Second Objection: The lack of human existential development Third Objection: An unwarranted claim Fourth Objection: Why then are sinners sent to hell?

Another saying from Spinoza Philosophy deifies the human perspective Objection to Spinoza Lack of a clear methodology Common feature of the first to eighth responses to the problem of evil Weakness in the area of proof, acceptance of the claim by the monotheist Common feature of the subsequent responses to the problem of evil Non-acceptance of the claim by monotheists *Ninth solution: Whitehead's Process Theology A brief note on Whitehead and process philosophy Difference between Whitehead's theory and Mulla Sadra's theory of substantial motion The response of process theology to the problem of evil First argument of process theology in negating God's omniscience and omnipotence In the Holy Book, omniscience and omnipotence are not attributed to God Second argument of process theology in negating God's omniscience and omnipotence Negating benevolence is incompatible with worshipping God Absolute benevolence in process theology Critique of the Ninth Solution First Objection: Denial of God's Limited Knowledge and Power Second Objection: The Incompatibility of Absolute Benevolence with the Existence of Evils Third Objection: The Presence of the Two Attributes of Omnipotence and Omniscience in Some Sacred Texts The Spiritual Frequency of the Attribute of Absolute Benevolence in the Quran Summary of the Discussion on the Ninth Solution Session Ten *The Tenth Solution: The Existence of Two Principles in the World An Explanation of the Origin of the Assertion of This Solution A Few Preliminary Remarks

First point God and what is meant by it in the present discussion Second point The meaning of good and evil in Zoroastrianism The meaning of light and darkness in Manichaeism Critique of the tenth way First objection: Fundamental opposition to monotheistic religions Second objection: The problem of evil is not solved by assuming the existence of two gods Conceivable assumptions about the multiplicity of gods and a critique of each Critique of the first assumption, the unequal power of the two principles Critique of the second assumption, the equal power of the two principles Second formulation of the second objection Third formulation of the second objection «Saint Augustine The account of some Islamic scholars regarding the multiplicity of principles Critique of the account of some Islamic scholars regarding the multiplicity of principles Rumi's discourse on Satan

style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; color: #1a1a1a;">The Mystics' Discourse in Defense of Satan Summary of the Tenth Approach A Note on the History of the Evolution of Religions *The Eleventh Solution The Universal Organism A General Overview of the Responses to the Problem of Evil From the Unity of God to the Assertion of God's Non-Existence The Meaning of Organism in the Present Discussion Explanation of the Eleventh Approach How an Organism Functions

Denial of the world's "autonomous purposiveness" and "external purposiveness" The difference between "autonomous purposiveness" and "external purposiveness" Attribution of the world being an organism to David Hume Critique of the eleventh solution First objection: The negation of God does not necessitate the negation of evil Second objection: The lack of justification for the existence of evil in the "world organism" theory Third objection: This solution's departure from the convention of the discussion An unfounded claim A general overview of the responses to the problem of evil Stating two points in summarizing the twelve responses to the problem of evil The first point No statement in the world of thought is devoid of some truth Mentioning a few examples The second point The necessity of making two distinctions The eleventh session A review of previous discussions <The necessity of distinguishing between the theological discussion of evil and its philosophical discussion The efficient cause and the final cause of evil Opinions on the final cause of evils A common objection to the opinions regarding the final cause of evils The compatibility of God's attributes with the existence of evils •Stating several points towards reaching the final answer in the discussion of evils The first point Referring all types of evils to emotional evil The relativity of evils A confirmation of the relativity of evils

Second Point What is meant by God's benevolence The lack of necessary correlation between benevolence and individuals' preferences The necessary correlation between benevolence and individuals' best interests First reason: Commitment to God's ontological and legislative lordship Second reason: God's action toward believers Third reason: The existence of divine trials The meaning of divine trial Response to the argument from evil for the non-existence of God Denying God's benevolence is a necessary consequence of proving evils are devoid of benefit The reason for the existence of evils remains unanswered Conclusion of the discussion in response to the argument from evil An agnostic stance on the existence of God The question of the possibility of a perpetual alignment between preference and best interest, and its answer Some scriptural answers to the question of the existence of evils The perfection of the soul through pain and suffering Understanding human limited ability and dispelling the illusion of power

family: 'Tahoma',sans-serif; color: #1a1a1a;"> Twelfth Session A Review of Previous Discussions The Effects and Properties of Pain and Suffering First Effect: The Limited Ability of Humans and the Dispelling of the Illusion of Power A General Classification of Pains and Sufferings First Category: Pains and Sufferings That Are Resolved by Seeking Help from Others Second Category: Pains and Sufferings That Are Not Resolved by Seeking Help from Others Turning to the Self in the Second Type of Pains and Sufferings *A List of Some Pains and Sufferings of the Second Category .The Feeling of Loneliness

.The feeling of loving immortality and the certainty of death .The pain of truth-seeking *Reasons for the non-satisfaction of truth-seeking First reason: the infinity of truths and the finitude of life Second reason: the indeterminate quantity of unknowns and their quantitative increase Third reason: the scientific spirit The states of "Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi" in the latter part of his life The requirement of acting based on the scientific spirit .Benevolence Different interpretations of benevolence First interpretation: engagement in the best action at every moment Second interpretation: every moment better than before and worse than after The concern of benevolence .Love of beauty The impact of the aforementioned pains and sufferings on human domains The perpetual accompaniment of the aforementioned pains and sufferings with humanity First reason: the impossibility of liberation> Second reason: The undesirability of liberation Third effect: A sense of dependence on a transcendent being Fourth effect: Creating affinity among human beings Reasons for creating affinity among human beings First reason: Seeking help from others to alleviate some pains and sufferings Another classification of pains and sufferings Second reason: Feeling tenderness of heart toward oneself and its extension to others The reason for the existence of pain and suffering remains unanswered

Mostafa Malekian's Lecture Series on the Problem of Evil, 1993 | 173 pages

Typed | Download Mostafa Malekian's Lecture Series on the Problem of Evil