The essay regarding evil and its relation to free will entitled “The Argument from Evil” by Peter Van Inwagen proposes many questions and contradictions. All of which relate back to one principle idea—the problem of evil and how to solve it. At the end of his compilation of ideas, propositions and examples, Van Inwagen poses a slew of questions for his readers to ponder and attempt to answer.
Peter Van Inwagen is adamant upon insisting that there both is and is not a God. He proposes this as he explains the problem of evil. It seems as though Van Inwagen himself believes in a God by the end of the essay, but insists that the existence of a God is unthinkable during his opening arguments. Van Inwagen states that if God exists, then evil would …show more content…
The article states “God created humans with free will then left them to their own devices” (34). God bestowed this gift to his creations because “Free will is necessary for love.” The world functions on give and take, good and bad and ultimately balance. Meaning in order to recognize the good, we must be aware of the evil. On page 35, the author begins to tell a story, illustrating how he believes we rendered ourselves slaves to evil. We were once in a “paradisal state” until we abused it and extradited ourselves from God. This state was based upon beatific vision or achieving a state of being that is on the same plane as God. We were once impervious to evil even with our free will, but rejected our beatific vision for an undisclosed reason. Now subject to the affects of natural disasters and death, we grew ever distant from our original theistic state. Perhaps we abandoned our paradise because we only had knowledge of the good and lacked the simple knowledge and awareness of consequence. Many religions rely on this balance of good and evil such as Daoism and Buddhism. Free will certainly comes with its consequences, but only because we are morally aware do we recognize such juxtapositions. For example, there is a difference between existing as a sentient being as opposed to sentient being possessing free will. Humans know right and wrong when they act, i.e. they are morally aware and subjective sentient creatures. In contrast, a lion killing a zebra lacks this vital moral awareness. Humans proceed justify the lion’s act by stating that it lacks the moral compass that is ingrained into a rational human. But is not the lion a creation of God as well? Does the lion not know love in its offspring and pride, therefore possessing free will? The act of killing another living creature is considered an evil act regardless of reason and justification, is it not? The
Peter Van Inwagen is adamant upon insisting that there both is and is not a God. He proposes this as he explains the problem of evil. It seems as though Van Inwagen himself believes in a God by the end of the essay, but insists that the existence of a God is unthinkable during his opening arguments. Van Inwagen states that if God exists, then evil would …show more content…
The article states “God created humans with free will then left them to their own devices” (34). God bestowed this gift to his creations because “Free will is necessary for love.” The world functions on give and take, good and bad and ultimately balance. Meaning in order to recognize the good, we must be aware of the evil. On page 35, the author begins to tell a story, illustrating how he believes we rendered ourselves slaves to evil. We were once in a “paradisal state” until we abused it and extradited ourselves from God. This state was based upon beatific vision or achieving a state of being that is on the same plane as God. We were once impervious to evil even with our free will, but rejected our beatific vision for an undisclosed reason. Now subject to the affects of natural disasters and death, we grew ever distant from our original theistic state. Perhaps we abandoned our paradise because we only had knowledge of the good and lacked the simple knowledge and awareness of consequence. Many religions rely on this balance of good and evil such as Daoism and Buddhism. Free will certainly comes with its consequences, but only because we are morally aware do we recognize such juxtapositions. For example, there is a difference between existing as a sentient being as opposed to sentient being possessing free will. Humans know right and wrong when they act, i.e. they are morally aware and subjective sentient creatures. In contrast, a lion killing a zebra lacks this vital moral awareness. Humans proceed justify the lion’s act by stating that it lacks the moral compass that is ingrained into a rational human. But is not the lion a creation of God as well? Does the lion not know love in its offspring and pride, therefore possessing free will? The act of killing another living creature is considered an evil act regardless of reason and justification, is it not? The