Richard Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil” tackles the concept of the Evidential Problem of Evil, justifying the existence of evil within the world we live in. He has a plethora of reasons on why God allows evil to exist, and one, in which seems to be pausing for the audience at a glance, is that he believes that the extent of suffering humans are capable is within the limits of the right God has to cause humans to suffer (Swinburne 93-94). In other words, Swinburne states that the suffering in which humans are capable of enduring is, in the end, all for a greater or better purpose. What Richard Swinburne fails to address is that this is not something that is widely accepted by everyone. There are those who suffer for all their lives, those
…show more content…
He mentions the relationship between a child and the parent as a metaphor between humans and God (Swinburne 94). A child cannot always get what he/she wants from the parent, and the parent will always do something that his/her child would want, yet it is for their own good. Pertaining to Swinburne’s claim, the answer is “yes” there are similarities in the metaphor, but there are also some problems. A good, ideal parent knows when to stop pushing his/her child, and regulate whatever the goal is. However, for God, when does he know when we or he has reached our limit? He may be omniscient, but does that mean when he pushes us past our limits, that he is doing this on purpose? Being not as wholly good as we thought he was? Richard Swinburne fails to address his claim’s supporting evidence in detail as he only addresses the topic with the use of confirmation bias. There is a lot that happens in a parent-child relationship, but Swinburne only addresses what benefits his claim and only explores the general portions of it. Everyone has their limits, and God knows well what our limits are because he created humans. The extent in which humans are capable of suffering may not be within the limits of the right of God. The benefits in the end may be questionable and the control in which God has over the suffering he has allowed may also
He mentions the relationship between a child and the parent as a metaphor between humans and God (Swinburne 94). A child cannot always get what he/she wants from the parent, and the parent will always do something that his/her child would want, yet it is for their own good. Pertaining to Swinburne’s claim, the answer is “yes” there are similarities in the metaphor, but there are also some problems. A good, ideal parent knows when to stop pushing his/her child, and regulate whatever the goal is. However, for God, when does he know when we or he has reached our limit? He may be omniscient, but does that mean when he pushes us past our limits, that he is doing this on purpose? Being not as wholly good as we thought he was? Richard Swinburne fails to address his claim’s supporting evidence in detail as he only addresses the topic with the use of confirmation bias. There is a lot that happens in a parent-child relationship, but Swinburne only addresses what benefits his claim and only explores the general portions of it. Everyone has their limits, and God knows well what our limits are because he created humans. The extent in which humans are capable of suffering may not be within the limits of the right of God. The benefits in the end may be questionable and the control in which God has over the suffering he has allowed may also