Marbaniang, Domenic

The Problem of Evil is not a problem at all unless “Good” and “Evil” are properly defined and meaningfully understood; or else, the problem cannot be raised. Given that meaning is usage, let’s look at what we usually do not absolutely consider to be the meaning of Good. Good is not painlessness . For, in our daily usage, it is commonly accepted that Good usually involves pain (e.g. in exercise, study, work).  Good is not absence of grief or sorrow. For, if that was the case, the sense of a loss of Good would not exist; which would in turn imply that the sense of Good itself doesn’t exist. It is possible for Good to exist along with grief (for instance, when someone in a world X which is free of a particular Evil, say starvation, is sad about people in a world Y, where people are starving). In this sense, sympathy, grief, and compassion are virtues; i.e. they are good. So if Good is not the absence of pain or sorrow, then what is Good? Before we answer that question, let’s submit t...

1 . The Problem of Evil is a problem that relates to Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Ethics & Politics, Soteriology, and Eschatology, chiefly; then, also to the other doctrines. Therefore, its solution is pivotal. 2. Any theology that claims to be systematic, but fails to address the Problem of Evil sufficiently is severely defective. It cannot be systematic; and if it is, its foundations are weak. 3. Any Systematic Theology that relegates the Problem of Evil to the realm of mysteries is a blank theology. 4. To unstrap the Problem of Evil is to touch the heart of reality; to feel the heartbeat of God. The brow of Prince Siddhartha wrinkled up in deep pondering. He thought hard, and forgot the world around – all the whisperings of servants, chirpings of birds, and the presence of his wife nearby. The four scenes that he had recently seen occupied his thoughts as the dusk turned into the dark night. Sickness, decay, and death on one hand and the tranquility of the ascetic on the o...

From The Republic And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes. It follows therefore that the good is not the cause of all things, but of the good only? Assuredly. Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men.  For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him. That appears to me to be most true, he said.