Is Liebnizian Optimism a Catholic concept?

[DL82]

To summarise Liebniz’s argument, this world is the best of all possible worlds. God designed the world to maximise all goods, and some of those goods required an amount of evil to be possible - for example, courage is better than no courage, but for courage to exist, there have to be obstacles to be overcome and challenges to be faced. Therefore, it would be impossible for God to eradicate all evil without there being fewer goods. Liebniz thus coined the philosophy of Optimism, as a response to the problem of evil. This was parodied by Voltaire, whose Dr Pangloss espouses an optimism “all for the best in the best of all possible worlds” that borders on absurd fatalism.

Is it a Catholic response to the problem of evil to say that God permits evil in order to achieve the best of all possible worlds? Is it the only response a Catholic can give? Surely this isn’t, in fact, the best of all possible worlds, because we have free will, and we could all have chosen to follow God more perfectly, and thus make a better world than the actual one we live in. I’ve never been terribly impressed by philosophical attempts to sew up all the harsh realities of human suffering into some neat answer.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

[JohnDamian]

No; Liebnizian Optimism is not a Catholic concept; but there is no reason why Catholics shouldn’t uphold it; even if it is weak.

I would think that it seems more the case that natural evils are the failures due to “deficiencies in the strength of the efficient causes; if each efficient cause acts necessarily; then every defect, monstrosity or evil in the universe occurs necessarily.” (De Esse Dei). It follows that human evils are distinct from natural evils; evil is not something positive (De Divina Omnipotentia); but rather a privitation of Good (following from Augustine). In humans; there is no ordering to sin; thus it is not from God (Scotus; Ordinatio II). Thus; human evil is man made evil; and thus not from God.

It follows from this though; that the essential order’s prior constituant in the former natural evil is God; that it must be something positive; as it came from God per se – thus; natural evils are not evil; they are merely occasions of suffering; which is not per se evil.

 

[Betterave]

Is it a Catholic response to the problem of evil to say that God permits evil in order to achieve the best of all possible worlds? Is it the only response a Catholic can give? Surely this isn’t, in fact, the best of all possible worlds, because we have free will, and we could all have chosen to follow God more perfectly, and thus make a better world than the actual one we live in. I’ve never been terribly impressed by philosophical attempts to sew up all the harsh realities of human suffering into some neat answer.

It’s a good question. I think it is possible to accept the argument as a Catholic, but not required. I don’t like Leibniz’ response but it’s hard to dismiss. My thought is that the notion of ‘the best possible world’ is something like ‘the best possible hot dog,’ or possibly even ‘the highest possible integer.’ Presumably God would create the best possible world if doing so were intrinsically possible, but since it may not be, I’m content with the claim that God looked at all that He had created and saw that it was good.

 

[tonyrey]

Leibniz took free will for granted in his view that this is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire’s satire overlooked the fact that natural evil is inevitable in a world such as ours where we have all the advantages of a physical existence. It is absurd to expect to have an advantage without a corresponding disadvantage. The more sensitive we are, for example, the more we can enjoy life but also the more we can suffer.

Leibniz was right. Why would God create a world which is not the best of all possible worlds?There is no reasonable answer to that question.

 

[DL82]

Leibniz took free will for granted in his view that this is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire’s satire overlooked the fact that natural evil is inevitable in a world such as ours where we have all the advantages of a physical existence. It is absurd to expect to have an advantage without a corresponding disadvantage. The more sensitive we are, for example, the more we can enjoy life but also the more we can suffer.

Leibniz was right. Why would God create a world which is not the best of all possible worlds?There is no reasonable answer to that question.

To take a more concrete case, I suppose my mistrust of this kind of optimism or theodicy is the risk that it encourages a kind of fatalism. This article is massively biased and inaccurate in its’ reporting of Catholic attitudes to voodoo, but it makes a good point about the dangers of fatalism in a concrete situation of natural evil like the Haiti earthquake:

“The Haiti people have had so many batterings that when something terrible happens, they just say, “Bon dieu bon", or “God is good”, whatever happens. In other words, it is God’s will, we must accept it, there is nothing we can do about it.

“The task for Christian evangelism is not to make voodoo worshippers into Christians but to help deal with the fatalism that does not allow voodoo worshippers to see themselves as agents of their own improvement."

I suppose it’s this attitude that concerns me about the ‘best of all possible worlds’ argument. Please help me see if I’m mistaken.

 

[tonyrey]

To take a more concrete case, I suppose my mistrust of this kind of optimism or theodicy is the risk that it encourages a kind of fatalism. This article is massively biased and inaccurate in its’ reporting of Catholic attitudes to voodoo, but it makes a good point about the dangers of fatalism in a concrete situation of natural evil like the Haiti earthquake:

“The Haiti people have had so many batterings that when something terrible happens, they just say, “Bon dieu bon", or “God is good”, whatever happens. In other words, it is God’s will, we must accept it, there is nothing we can do about it.

“The task for Christian evangelism is not to make voodoo worshippers into Christians but to help deal with the fatalism that does not allow voodoo worshippers to see themselves as agents of their own improvement."

I suppose it’s this attitude that concerns me about the ‘best of all possible worlds’ argument. Please help me see if I’m mistaken.

Fatalism is quite common among people of all religions (and none!) because many events are beyond our control and it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking we are powerless to alter the course of events. The Haiti people are not altogether mistaken when they say a disaster is God’s will.

God has the power to prevent all disasters but that would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly world. We cannot know how many He does prevent. The world could certainly be far more catastrophic than it is and many disasters are the result of human ignorance, greed and folly. Yet there must be a limit to the extent to which He does intervene; otherwise it would be impossible not to believe a benevolent power is protecting us. He permits disasters for the sake of our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live.

So fatalism is true to some extent and that is what leads people astray. They tend to forget that we cannot prevent earthquakes, floods and tsunamis but we can minimise the destruction and suffering they cause by using our intelligence and technology. This is the best of all possible worlds because we are not just cogs in the machine of nature but free agents capable of controlling ourselves and our environment to a limited but significant extent. No one can chain our minds and that is the most important fact of all.

We shape our eternal destiny regardless of what happens in this world. Jesus showed us that we can transform evil into a means of bringing us closer to Him in heaven if we follow His example of faith and courage. Leibniz was a mathematical genius and a Christian optimist who shared this belief throughout his life and took it to its logical conclusion. There is no way of evading the fact that if God could have created a better world He would surely have done so…

 

[awatkins69]

It’s not specifically Catholic, and you don’t have to hold it, but you can. There are other solutions to the problem of evil, such as the Augustinian-Thomistic concept of “privatio boni”.

 

[Betterave]

To take a more concrete case, I suppose my mistrust of this kind of optimism or theodicy is the risk that it encourages a kind of fatalism. This article is massively biased and inaccurate in its’ reporting of Catholic attitudes to voodoo, but it makes a good point about the dangers of fatalism in a concrete situation of natural evil like the Haiti earthquake:

“The Haiti people have had so many batterings that when something terrible happens, they just say, “Bon dieu bon", or “God is good”, whatever happens. In other words, it is God’s will, we must accept it, there is nothing we can do about it.

“The task for Christian evangelism is not to make voodoo worshippers into Christians but to help deal with the fatalism that does not allow voodoo worshippers to see themselves as agents of their own improvement."

I suppose it’s this attitude that concerns me about the ‘best of all possible worlds’ argument. Please help me see if I’m mistaken.

So what do you think of old Job? (“The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the Lord.”) Personally I’ve admired the faith of the Haitians in the face of calamity (setting aside reservations about voodooism). Are you saying you haven’t?