The Optimist Argument Against the Problem of Evil

[ZDHayden]

Today in my last class of the day, which presents the historical mechanisms behind philosophy, I was introduced to an argument contemporary to Newton, produced by Gottfried Leibniz. For those unfamiliar with this argument, it goes (with some implications and clarifications not presented in the class lecture from myself in italics):

Consider the possibility of other worlds, where each world is slightly different from our own, actual world. These worlds represent each of the possible minute variations from our own world. Now, assume that the Abrahamic God exists. This means that God is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. This means not only that God knows the Past, Present, and Future, but also that God knows all of the infinite possible worlds that could occur; that, because of His omnipotence, can create any of these possibilities He so wishes; and that God, because of His benevolence considering also all future possibilities will always choose to create the best world. This does not mean there will be no evil, it just means that the world created will be the best of the infinite options.

My question regarding this is, how acceptable is this to the Church? I.e, according to Church doctrine, is this a maintainable position? Also, what are your criticisms of such an argument? Thank you.

 

[FCCopleston]

Today in my last class of the day, which presents the historical mechanisms behind philosophy, I was introduced to an argument contemporary to Newton, produced by Gottfried Leibniz. For those unfamiliar with this argument, it goes (with some implications and clarifications not presented in the class lecture from myself in italics):

Consider the possibility of other worlds, where each world is slightly different from our own, actual world. These worlds represent each of the possible minute variations from our own world. Now, assume that the Abrahamic God exists. This means that God is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. This means not only that God knows the Past, Present, and Future, but also that God knows all of the infinite possible worlds that could occur; that, because of His omnipotence, can create any of these possibilities He so wishes; and that God, because of His benevolence considering also all future possibilities will always choose to create the best world. This does not mean there will be no evil, it just means that the world created will be the best of the infinite options.

My question regarding this is, how acceptable is this to the Church? I.e, according to Church doctrine, is this a maintainable position? Also, what are your criticisms of such an argument? Thank you.

I have always found this argument to be rather poor. Seeing that the world is finite, it is always possible for it to improve in its approach toward perfection. That is to say, we could always remove one starving child, or add one more saint to our world to make it a better world.

I do not believe that God is under any such compulsion to create the sort of world Leibniz imagines as the “best possible.” God created the world in* love and freedom*, and though we as sinners have gone astray like disobedient and ungrateful children, the Father does not account us as orphans, but rather sends His Son to reclaim and redeem us by the blood of His cross, which He gladly bore for us. I sense, however, that Leibniz’ rationalistic construction–and those who subscribe to it–would be little impressed by such a demonstration. We can never rationally comprehend the hidden mysteries of God, we can only humbly apprehend the revelation of God in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Voltaire wrote a wonderful satire of this argument in his work, Candide. It is quite hilarious (and it was eventually adapted into a brilliant little operetta by the late composer, Leonard Bernstein).

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[HickmanJosh]

God Loves us, God allows us to chose Him, some have not, God permits this so that a greater good can be made out of it. Problem Solved.

 

[tonyrey]

I have always found this argument to be rather poor. Seeing that the world is finite, it is always possible for it to improve in its approach toward perfection. That is to say, we could always remove one starving child, or add one more saint to our world to make it a better world.

The finitude of the world certainly implies that the world cannot be perfect but Leibniz did not state that the best possible world is perfect.

I do not believe that God is under any such compulsion to create the sort of world Leibniz imagines as the “best possible.” God created the world in* love and freedom*…

But surely a world with love and freedom is the best possible world! What type of world would be better?

I sense, however, that Leibniz’ rationalistic construction–and those who subscribe to it–would be little impressed by such a demonstration. We can never rationally comprehend the hidden mysteries of God, we can only humbly apprehend the revelation of God in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Are you rejecting his explanation simply because it is rational?

Voltaire wrote a wonderful satire of this argument in his work, Candide. It is quite hilarious (and it was eventually adapted into a brilliant little operetta by the late composer, Leonard Bernstein).

If you agree with Voltaire that this is not the best of all possible worlds you imply that God is incompetent!

 

[FCCopleston]

tonyrey writes:

The finitude of the world certainly implies that the world cannot be perfect but Leibniz did not state that the best possible world is perfect.

That was not my point. My point was that the idea of a “best possible world” is absurd, seeing that it can always be made a better possible world.

But surely a world with love and freedom is the best possible world! What type of world would be better?

Yes. But could not God have chosen a world wherein the fall had not occurred? (and don’t call me shirley).

Are you rejecting his explanation simply because it is rational?

No. Because it is *rationalistic. * It only thinks it is rational.

If you agree with Voltaire that this is not the best of all possible worlds you imply that God is incompetent!

Nonsense. I merely affirm that, as Creator of the universe, God can chose any world He pleases, and He can turn any and all evil into good. It is not our place to determine whether or not this is the best possible world, but only that it is the only actual world; and in this only actual world we are to deal with our sin through faith in the cross of Christ.

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[ZDHayden]

Thank you for all of the aspects thus far seen. The conversation seems to be energetic, which I had not anticipated. The energy in such a discussion, so long as it remains as polite as it has been is a good thing. Thank you.

 

[tonyrey]

My point was that the idea of a “best possible world” is absurd, seeing that it can always be made a better possible world.

A world which is being made better can still be the best possible world! It would not be the best possible if it couldn’t be made better! The doctrines of the Church have always been the best possible but they have developed…

But surely a world with love and freedom is the best possible world! What type of world would be better?

Yes. But could not God have chosen a world wherein the fall had not occurred?

Not if human beings are genuinely free…

Are you rejecting his explanation simply because it is rational?

No. Because it is rationalistic. It only thinks it is rational.

That remains to be proved…

If you agree with Voltaire that this is not the best of all possible worlds you imply that God is incompetent!

Nonsense. I merely affirm that, as Creator of the universe, God can chose any world He pleases, and He can turn any and all evil into good.

A world in which there is unnecessary suffering would not be chosen by God, it will always be evil and never turned into good because it shouldn’t have been allowed to exist in the first place.

It is not our place to determine whether or not this is the best possible world, but only that it is the only actual world; and in this only actual world we are to deal with our sin through faith in the cross of Christ.

Jesus constantly appealed to reason as well as to conscience. If we cannot explain why this is the best possible world satirists like Voltaire will bring Christianity into disrepute and make it a laughing stock. Even in the early Church apologists like St Irenaeus and St Justin defended the faith against heresies, a tradition which has survived to the present day. That is one of the main reasons why this forum exists…

 

[FCCopleston]

tonyrey writes:

world which is being made better can still be the best possible world! It would not be the best possible if it couldn’t be made better! The doctrines of the Church have always been the best possible but they have developed…

Let us start from the beginning.

P1) There are an infinite number of possible worlds from which God could have chosen to create.
P2) Of those infinite number of possible worlds, there will always be one which is better than another (one less death, etc.).
P3) It is possible to conceive of this world as being better (i.e., of having one less death, etc.)
C) Therefore, this is not the best possible world.

Not if human beings are genuinely free…

God has an infinite number of possible worlds to choose from. Why are we any less free in God’s choosing a world without the fall than the world we live in now?

A world in which there is unnecessary suffering would not be chosen by God, it will always be evil and never turned into good because it shouldn’t have been allowed to exist in the first place.

Are you saying that God could not have created a world in which there is no suffering at all, not to speak of needless suffering?

Jesus constantly appealed to reason as well as to conscience. If we cannot explain why this is the best possible world satirists like Voltaire will bring Christianity into disrepute and make it a laughing stock. Even in the early Church apologists like St Irenaeus and St Justin defended the faith against heresies, a tradition which has survived to the present day. That is one of the main reasons why this forum exists…

The argument for the best of all possible worlds has made Christianity (or at least those who think this argument is somehow integral to Christian faith) “a laughing stock,” not my denial of it. Read Candide and you will find that out. Leibniz’s argument does not defend the faith against heretics, it conjures up weak philosophical speculations that are without merit and cannot be taken seriously. Voltaire’s reaction of mockery seems to me the only logical response.

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[tonyrey]

A world which is being made better can still be the best possible world! It would not be the best possible if it couldn’t be made better! The doctrines of the Church have always been the best possible but they have developed…

.

Possibility is not reality! According to your argument God is imperfect because He has not created the best possible world.

Not if human beings are genuinely free…

.
God has an infinite number of possible worlds to choose from. Why are we any less free in God’s choosing a world without the fall than the world we live in now?

Because possible worlds are unrelated to the reality of free will which is not a physical characteristic but a spiritual power.

A world in which there is unnecessary suffering would not be chosen by God, it will always be evil and never turned into good because it shouldn’t have been allowed to exist in the first place.

Are you saying that God could not have created a world in which there is no suffering at all, not to speak of needless suffering?

I am saying that a world in which there is no suffering at all, not to speak of needless suffering, is a physical impossibility. Omnipotence does not imply inconsistency.

Jesus constantly appealed to reason as well as to conscience. If we cannot explain why this is the best possible world satirists like Voltaire will bring Christianity into disrepute and make it a laughing stock. Even in the early Church apologists like St Irenaeus and St Justin defended the faith against heresies, a tradition which has survived to the present day. That is one of the main reasons why this forum exists…

The argument for the best of all possible worlds has made Christianity (or at least those who think this argument is somehow integral to Christian faith) “a laughing stock,” not my denial of it. Read Candide and you will find that out. Leibniz’s argument does not defend the faith against heretics, it conjures up weak philosophical speculations that are without merit and cannot be taken seriously. Voltaire’s reaction of mockery seems to me the only logical response.

You need to justify your contention that they are weak philosophical speculations. Your claim to be a Catholic is hard to reconcile with your notion of God…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Possibility is not reality! According to your argument God is imperfect because He has not created the best possible world.

That is the “problem” part of “the problem of evil.” There is, of course, nothing preventing God from choosing to create an imperfect world. However, this phrasing of the question means that God has deliberately chosen to create a world with more suffering and/or evil than some other world. Basically it comes down to: God could simply choose to create the world where everyone chose to be good all the time. He (obviously) did not. Therefore, God is at least complicit in the evil of the world.

Because possible worlds are unrelated to the reality of free will which is not a physical characteristic but a spiritual power.

Yes, this is true. However, the Catholic position, and the view of God being used here, is that God is omniscient and knows our choices ahead of time. Therefore, regardless of the reality of free will, God knows every detail about every possible world he would create, including the choices (good or bad) that individuals make.

I am saying that a world in which there is no suffering at all, not to speak of needless suffering, is a physical impossibility. Omnipotence does not imply inconsistency.

No, he could have created a world with a perpetual garden of eden. He could have created a world where humans can’t feel pain. Suffering, however, is a side issue. The real issue is “evil.” It is entirely possible for God to have created a world without evil. He could have, as the previous poster pointed out, created Adam and Eve such that they never ate the forbidden fruit. If such a world was impossible, could it really be considered a sin?

You need to justify your contention that they are weak philosophical speculations. Your claim to be a Catholic is hard to reconcile with your notion of God…

A personal attack is hard to reconcile with your alleged Catholicism. Lets discuss the problem of evil without resorting to it.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The argument for the best of all possible worlds has made Christianity (or at least those who think this argument is somehow integral to Christian faith) “a laughing stock,” not my denial of it. Read Candide and you will find that out. Leibniz’s argument does not defend the faith against heretics, it conjures up weak philosophical speculations that are without merit and cannot be taken seriously. Voltaire’s reaction of mockery seems to me the only logical response.

In Christ,
FCCopleston

Correct. I think that Leibniz’s statement is actually a fairly clear statement of a potential problem with Christianity, one that deserves serious consideration. A suggestion that this is the best of all possible worlds may be made in earnest, but it is not worth serious consideration.

 

[tonyrey]

According to your argument God is imperfect because He has not created the best possible world.

If everyone chose to be good all the time they couldn’t be genuinely free to choose.

Therefore, God is at least complicit in the evil of the world.

You mean God is ultimately responsible for everything because He created everything. But He is justified because it would be a greater evil not to create anything simply because there would be evil. The immense value of existence outweighs its drawbacks.

Because possible worlds are unrelated to the reality of free will which is not a physical characteristic but a spiritual power.

Yes, this is true. However, the Catholic position, and the view of God being used here, is that God is omniscient and knows our choices ahead of time. Therefore, regardless of the reality of free will, God knows every detail about every possible world he would create, including the choices (good or bad) that individuals make.

Knowledge does not entail coercion. Why should it?

I am saying that a world in which there is no suffering at all, not to speak of needless suffering, is a physical impossibility.

Omnipotence does not imply inconsistency.

No, he could have created a world with a perpetual garden of eden. He could have created a world where humans can’t feel pain.

It is fantasy that there can be a world which is perfect in every respect. Finitude entails imperfection and frustration. Only God is perfect and fulfilled in every respect.

Suffering, however, is a side issue. The real issue is “evil.” It is entirely possible for God to have created a world without evil.

God did create a world without moral evil - prior to the advent of human beings.

He could have, as the previous poster pointed out, created Adam and Eve such that they never ate the forbidden fruit. If such a world was impossible, could it really be considered a sin?

I don’t follow your reasoning here. The myth of Adam and Eve is based on the fact that at some point in history our ancestors chose to do what they believed to be wrong, i.e. they acted against their conscience and committed a sin. What could possibly ensure that all our ancestors always chose what was good rather than evil?

A personal attack is hard to reconcile with your alleged Catholicism.

It’s not a personal attack but a statement of fact. A Catholic must be committed to belief that God has **not **permitted unnecessary evil - which exists if this isn’t the best possible world.

 

[tonyrey]

Correct. I think that Leibniz’s statement is actually a fairly clear statement of a potential problem with Christianity, one that deserves serious consideration. A suggestion that this is the best of all possible worlds may be made in earnest, but it is not worth serious consideration.

If this is not the best of all possible worlds God cannot be omnipotent or infinitely loving.
What has prevented Him from doing so?

 

[FCCopleston]

**tonyrey **writes:

Possibility is not reality! According to your argument God is imperfect because He has not created the best possible world.

Thanks for the clarification

Two questions:

1. Do you believe that this is the best possible world?
2. How do you define the best possible world?

Thanks again.

You continue:

Because possible worlds are unrelated to the reality of free will which is not a physical characteristic but a spiritual power.

Why do you make an exception with this world? Before this world was created (and, therefore, when it was a possible world), free will was “a part” of this world, was it not?

You go on:

I am saying that a world in which there is no suffering at all, not to speak of needless suffering, is a physical impossibility. Omnipotence does not imply inconsistency.

So, according to your view, suffering is an essential part of any physical world? And, moreover, the non-existence of suffering in the world in as contradictory as the notion of a square circle?

Perhaps you are entertaining a different view of “inconsistency” than I, but I do not see how suffering is essential to the world. Mind you, friend, that there will not be a total absence of the physical in heaven. Will suffering be essential there as well?

You conclude:

You need to justify your contention that they are weak philosophical speculations. Your claim to be a Catholic is hard to reconcile with your notion of God…

First of all, I do not see how my regarding the argument of Leibniz to be weak has any bearing upon my standing as a Christian or a Catholic.
Second, I have already stated my reasons for rejecting the aforesaid argument, namely, the very notion of a best possible world is–to use your language–“inconsistent.” That is to say, it is self-referentially incoherent. What, exactly, is the best possible world? All possible worlds are, by definition, finite, and therefore, all possible worlds, no matter how wonderful they are and no matter what their final outcome is, can always be made better (e.g., one more morally upstanding person, one less suffering child, one more day of sunshine, etc.).

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

If everyone chose to be good all the time they couldn’t be genuinely free to choose.

If everyone chose evil all the time, then they wouldn’t be free to choose either. However, there is no sin unless you genuinely have a choice. But why do you think choice only resides somewhere in between? What if everyone alternated, so your first decision was good, the next evil, then good again and so on?
Also, there is usually more than one good response to a moral dilemma, God could very easily allow us to chose which good response we want.
This is related to:

I don’t follow your reasoning here. The myth of Adam and Eve is based on the fact that at some point in history our ancestors chose to do what they believed to be wrong, i.e. they acted against their conscience and committed a sin. What could possibly ensure that all our ancestors always chose what was good rather than evil?

That only shifts the blame from Adam and Eve to someone else down the line. Say that God made everyone entirely neutral with regards to goodness/badness, so when presented with a moral dilemma we would choose a moral course of action 50% of the time and an evil action 50% of the time. Now consider the number of moral decisions you make in a day, say 100. The odds of everyone alive never sinning would quickly get very small, it would decrease by a factor of 2^100 per day per person. Nevertheless, the probability is never zero, and God deals in terms of infinity. God could create some particular world in which everyone made random moral decisions but still no one sinned.

You mean God is ultimately responsible for everything because He created everything. But He is justified because it would be a greater evil not to create anything simply because there would be evil. The immense value of existence outweighs its drawbacks.

But he was under no obligation to create evil. Why didn’t he just create good?

Knowledge does not entail coercion. Why should it?

Because God, when considering how to make the world, could compare infinite possibilities. So he could look at all the decisions tonyrey made in every possible world. Now, I’m going to assume you’ve sinned in the past; if this isn’t true, please correct me. God could have created a world in which tonyrey did not commit your historical, or any other, sins. If he could not have (i.e. if it is impossible for tonyrey to be without sin) then are you really responsible for the inevitability of your sin? That is to say: what prevents you from simply choosing to be good all the time?

It is fantasy that there can be a world which is perfect in every respect. Finitude entails imperfection and frustration. Only God is perfect and fulfilled in every respect.

I thought Catholics believed in both heaven and the resurrection of the body.

God did create a world without moral evil - prior to the advent of human beings.

Angels sinned as well, but you’re right, they are not really relevant.

It’s not a personal attack but a statement of fact. A Catholic must be committed to belief that God has **not **permitted unnecessary evil - which exists if this isn’t the best possible world.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Aristotle.

 

[FCCopleston]

If this is not the best of all possible worlds God cannot be omnipotent or infinitely loving.
What has prevented Him from doing so?

This statement of your worries me. Your faith in God’s goodness rests upon a rational (sic) argument???

This we believe:

1. God is perfect
2. God created a perfect world
3. Death and imperfection entered the world through sin
4. God has redeemed the fallen world through His Son, Jesus Christ
5. God will work all for good for those who love Him and believe in His promises

 

[FCCopleston]

Perhaps the problem arises from attempting to formulate a theodicy, i.e., attempting to justify God. Rather, we ought to be simply demonstrating how evil is not inconsistent with a good and loving God. In this way, we keep the skeptics at bay, and do not exercise a faith whose foundation is a philosophical argument (and an incoherent one at that).

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

First of all, I do not see how my regarding the argument of Leibniz to be weak has any bearing upon my standing as a Christian or a Catholic.
Second, I have already stated my reasons for rejecting the aforesaid argument, namely, the very notion of a best possible world is–to use your language–“inconsistent.” That is to say, it is self-referentially incoherent. What, exactly, is the best possible world? All possible worlds are, by definition, finite, and therefore, all possible worlds, no matter how wonderful they are and no matter what their final outcome is, can always be made better (e.g., one more morally upstanding person, one less suffering child, one more day of sunshine, etc.).

In Christ,
FCCopleston

Consider these two things, though.

First, define the best possible world as the world with the minimum evil and the maximum experience of joy per capita. Now, obviously you can’t have a negative amount of evil, so there is a “floor” of no evil. Moreover, there is a limit on the amount of joy someone can experience in their lifetime, as our lifetimes are finite. Clearly there are multiple possible worlds that would meet both the minimum evil and maximum joy criterion. However, for the purpose of this discussion we don’t need to make a distinction between them. Why? Because the fact remains that we do not live in such a perfect world and therefore God created a world with more evil and less joy than is possible.

Second, to say “you could always make the world better” is to be bound in our finite way of thinking. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He can completely consider the set of all possible worlds. To say that no matter what world he chose, there exists a better one is the same as saying there exists a possible world outside of the set of all possible worlds.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Perhaps the problem arises from attempting to formulate a theodicy, i.e., attempting to justify God. Rather, we ought to be simply demonstrating how evil is not inconsistent with a good and loving God. In this way, we keep the skeptics at bay, and do not exercise a faith whose foundation is a philosophical argument (and an incoherent one at that).

If we simply say that “whatever God does is good” then we remove all meaning from the word. In other words, God described this way is not bound by any consistent rules as it is a circular definition. (Whatever God does is good, good is whatever God does.) However, if we use good in the common sense of the word, then this “problem of evil” remains a problem. If God is good as we understand it, why would he have created a world with evil when he did not have to? If God loves us (wants what is best for us) then why would he not create the best world for us?

 

[veritas82]

Pax vobiscum

Intro

On a couple of threads, people have declined to engage with me. This may because I’m Muslim and therefore think I cannot comment on anything remotely Catholic. It is true that my beliefs are of no consequence to Catholicism, but if we are discussing philosophy then surely I can engage with that as much as any person?

Anyway, I have looked into Catholicism in a bit of detail. I am to conduct some research on medieval Canon Law and so hope to learn a bit more - which is why I’m here. I have an objective agenda, but having been here for a bit could say that I have a much better opinon of the Church than some Catholics

Main

Reading your posts does say that most of your arguments are very much from a human perspective. I remember an atheist saying he didn’t believe in God because he thought he could do a better job of designing the universe ! I think if we were to take Leibniz’s argument for a minute, it asks the question maybe this universe is meant to be this way. Just because we like something doesn’t make it good, so good - and therefore evil - need defining. They are quite subjective; what you think is good is not necessarily what I think is good. For example, you may think the best World is one where everyone is Catholic, I may think the best World is one where everyone is Muslim. Yet the interesting fact remains that God has done neither and not for want of ability to either, but through His Wisdom.

Conclusion

Perhaps the discussion should be more to do with what God deems good and not what man deems good? Because I think the actual argument by Leibniz is that God chose this from all the possibilities, not man