Introduction
The philosophical conundrum known as the problem of evil seeks to reconcile the existence of evil with the presence of an all-knowing, loving God. According to Dew and Gould in “The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness,” there are two different kinds of this issue: the evidentiary problem and the logical dilemma. According to the logical problem of evil, there can be no logical way for an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God to exist and still have evil. Dew and Gould respond to this issue by stating that, even though people cannot understand God’s moral justifications for permitting evil, it is still conceivable that he has them. However, the evidential issue of evil concerns whether there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that God may have a reason for letting evil, even though it is acknowledged that this is logically feasible.
How Pruitt’s Arguments Substantiate Dew & Gould’s Answers
The authors Dew and Gould address the philosophical conundrum of evil in theism in the chapter “The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness”. They include a few arguments and counterarguments on how the reality of evil and faith in an all-knowing, all-loving God can coexist (Dew & Gould, 2019). Apart from this chapter, Pruitt and Dumsday’s two other publications offer more understanding of this intricate matter. Pruitt’s paper, “God, Evil, and the Human Good,” presents an angle that could validate one of Dew & Gould’s solutions to the dilemma of evil.
According to Pruitt, God permits evil to exist because it is essential for people to grow morally and spiritually. He contends that going through hardships makes people stronger, kinder, and more devoted to God. This perspective is consistent with one of Dew & Gould’s responses, referred to as the soul-making defense. This justification holds that God permits evil because it advances a more important goal: the growth of souls (Pruitt, 2014). By persevering through hardship, people develop qualities such as bravery, fortitude, empathy, and forgiveness.
This response is supported by Pruitt’s reasoning, which emphasizes that without evil and suffering, people would not have the chance to develop morally or spiritually. Furthermore, Pruitt’s argument and Dew & Gould’s chapter are enhanced by Dumsday’s paper on C.S. Lewis’ viewpoint on divine hiddenness. According to Dumsday, Lewis saw divine hiddenness as a call for people to actively seek God rather than obediently acknowledging His existence (Dumsday, 2015).
This point supports the claim made by Dew and Gould that true love between people and God requires free will. Pruitt’s argument holds that evil is essential to moral and spiritual development, which supports Dew & Gould’s response about the soul-making defense. Furthermore, Dumsday’s paper lends credence to the notion that divine concealment offers people the opportunity to exercise their free will to pursue a relationship with God.
Unveiling the Most Compelling Argument in Dumsday’s Discourse
Dew and Gould examine the idea of evil in connection to theism in chapter 13, “The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness”. They contend that conventional religious beliefs—especially those that uphold the presence of an all-powerful and loving God—are seriously challenged by the reality of evil. Dumsday’s piece stood out as the most compelling among these three readings. Dumsday examines C.S. Lewis’s view of divine hiddenness and argues that it is a solution to the problem of evil (Dumsday, 2015). Lewis argues that God permits evil to protect human free will, which is essential for sincere affection and moral accountability.
Dumsday’s study of Lewis’s position on divine hiddenness is what gives his argument its persuasive strength. He emphasizes that Lewis argues that, because it would violate people’s right to free will, God’s presence shouldn’t be clear-cut or indisputable. Humans wouldn’t freely choose to believe in God; instead, they would be forced to do so if He were always interfering or making Himself plain (Dumsday, 2015).
By highlighting Lewis’s comparison of a parent teaching their child how to ride a bicycle, Dumsday strengthens his case. The parent provides assistance by holding onto the bike at first, but eventually lets their child ride on their own; hence, the youngster may learn how to balance a bike. In a similar vein, Lewis claims that God first provides evidence of His existence before progressively withholding it. This argument aligns with my philosophy because it addresses a primary objection raised by critics: why would an all-powerful, loving God permit evil to exist? It also provides a distinctive viewpoint on divine hiddenness. Lewis offers a convincing justification for the coexistence of evil and God’s presence by highlighting human freedom as a crucial component in comprehending divine power on the earth.
Corroborating Dew & Gould’s Examination of Divine Hiddenness with Dumsday’s Theoretical Framework
Dew and Gould address the question of divine hiddenness and provide a broad solution in the same 13th chapter. They claim that God may choose to keep His identity secret to maintain human freedom and to foster sincere interactions with Him. Nonetheless, Dumsday’s piece on C.S. Lewis’ viewpoint on divine hiddenness lends further credence to Dew and Gould’s claims (Dew & Gould, 2019). Dumsday analyzes C.S. Lewis’ ideas on divine hiddenness and contends that God uses it to respect human autonomy rather than to pose a problem.
According to Lewis, if God were to show Himself publicly, it would remove the idea of free will since everyone would be obliged to believe in Him. This claim supports Dew and Gould’s claim that divine concealment is essential to preserving human freedom. Dumsday also emphasizes Lewis’ contention that a person’s suffering may help them gain a better understanding of who they are and their connection to God (Dew & Gould, 2019). He contends that suffering is a necessary condition for the development of human qualities such as empathy, compassion, and fortitude. This is consistent with Dew and Gould’s claim that theism uses evil to foster moral development in individuals.
Furthermore, Dumsday and Dew & Gould agree that faith plays a crucial role in religious belief. Dumsday argues that faith requires confidence in anything beyond logic or factual data. In a similar vein, Dew & Gould contend that faith is essential to acknowledging God’s existence despite wickedness. Dumsday’s paper bolsters Dew & Gould’s claims by offering a different take on divine hiddenness from the standpoint of C.S. Lewis. These authors stress the importance of human freedom, the ability to grow personally through adversity, and the role that religion plays in recognizing God’s existence despite evil.
Conclusions’ Effect
Pruitt’s article, “God, Evil and the Human Good,” further delves into this problem by suggesting that evil can serve a purpose in promoting human growth and development. He posits that without experiencing suffering or evil, humans would not have the opportunity to develop virtues such as compassion or resilience. On the other hand, Dumsday’s article focuses on C.S. Lewis’ perspective on divine hiddenness (Pruitt, 2014). Lewis argues that God allows for divine hiddenness to preserve human freedom and moral responsibility.
After considering these perspectives on the problem of evil, my conclusion is that while it remains a challenging issue for theism, it does not necessarily negate the case for God’s existence (Pruitt, 2014). The existence of evil may be seen as a necessary consequence of free will or as a means to promote personal growth. It is essential to recognize that our finite perspective limits our understanding of good and evil.
References
Dew, J. K., & Gould, P. M. (2019). The problem of evil and divine hiddenness. In Philosophy: A Christian Introduction. Baker Academic.
Dumsday, T. (2015). C. S. Lewis on the problem of divine hiddenness. Anglican Theological Review, 97(1), 33–52.
Pruitt, J. (2014). God, evil, and the human good (Part 2 of 2). Moral Apologetics.