The origin and nature of evilThe origin and nature of evil

Central question for the next few weeks: Central question for the next few weeks: what's wrong with us? Why does human what's wrong with us? Why does human life and action always fall so far short of the life and action always fall so far short of the ideal?ideal?

Diagnosing the problem is the crucial first Diagnosing the problem is the crucial first step toward developing and carrying out step toward developing and carrying out solutions.solutions.

7 Theories7 Theories

1. Fallibilism (Aristotle). A certain amount of 1. Fallibilism (Aristotle). A certain amount of malfunctioning is inevitable in any concrete malfunctioning is inevitable in any concrete system. It is impossible for finite, material system. It is impossible for finite, material systems to perform flawlessly all the time. systems to perform flawlessly all the time. However, most of the time, human beings However, most of the time, human beings do quite well.do quite well.

2. Manichaean dualism.2. Manichaean dualism.

Human nature is inherently evil and, along Human nature is inherently evil and, along with the rest of the natural world, in need of with the rest of the natural world, in need of radical reform. There is an enormous gap radical reform. There is an enormous gap between how things actually work and the between how things actually work and the ideal, which is based on some transcendent ideal, which is based on some transcendent standard. It's up to the enlightened few to standard. It's up to the enlightened few to change things, in light of their vision of the change things, in light of their vision of the goodgood

3. Libertarianism3. Libertarianism3. Libertarianism3. Libertarianism

Humans have no fixed or determinate Humans have no fixed or determinate nature. We are free to make of ourselves nature. We are free to make of ourselves whatever we will. Evil is an unavoidable whatever we will. Evil is an unavoidable by-product of this radical freedom.by-product of this radical freedom.

Pelagius, Pico della Mirandola, Sartre.Pelagius, Pico della Mirandola, Sartre.

4. Augustinianism.4. Augustinianism.4. Augustinianism.4. Augustinianism.

Human nature as created is wholly good. Human nature as created is wholly good. However, we have suffered a constitutional However, we have suffered a constitutional corruption (original sin) which makes evil corruption (original sin) which makes evil inevitable. inevitable.

Two versions:Two versions: Historical Fall (Augustine, C. S. Lewis)Historical Fall (Augustine, C. S. Lewis) Existential Fall (Kant, Kierkegaard, Niebuhr)Existential Fall (Kant, Kierkegaard, Niebuhr)

4a. Historical fall. At some specific point in 4a. Historical fall. At some specific point in the past, the ancestors of humanity misused the past, the ancestors of humanity misused their freedom, producing an inherited, their freedom, producing an inherited, congenital flaw in all of their descendants.congenital flaw in all of their descendants.

4b. Existential fall. The fall of Adam and Eve 4b. Existential fall. The fall of Adam and Eve is a representation of a universal is a representation of a universal phenomenon. Each of us falls individually, phenomenon. Each of us falls individually, and yet the falling is both inevitable and and yet the falling is both inevitable and guilt-procuring.guilt-procuring.

5. Sociologism5. Sociologism Evil is the result of a specific set of social Evil is the result of a specific set of social

conditions arising in the course of human conditions arising in the course of human history: either the formation of society history: either the formation of society (Rousseau, Freud), the organization of religion (Rousseau, Freud), the organization of religion and feudalism (Enlightenment), capitalism and feudalism (Enlightenment), capitalism (Marx), etc. There is a mismatch between the (Marx), etc. There is a mismatch between the natural needs of human beings and the artificial natural needs of human beings and the artificial needs and desires produced by society, resulting needs and desires produced by society, resulting in crime, vice, misery.in crime, vice, misery.

6. Developmentalism (Hegel).6. Developmentalism (Hegel).

Evil is a necessary and inevitable phase in Evil is a necessary and inevitable phase in the development of the human personality. the development of the human personality. It represents a step up from the innocence of It represents a step up from the innocence of nature and a necessary prelude to the nature and a necessary prelude to the achievement of virtue and wisdom. Sin achievement of virtue and wisdom. Sin results from the necessary and inevitable results from the necessary and inevitable assertion of the individual against the assertion of the individual against the universality of morality.universality of morality.

7. Immoralism (Nietzsche).7. Immoralism (Nietzsche).

The moralistic distinction between good and The moralistic distinction between good and evil is fundamentally false. Acts of proper evil is fundamentally false. Acts of proper self-assertion by the strong and healthy are self-assertion by the strong and healthy are labeled "evil" by the weak and sickly as an labeled "evil" by the weak and sickly as an expression of envy and spite.expression of envy and spite.

Christian View of Evil: New TestamentChristian View of Evil: New Testament In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7),

Jesus sets the ethical bar very (impossibly?) Jesus sets the ethical bar very (impossibly?) high:high: Sin is internal (intentions, emotions).Sin is internal (intentions, emotions). Blessedness requires more than fair dealing, Blessedness requires more than fair dealing,

reciprocity (love your enemies, turn the other reciprocity (love your enemies, turn the other cheek).cheek).

Blessedness is incompatible with the pursuit of Blessedness is incompatible with the pursuit of wealth, requires extreme sacrifices.wealth, requires extreme sacrifices.

Paul’s Epistle to the RomansPaul’s Epistle to the Romans

Paul draws the conclusion that, by this standard, Paul draws the conclusion that, by this standard, all human beings are without exception (except all human beings are without exception (except Jesus himself) sinful and under God’s judgment.Jesus himself) sinful and under God’s judgment.

Even if we change our outward behavior, we can’t Even if we change our outward behavior, we can’t change our own hearts (our lack of true love of change our own hearts (our lack of true love of God and others).God and others).

Salvation from this state requires divine action Salvation from this state requires divine action (mediated by faith in Jesus).(mediated by faith in Jesus).

Grace vs. NatureGrace vs. Nature

Since we must be saved by God’s special Since we must be saved by God’s special intervention (“grace”), what are ordinarily intervention (“grace”), what are ordinarily thought of as human virtues (wisdom, thought of as human virtues (wisdom, nobility, self-possession) are of no ultimate nobility, self-possession) are of no ultimate value.value.

Indeed, by encouraging pride and human Indeed, by encouraging pride and human autonomy, they are potential barriers to autonomy, they are potential barriers to salvation.salvation.

Augustine's Account of Original SinAugustine's Account of Original Sin

Three premises:Three premises:

1. Human nature as created is wholly good-- its 1. Human nature as created is wholly good-- its tendencies are the standard of goodness (for tendencies are the standard of goodness (for us)us)

2. Evil is wholly bad -- the privation or absence 2. Evil is wholly bad -- the privation or absence of a corresponding good.of a corresponding good.

3. There is a universal tendency toward evil 3. There is a universal tendency toward evil among human beings, and this is not due to among human beings, and this is not due to changeable social conditions.changeable social conditions.

ParadoxParadox The natural tendencies of human nature are all The natural tendencies of human nature are all

good,good, Evil is not good, Evil is not good, and yet all humans have a fixed tendency and yet all humans have a fixed tendency

toward evil.toward evil. Augustine's solution: the Fall. The Fall is an Augustine's solution: the Fall. The Fall is an

event at which all of humanity acquired an event at which all of humanity acquired an unnatural but irreversible tendency toward evil.unnatural but irreversible tendency toward evil.

Augustine’s solution, cont.Augustine’s solution, cont.

Augustine uses the story of Genesis 3, and Augustine uses the story of Genesis 3, and Paul's statement in Romans 5 (as translated Paul's statement in Romans 5 (as translated into Latin): "in Adam, we all sinned."into Latin): "in Adam, we all sinned."

The Augustinian position doesn't depend on The Augustinian position doesn't depend on taking Genesis literally -- C.S. Lewis.taking Genesis literally -- C.S. Lewis.

Problems for AugustineProblems for Augustine

1. Adam's sin is supposed to be the first in a 1. Adam's sin is supposed to be the first in a series -- it propagated itself somehow.series -- it propagated itself somehow.

Yet, Adam's sin is utterly unique, since he Yet, Adam's sin is utterly unique, since he sinned in a state of innocence, whereas all sinned in a state of innocence, whereas all subsequent humans sinned in a fallen state.subsequent humans sinned in a fallen state.

It seems that Adam’s sin can’t be copied or It seems that Adam’s sin can’t be copied or reproduced, since it is of the essence of reproduced, since it is of the essence of Adam’s sin that it be original.Adam’s sin that it be original.

More problemsMore problems

2.How is this tendency toward sin transmitted 2.How is this tendency toward sin transmitted to new generations?to new generations?

Why couldn't God prevent the transmission?Why couldn't God prevent the transmission?

3. How can we reconcile responsibility for 3. How can we reconcile responsibility for evil with its inevitability? evil with its inevitability?

If we have lost the power not to sin, can we If we have lost the power not to sin, can we be held accountable?be held accountable?

Eastern Orthodox View (Athanasius)Eastern Orthodox View (Athanasius)

Sees a self-perpetuating cycle:Sees a self-perpetuating cycle:

1. Human death is unnatural -- the product of 1. Human death is unnatural -- the product of human sin. (God's judgment introduced death, human sin. (God's judgment introduced death, in order to put a limit to the scope of human in order to put a limit to the scope of human evil).evil).

2. The fear of death is responsible for the 2. The fear of death is responsible for the universal tendency toward sin.universal tendency toward sin.

3.Only the hope for immortality can break the 3.Only the hope for immortality can break the cycle.cycle.

Kant -- Hegel -- KierkegaardKant -- Hegel -- Kierkegaard

Kant tries to secularize the Kant tries to secularize the Augustinian/Lutheran conception of original sin.Augustinian/Lutheran conception of original sin.

Hegel sees sin & guilt (“the unhappy Hegel sees sin & guilt (“the unhappy conscience”) as a conflict-ridden stage through conscience”) as a conflict-ridden stage through which we must pass as we move toward which we must pass as we move toward philosophical enlightenment.philosophical enlightenment.

Kierkegaard rejects Hegel’s relativizing of Kierkegaard rejects Hegel’s relativizing of Christian faith to a mere stage.Christian faith to a mere stage.

KantKant No historical fall. Adam/Eve a myth.No historical fall. Adam/Eve a myth. Human nature is good. The law of morality Human nature is good. The law of morality

remains valid, not abrogated or denied.remains valid, not abrogated or denied. Universal, innate tendency toward evil.Universal, innate tendency toward evil. Evil is very subtle (insidious, involving self-Evil is very subtle (insidious, involving self-

deception). Morality involves the inner deception). Morality involves the inner motivation (the priority of moral principle motivation (the priority of moral principle over inclination), not just external over inclination), not just external conformity to moral rules.conformity to moral rules.

Origin of evil is an insoluble mysteryOrigin of evil is an insoluble mystery

1. Evil cannot be subsequent or parallel to the will, 1. Evil cannot be subsequent or parallel to the will, since then there would be no explanation of the since then there would be no explanation of the universality of sin.universality of sin.

2. But, evil cannot precede the will either, since it 2. But, evil cannot precede the will either, since it must either be part of our nature or outside our must either be part of our nature or outside our nature.nature. (a) If evil is part of our nature, then the moral law no (a) If evil is part of our nature, then the moral law no

longer applies to us, and evil could not still be evil.longer applies to us, and evil could not still be evil. (b) If evil is not part of our nature, then the evil we do (b) If evil is not part of our nature, then the evil we do

is the result of this alien intrusion, and we are not is the result of this alien intrusion, and we are not really responsible.really responsible.

The Noumenal vs. the PhenomenalThe Noumenal vs. the Phenomenal Kant resolves this paradox by distinguishing Kant resolves this paradox by distinguishing

between our real self (pure intellect, existing between our real self (pure intellect, existing beyond the bounds of time and space) and our beyond the bounds of time and space) and our apparent or “phenomenal” self (whose character apparent or “phenomenal” self (whose character apparently unfolds progressively through time).apparently unfolds progressively through time).

The noumenal self exercises true, uncaused free The noumenal self exercises true, uncaused free will, that expresses itself in the naturally caused will, that expresses itself in the naturally caused behavior of the phenomenal self. The origin of behavior of the phenomenal self. The origin of evil is pushed beyond the bounds of sense & time.evil is pushed beyond the bounds of sense & time.

Kant’s solution to the problem of evilKant’s solution to the problem of evil Moral self-reform through a rational faith. Moral self-reform through a rational faith. We can "atone" for our sins through the We can "atone" for our sins through the

acceptance of suffering.acceptance of suffering. Seems inconsistent with Kant’s affirmation of the Seems inconsistent with Kant’s affirmation of the

“insidious” and “inextirpable” character of sin.“insidious” and “inextirpable” character of sin. Answer: some of Kant’s echoing of traditional Answer: some of Kant’s echoing of traditional

Christian language is not to be taken literally. Christian language is not to be taken literally. Perhaps he didn’t really believe that sin was both Perhaps he didn’t really believe that sin was both radical and universal.radical and universal.

G. W. F. Hegel (early 19th century)G. W. F. Hegel (early 19th century) Developmental theory of sin. Developmental theory of sin. Sin results from a necessary conflict Sin results from a necessary conflict

between individuality (self-assertion, between individuality (self-assertion, willfulness) and universality (laws, willfulness) and universality (laws, principles). principles).

Hegel’s SolutionHegel’s Solution

Philosophical understanding reconciles this Philosophical understanding reconciles this opposition through a kind of pantheism. opposition through a kind of pantheism.

We realize that the universal claims of We realize that the universal claims of morality are not something coming from morality are not something coming from outside ourselves: we are God, and God is outside ourselves: we are God, and God is us.us.

Kierkegaard: Agreement with KantKierkegaard: Agreement with Kant1. Original sin is not merely an inherited 1. Original sin is not merely an inherited

condition, resulting from a historical fall.condition, resulting from a historical fall.

2. All sin is the result of the exercise of human 2. All sin is the result of the exercise of human freedom.freedom.

3. Human nature is not nullified through sin. 3. Human nature is not nullified through sin.

4. Sin is a universal phenomenon.4. Sin is a universal phenomenon.

5. Origin of sin is a mystery: "sin presupposes 5. Origin of sin is a mystery: "sin presupposes itself".itself".

Disagreement with KantDisagreement with Kant

1.1. There is no “noumenal” self: human There is no “noumenal” self: human beings essentially “exist” (in time).beings essentially “exist” (in time).

2.2. Mere self-reform is not an adequate Mere self-reform is not an adequate solution.solution.

3.3. The solution involves going beyond The solution involves going beyond human reason (beyond a human reason (beyond a Religion within Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alonethe Bounds of Reason Alone))

Agreement with HegelAgreement with Hegel

1. Sin is a kind of developmental phase -- 1. Sin is a kind of developmental phase -- necessary if we are to reach the higher level.necessary if we are to reach the higher level.

2. Sin does represent a conflict between 2. Sin does represent a conflict between individuality and universality, and both are individuality and universality, and both are necessary.necessary.

Disagreement with HegelDisagreement with Hegel

1. We are not parts or aspects of God (the 1. We are not parts or aspects of God (the Absolute). The contrast between our Absolute). The contrast between our sinfulness and God's holiness is real, not sinfulness and God's holiness is real, not merely apparent.merely apparent.

2. Philosophical thought of a pantheistic sort 2. Philosophical thought of a pantheistic sort offers no viable solution, since it denies our offers no viable solution, since it denies our real existence as individuals in space and real existence as individuals in space and time.time.

3. There is no permanent solution to sin: the 3. There is no permanent solution to sin: the transition from sin to faith must be transition from sin to faith must be continually repeated in our experience. We continually repeated in our experience. We never simply leave sin and guilt behind.never simply leave sin and guilt behind.

Kierkegaard's Philosophical FragmentsKierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments A thought-experiment, beginning with a A thought-experiment, beginning with a

single hypothesis, What if?single hypothesis, What if? What if: we begin life without the truth (the What if: we begin life without the truth (the

essential truth about who we are), and essential truth about who we are), and without even the condition of discovering without even the condition of discovering the truth on our own?the truth on our own?

What would follow from this hypothesis?What would follow from this hypothesis?

Upshot of the ExperimentUpshot of the Experiment

Kierkegaard reconstructs most of traditional Kierkegaard reconstructs most of traditional Christian theology in the process of Christian theology in the process of answering this question.answering this question.

This is why his “critic” at the end of the This is why his “critic” at the end of the section accuses the author of being a section accuses the author of being a charlatan (pretending that he has just charlatan (pretending that he has just invented what is in fact Christian theology).invented what is in fact Christian theology).

Kierkegaard's existentialismKierkegaard's existentialism

1. Human existence is a matter of living 1. Human existence is a matter of living through time, which involves having a through time, which involves having a narrative or history to one's life.narrative or history to one's life.

2. Therefore, the central challenge of human 2. Therefore, the central challenge of human life is that of "becoming a self" by life is that of "becoming a self" by constructing and maintaining the continuity constructing and maintaining the continuity of the narrative of one's life through time, of the narrative of one's life through time, despite changes.despite changes.

3. This unity or continuity of one's life-history 3. This unity or continuity of one's life-history is either a unity with God or against God. If is either a unity with God or against God. If it does not include God, it necessarily it does not include God, it necessarily excludes Him.excludes Him.

4. Therefore, human life begins either in a 4. Therefore, human life begins either in a state of unity with God or of opposition to state of unity with God or of opposition to God.God.

In the first case, knowing the truth (about In the first case, knowing the truth (about oneself and God) is a matter of recollection oneself and God) is a matter of recollection (making explicit what you already know, (making explicit what you already know, deep down).deep down).

In the second case, knowing the truth In the second case, knowing the truth involves learning it through an event (the involves learning it through an event (the moment) - an encounter with God in time (= moment) - an encounter with God in time (= faith).faith).

5. But, human life cannot begin in 5. But, human life cannot begin in harmony with God, for two reasons: harmony with God, for two reasons: (a) This original harmony would destroy our (a) This original harmony would destroy our

unique individuality. Each of us would be unique individuality. Each of us would be swallowed up in God's being. swallowed up in God's being.

(b) This original harmony would make it (b) This original harmony would make it impossible for us to encounter God as an impossible for us to encounter God as an Other. We would be unable to have an Other. We would be unable to have an interpersonal relationship with God.interpersonal relationship with God.

6. So, recollection is not the road to 6. So, recollection is not the road to truth -- faith is. truth -- faith is.

7. For faith to be possible, God (the 7. For faith to be possible, God (the eternal) must confront us in time, eternal) must confront us in time, through some sort of incarnation. through some sort of incarnation.

8. Such an incarnation of the eternal in 8. Such an incarnation of the eternal in time is paradoxical -- rationally time is paradoxical -- rationally incomprehensible.incomprehensible.

9. When we encounter God's self-revelation in 9. When we encounter God's self-revelation in time (the incarnation), we first become time (the incarnation), we first become aware of our own opposition to God. Guilt aware of our own opposition to God. Guilt and the consciousness of sin is the first and the consciousness of sin is the first result of the encounter with God.result of the encounter with God.

10. The solution to sin is faith, the acceptance 10. The solution to sin is faith, the acceptance of the paradox.of the paradox.