Why Evil will not go Away: the Complexity of The Relation between Evil and Religion

By

D. Theol. Anne L.C. Runehov

________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

This paper is not yet another paper on the theodicy problem, which translated from Greek, means the problem of God’s justice. Furthermore, the theodicy problem especially concerns a certain understanding of God, namely, a theistic understanding. This understanding implies that God is almighty or omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient.  First of all, the present article concerns the relation between the evil in the world and religions and clearly, not all religions have this specific understanding of God. Secondly, the theodicy problem has been discussed since at least St. Augustine. Furthermore, contemporary prominent theologians and philosophers have been digging into the problem, I would almost say, sufficiently. For example, John Hick, Richard Swinburne, William James, Anthony Flew, J.L. Mackie, Keith Ward Thomas Anderberg, just to name a few. Hence, the theodicy problem will only be briefly touched upon.

Hence, the aim of the present article is to critically analyse contemporary views on the relationship between religions and the evil in the world. It will be argued that the problem of evil is far more complex than some want us to believe. For example, more attention needs to be paid to different types of evil. The types of evil established thus far will prove not to be sufficient to understand the complexity of the problem of evil. Hence a further distinction is needed, besides (1) natural evil; moral evil is divided into (2) pure accidental moral evil; (3) belief-based accidental moral evil; (4) active but non-responsible moral evil and finally (5) active and responsible moral evil. Popular statements such as religion systematically causing people to do evil (Dawkins), religious faith being the culprit of evil (Harris), and that religious beliefs are the main cause of war and the death of millions of people (Persinger), are challenged. Also, Immanuel Kant’s argument that human beings always have the choice to do good or bad is challenged.

The present article is neither a defence of religions nor is it a defence of atheism. Rather, it concerns the problem of evil per se, which, as will be shown, is a problem that at least partly is related to the neurological construction of human beings. In other words, human’s free will to do good or bad is at least partly hardwired.

Keywords: Evil, empathy, neuroscience, religions, faith and belief, mind-control.