Divine Nature Under Scrutiny: Rethinking the Problem of Evil in the Light of Modern Philosophical Discourse

Full Text

Introduction

The Problem of Evil has been a longstanding philosophical and theological conundrum that has confused thinkers for centuries [1. P. 197–202]. At its core, the problem grapples with the plain contradiction between the lifestyles of a benevolent, all-powerful deity and the lifestyles of evil and struggling within the globe. How can a deity who possesses both omnibenevolence and omnipotence allow the existence of such maleficence and struggle? This question strikes at the heart of religious notions and has caused myriad responses from theologians and philosophers throughout history [2. P. 7–15]. The Problem of Evil is often viewed as a challenge to God’s life, posing questions about why evil exists and why God continues to treat it as a part of His character. This has led to the development of various theodicies, ranging from arguing that evil is a necessary part of a higher power to the idea that evil is human free will. The issue has been a contentious topic in philosophy across various traditions and perspectives.

Philosophers have sought to grapple with the logical and ethical implications of evil in a global supposedly ruled by a divine being [3. P. 4–7]. Some have argued that the lifestyles of evil are incompatible with the life of a benevolent and  all-effective God. In contrast, others have proposed complex philosophical frameworks to reconcile the two [4. P. 16–19]. However, as we delve into the prevailing-day generation of philosophical discourse, it will become evident that the Problem of Evil is undergoing a reevaluation.

Modern philosophers are exploring the issue of evil from new perspectives, shedding light on this ancient issue through advancements in ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology [5. P. 262; 6. P. 390–398]. Recent philosophical discussions on the Problem of Evil emphasize the character of divine attributes, shifting from traditional views of God as an all-effective and all-loving entity to exploring nuanced conceptions of divine nature, allowing for a deeper exploration of the complexities inherent in the relationship between God and evil.

Moreover, contemporary philosophical discourse has drawn from interdisciplinary insights, incorporating perspectives from psychology, sociology, and different fields to enrich our knowledge of the Problem of Evil [7]. By broadening the scope of inquiry, philosophers must remember the myriad factors that contribute to the lifestyles of evil in the international, shifting beyond simplistic dichotomies of precision and evil.

The age-old question of the existence of evil in a global supposedly ruled via a benevolent and omnipotent God has perplexed theologians and philosophers alike. Traditional formulations of this problem, frequently referred to as the "Problem of Evil," revolve around the plain contradiction between the lifestyles of evil and the attributes typically ascribed to a deity, which includes being all-loving, all-understanding, and all-powerful [8. P. 45–47]. One of the conventional challenges posed to the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent God in the face of evil is called the logical problem of evil [9]. This argument asserts that the coexistence of evil and a supposedly all-loving and all-effective God is logically incompatible.  If God is sincerely benevolent, the argument goes, He might want to save you from evil; if He is all-powerful, He could be capable of preventing evil; but evil exists [10. P. 21–26]. Therefore, the presence of evil within the globe is visible as proof against the existence of a conventional, all-powerful and all-loving God. Another formula for the problem of evil is the evidential problem of evil [11. P. 69–77]. This argument no longer declares a logical contradiction between the life of evil and the attributes of God; however, it argues that the sheer quantity and nature of evil within the globe make it somewhat not likely that one of these Gods exists. The evidential problem of evil factors to the superiority of suffering, pain, and moral atrocities in the globe as evidence against the life of a benevolent and all-powerful deity  [12. P. 58–61]. In response to those demanding situations, theologians and philosophers have proposed numerous solutions and theological doctrines  to reconcile the lifestyles of evil with a notion of a loving and all-powerful God [13–15]. Theodicies, for instance, try to explain how a benevolent God should permit evil to exist in the world [16. P. 51–61]. Theodicies can take numerous forms, along with arguing that evil is essential for the greater suitable, that human free will justifies the existence of evil, or that evil is a necessary consequence of a universe ruled with the aid of natural laws [14. P. 50–51].

Modern philosophical discourse has added new views and challenges to conventional notions of divine nature, especially in the context of the problem of evil [9]. From the evidential problem of evil to existentialist reviews and the manner of theological reconstructions, philosophers continue to grapple with the complexities and paradoxes inherent in the concept of a benevolent and all-powerful deity in a world marked by struggling and evil [17]. As we navigate these philosophical debates, it will become increasingly clear that the nature of the divine is a profound and enduring thriller that invitations ongoing reflection and inquiry.

One of the critical arguments against the traditional understanding of divine nature in light of the problem of evil is the evidential problem of evil. This argument, popularised by the logician William Rowe, contends that the sheer quantity and intensity of struggling and evil within the international make it notably implausible that a great and all-effective God has created one of these international [18]. The existence of natural failures, diseases, and human atrocities points toward a universe that is detached or maybe adverse to the proper being of sentient beings rather than one created and sustained using a benevolent deity. Furthermore, modern-day philosophical views consisting of existentialism and method theology offer alternative interpretations of divine nature that venture into the conventional omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient attributes of God [19; 20]. Existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus emphasize the absurdity and meaninglessness of human existence in a universe without inherent cause or layout, calling into question the idea of a divine author who cares for and publications human affairs [21]. Process theology, on the other hand, posits a God who is continuously evolving and changing the world, as opposed to a static and unchanging being [22]. This view challenges the traditional belief of divine immutability and demands the idea of a God unaffected by struggle and evil in the international. Instead, system theologians argue for a God who stories and grows via the continued tactics of the universe, embodying an extra relational and responsive understanding of divine nature.

Research Method

The problem of evil about divine nature is a complex and multi-dimensional issue that has puzzled philosophers, theologians, and thinkers for centuries. A more nuanced understanding can be achieved by integrating philosophical analysis, theological reflection, and critical reasoning. Philosophical analysis provides a rigorous framework for examining the logical consistency of various arguments about the problem of evil. Theological reflection explores the implications of the problem of evil on our understanding of divine attributes, delving into theological doctrines, scriptural interpretations, and theodicy frameworks. Critical reasoning helps evaluate the coherence of different arguments, identify underlying assumptions, and discern the strengths and weaknesses of various positions.  A systematic analysis of results is necessary to address this contentious issue, starting with historical contextualization, exploring traditional theological perspectives, moving beyond traditional religious discourse to modern philosophical approaches, and culminating in contemporary reinterpretations of the problem of evil. This structured approach aims to provide a comprehensive and systematic reevaluation of the problem of evil, contributing to the ongoing dialogue surrounding the nature of divinity in the face of human suffering and moral evil.

Traditional Views on Divine Nature and the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil in philosophical discourse continues to challenge our understanding of divine nature. The central attributes of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, which have been central to religious ideals and doctrines, are being reevaluated as contemporary philosophical notions evolve, particularly in the context of the problem of evil.

Omniscience

The belief that God possesses infinite expertise and information is a fundamental aspect of traditional theological teaching [23]. This raises questions about the persistence of evil and whether God’s knowledge of evil implies complicity or indifference. Modern philosophers have explored the nuances of divine omniscience, with some arguing that evil arises from human actions rather than divine intervention and others suggesting that God’s knowledge of evil serves a higher purpose beyond human comprehension, aligning with a broader divine plan that transcends suffering.

Omnipotence

The belief that God has unlimited power and manipulation over all life elements is a cornerstone of traditional perspectives on divine nature [24]. This concept raises questions about God’s ability to prevent or eliminate evil, as the persistence of evil raises questions about God’s omnipotence. Modern philosophical discourse demands simplistic interpretations of divine omnipotence in the face of evil as scholars explore the complexities of power and enterprise. Some suggest that God’s power is expressed through love and compassion, inviting people to participate in the ongoing conflict against evil through acts of kindness and justice.

Omnibenevolence

The belief that God is infinitely right and loving is the moral foundation of traditional theological teachings. It implies boundless compassion and mercy, embodying the highest morality and virtue. However, the problem of evil challenges this view, raising doubts about the compatibility of divine goodness with suffering and injustice. Modern philosophers explore the complexities of omnibenevolence in the context of evil, exploring divine love’s relationship to human experiences of pain and loss [25]. Some argue that divine goodness is manifested through empathy with human suffering, while others suggest divine benevolence transcends individual struggles, pointing towards a higher purpose beyond human knowledge.

Central to the logical problem of evil is the perception that the lifestyles of evil are incompatible with the traditional attributes of an ideal and all-powerful deity [26]. The paradox of reconciling God’s all-powerful, omniscient nature with the existence of evil and suffering in the world has sparked philosophical debate and theological reflection. One notable response is the Free Will Defense, which posits that God should allow moral evil to maintain free will, as a genuine moral employer requires the ability to choose between right and wrong. This perspective argues that the presence of evil globally is not a reflection of God’s deficiency but rather due to human autonomy and inherent risks of free will.

While the Free Will Defense offers a compelling reaction to the logical problem of evil, it is not always without its critics [27]. Skeptics have talked about potential flaws in the argument, thinking about whether or not the magnitude and distribution of evil in the international may be entirely justified through appeals to free will. Furthermore, the existence of natural evils such as diseases, natural disasters, and suffering inflicted upon innocent beings raises additional challenges to the notion that all evil is the result of human choice. In response to the logical problem of evil, theologians and philosophers have developed various theodicies — rational attempts to justify the coexistence of evil and a benevolent God [28]. From the soul-making theodicy of John Hick to the greater good defense proposed by Leibniz, these intellectual frameworks seek to provide a coherent explanation for the presence of evil in a world supposedly governed by a perfect deity.

The evidential problem of evil, a central aspect of the problem of evil, suggests that a benevolent and all-powerful God should not allow evil to exist. Philosophers and theologians have explored various responses to reconcile evil lifestyles with God’s conventional attributes. One response is the free will defense, which posits that God has given humans free will and that evil exists as a result. This view explains ethical evil, including human actions causing suffering, but struggles to account for natural evils like earthquakes or diseases. Another response is the soul-making theodicy, which suggests that the presence of evil and struggle in the world can lead to spiritual growth and virtue cultivation.

In modern-day philosophical discourse, the evidential problem of evil is still a subject of debate and reflection [1]. Some philosophers argue that the idea of God, as traditionally understood, may also want to be reevaluated in light of the realities of evil and suffering. Others are searching to discover alternative theodicies or defences that can provide a coherent and potential account of why evil exists in a world supposedly created and ruled through a loving and all-powerful deity. Critics of the Free Will Defence argue that this theodicy does not fully cope with the problem of natural evil, including illnesses and natural failures, which appear to be beyond human choice [29]. Nevertheless, proponents of this view believe that free will is an essential issue of human dignity and ethical employer, outweighing the life of evil globally.

Another approach to the problem of evil is the Soul-Making Theodicy, proposed with the aid of John Hick. This theodicy shows that the presence of evil and suffering serves a higher reason in the development of human souls. Through encountering and overcoming adversity, people can develop distinctive features and religious adulthood. In this view, the lifestyles of evil are not a flaw within the divine plan but instead a necessary detail within the procedure of soul-making. Critics of the Soul-Making Theodicy query whether the amount of suffering within the international is proportionate to the religious growth it purportedly allows [30]. They argue that the sheer significance of pain and discomfort persisted by using infinite individuals for the duration of history calls into query the benevolence of a God who could permit such suffering to arise.

As cutting-edge philosophical discourse continues to conform, new views on the problem of evil and divine nature emerge. Some present-day thinkers endorse that conventional views of God as all-powerful and omnibenevolent may additionally need to be reevaluated in light of the complexity of human revel [31]. Rather than viewing evil as a logical contradiction to the life of a loving and all-powerful God, a more nuanced understanding of divine nature permits the coexistence of proper and evil globally. Perhaps the divine is not a far-off and transcendent being but rather immanent in the fabric of existence, experiencing the thrill and sorrows of advent alongside humanity.

The conventional theodicies, which have long been used to reconcile the problem of evil with the existence of a benevolent deity, are dealing with growing scrutiny in the mild of current philosophical discourse. Critics factor out the restrictions of these theodicies in addressing the depth and scope of evil internationally, mainly in the face of natural screw-ups and full-size struggling. As philosophers and theologians grapple with this complex and profound problem, new frameworks and tactics are emerging that are searching to interact with the problem of evil in all its complexity and nuance.

Traditional theodicies have attempted to explain the existence of evil in a theological framework, but as philosophical discourse delves deeper into the complexities of this issue, the limitations of these traditional theodicies are being scrutinized. One of the key pillars of these theodicies is the idea of divine omnipotence and omnibenevolence, which suggests that God is all-effective and all-top and that evil should serve a greater purpose in the divine plan. Other theodicies, such as the free will defense and soul-making theodicy, argue that evil is an essential byproduct of human free will and serves as a method of ethical growth and religious improvement. Critics of traditional theodicies highlight the inherent challenges of justifying evil within a framework of divine benevolence and omnipotence, as the scale and intensity of human suffering defy easy motives based on ethical growth or free will.

Moreover, conventional theodicies regularly fail to account for evil’s existential and emotional dimensions [32]. The lived experience of suffering and loss is not always effortlessly reconciled with abstract philosophical arguments approximately extra precise or ethical improvement. As the philosopher Susan Neiman has mentioned, the problem of evil isn’t just a theoretical puzzle to be solved; it is a lived fact that needs a reaction that acknowledges the depth of human struggling and the boundaries of human knowledge [33]. In light of these opinions, present-day philosophical discourse on the problem of evil is shifting closer to a greater nuanced and complex information about divine nature and the character of evil. Rather than searching to justify or explain evil in the confines of conventional theodicies, a few thinkers are exploring opportunity frameworks that emphasize the mystery and incomprehensibility of divine life. As an example, theodicies of protest reject the concept of justifying evil and, as an alternative, focus on bearing witness to struggling and declaring the moral imperative to relieve it.

Modern Philosophical Responses to the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is a complex philosophical issue that has been debated. The Free Will Defense posits that evil exists because God created humans with free will, allowing them to make moral choices and experience genuine love and compassion. This is supported by the fact that humans can make good and evil choices. The Hiddenness Defense argues that God’s existence is not incompatible with evil because God is hidden from us, and we cannot fully understand his reasons for allowing evil. Despite these logical responses, the problem of evil remains a significant challenge to many people’s faith and understanding of the world. The philosophical issue of evil has been the subject of various arguments. The first argument, from suffering, argues that suffering is evidence against a benevolent and omnipotent God, supported by the vast amount of suffering, innocent people’s suffering, and natural disasters. The second argument, from evil, argues that evil is evidence against God, supported by moral evil like murder and natural evil like earthquakes and diseases. The third argument, from theodicy, attempts to reconcile evil with a benevolent God. However, these responses are only partially satisfactory, leaving the problem of evil a significant intellectual and emotional challenge for many.

Modern Philosophical Discourse on Divine Nature

A diverse range of views and interpretations characterizes contemporary philosophical discourse on divine nature and evil. Traditional theism remains prevalent in many spiritual traditions. However, religious and atheistic reviews have led philosophers to reconsider the nature of the divine in ways more conscious of human complexities. This has led to a deeper understanding of the connection between God, evil, and life’s nature. Communication surrounding divine attributes has expanded to include religious and atheistic viewpoints, offering alternative interpretations of the divine’s character. One fundamental principle of conventional theological discussion is divine omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence, which views God as an all-effective, all-understanding, and perfectly proper being.

However, the problem of evil poses a considerable challenge to this conventional expertise of divine nature [9]. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why does evil exist internationally? Why do harmless human beings go through, and why does injustice succeed? These questions have led many philosophers to reevaluate the conventional attributes of the divine and discover alternative conceptions of God. One outstanding reaction to the problem of evil in current philosophy is the rejection of conventional theism in favor of atheism or agnosticism. Atheistic philosophers argue that the existence of evil and struggling globally is incompatible with the notion of a loving and all-effective deity  [34. P. 68]. The presence of evil in the world can challenge the belief in God’s omnipotence and benevolence, as it challenges the coherence of attributing benevolence to a divine being in the face of human suffering. However, some religious philosophers have proposed alternative perspectives, such as procedure theology, which suggests a compassionate and empathetic God who interacts dynamically and relationally with humanity, seeking to create a better world through the introduction process. Theodicy, the philosophical endeavor to justify God’s actions in the face of evil, has also seen significant trends in modern philosophy, with various theodicies proposed, such as the free will defense and soul-making theodicy, which suggest that suffering is an essential part of ethical and spiritual growth.

One of the most enduring challenges to conventional spiritual ideals has been the problem of evil, the apparent contradiction between the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful deity and the lifestyles of struggling and malevolence within the globe. However, recent advancements in philosophy, especially in modal common sense and epistemology, have furnished new avenues for exploring and reevaluating the character of divinity and its relationship to the problem of evil [35]. Modal good judgment is a branch of logic that offers the notions of necessity and possibility in shaping contemporary discussions on divine attributes. In conventional monotheistic religions, God is often conceived as a being that possesses terrific important attributes, at the side of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Modal common sense permits philosophers to explore the implications of these attributes and their compatibility with the existence of evil within the world [36. P. 64–73]. One of the crucial insights that modal logic has furnished is the difference between logical and metaphysical opportunity. While it can be logically possible for God to eliminate all evil, it cannot be metaphysically possible if doing so would violate other vital attributes of God, inclusive of free will or moral corporation. This difference has led philosophers to reconsider the nature of divine omnipotence and omnibenevolence, arguing that God’s power and goodness can be restricted by higher-order principles or values, which can be vital for a coherent and significant international [37].

Open theism challenges traditional divine foreknowledge by suggesting that God studies time like humans, with the future uncertain. This view suggests that God voluntarily limits His omniscience to appreciate the freedom of His creatures, considering moral alternatives and unforeseen events. Open theism reconciles the life of evil with the concept of a loving and relational deity, prompting us to reconsider our assumptions about God’s nature and the moral complexities of the universe. Instead of viewing evil as a byproduct of an all-powerful deity, these philosophical discourses invite us to consider a God whose power is expressed through vulnerability, whose expertise is tempered by admiration for human freedom, and whose goodness is manifested through solidarity with creation.

The reevaluation of divine omnipotence and omnibenevolence in light of ethical and natural evil is gaining popularity due to the need for nuanced engagement with these essential aspects of spiritual perception. A deeper understanding of the divine character and its relationship to the world can only be achieved through sustained reflection. However, as philosophers grapple with the complexities of ethical and natural evil within the globe, there has been a remarkable shift in the direction of reevaluating these essential attributes of the divine [31]. The issue of evil challenges the conventional understanding of God’s nature, as it raises questions about how a deity believed to be all-powerful and all-loving can allow for evil and suffering. This has led to centuries of philosophical debate, with the idea of omnipotence being a key component of divine nature. Contemporary philosophers have raised questions about whether God’s omnipotence increases the ability to perform morally questionable actions and if a world without evil and suffering is possible, given the nature of free will and natural legal guidelines.

Revisiting Divine Attributes

The reevaluation of divine attributes in response to the Problem of Evil is a significant development in contemporary philosophical discourse. By examining and reinterpreting traditional principles of divine omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, scholars can offer more nuanced, coherent, and intellectually fulfilling responses to the age-vintage question of why evil exists in an international created by a loving and all-powerful God. This ongoing communication between theology and philosophy guarantees that our knowledge of the divine nature will be deepened and that new insights into the complex relationship between God, humanity, and the problem of evil will be provided.

One significant problem at the heart of the Problem of Evil is the character of God’s attributes. Traditionally, God is thought to possess three attributes: omniscience (all-information), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (perfectly proper). However, when faced with the existence of evil and struggling within the global, these attributes can appear contradictory and incompatible. In response to this theological dilemma, some modern philosophers and theologians have proposed redefining or reinterpreting these divine attributes to cope with the Problem of Evil more nuanced and intellectually pleasantly.

One method for this reevaluation involves considering the traditional information of divine omnipotence, suggesting that God’s power may be restrained using certain ethical or metaphysical concepts. This perspective allows for the possibility that God may also restrict his understanding to maintain human freedom and moral obligation. Lastly, the attribute of divine omnibenevolence has been a problem for reinterpretation in response to the Problem of Evil. Some thinkers argue that God’s benevolence may be expressed through his willingness to work closer to the final reconciliation and redemption of all advent, emphasizing empathy, compassion, and relationality as crucial elements of God’s nature.

Traditional monotheistic beliefs suggest an omniscient, omnipotent, and desirable God, but the world’s struggles and malevolence contradict these attributes. Modern philosophical discourse has challenged traditional knowledge of God’s nature and relation to evil. One concept that has gained traction is divine vulnerability, which suggests that God is deeply involved in the struggles and evil in the world. Proponents argue that a God invested in His creations should share in their joys, sorrows, triumphs, and tragedies. By embracing vulnerability, God becomes more closely linked to human experience, sharing in our pain and helping us overcome adversity.

Another alternative framework for expertise in the problem of evil is the notion of restrained omnipotence. While conventional theology asserts that God is all-effective and able to do whatever, proponents of limited omnipotence recommend that there are inherent obstacles to divine power [38]. Theology is a complex field exploring God’s nature and His relationship with evil. It posits that God is not static but rather dynamic and evolving, constantly responding to the actions and choices of His creations. This perspective challenges traditional notions of divine  attributes, allowing theologians to reconcile the life of evil with the overarching goodness of God.

Moreover, the idea of God’s omnibenevolence, which suggests that God is perfectly correct and desires the well-being of all creatures, has been reexamined in light of the reality of evil and suffering in the world. Some philosophers argue that a more nuanced understanding of divine benevolence may be essential, considering the complexities of ethical and natural evils that exist globally. These reconceptualizations of divine attributes have profound implications for traditional spiritual beliefs and practices, challenging believers to reconsider their understanding of God and how they relate to the divine. They also invite theologians and religious leaders to engage in more nuanced and complex discussions about the nature of evil and suffering and the role of divine intervention in these realities.

 The Role of Human Agency and Responsibility

The debate surrounding the problem of evil raises the question of how human employers perpetuate and mitigate evil. This is particularly relevant in modern philosophical discourse, where the complexities of ethical responsibility and free will are scrutinized. By examining how human actions contribute to the lifestyles of evil and how people behave as sellers of moral development, we can gain deeper insight into the moral dimensions of the problem of evil. Human business enterprise, defined as the ability of people to make choices and enact their will, plays a critical role in perpetuating evil in the world. Through free will, individuals can engage in dangerous or malevolent movements, such as acts of violence, exploitation, or indifference to others’ suffering. This raises questions about the character of ethical responsibility and how individuals are held accountable for their actions. However, human agency can also mitigate and prevent evil forces. By choosing between right and wrong, good and evil, people can actively work towards promoting justice, compassion, and unique features. Through acts of kindness, unity, and ethical bravery, humans can counteract the negative impact of evil and contribute to a more just and harmonious society.

The issue of evil is central to human enterprise, as individuals are responsible for the outcomes of their choices. This raises questions about culpability and how individuals can be held accountable for perpetuating evil. Philosophical perspectives emphasize the importance of private autonomy and accountability in moral decision-making, while others highlight the influence of social, cultural, and environmental factors on human behavior. However, it is crucial to remember that human corporations can be nurtured to foster a more moral and compassionate society. Education, ethical deliberation, and virtue cultivation, along with empathy, integrity, and unity, are essential for empowering people to act as good alternatives. By focusing on the ethical dimensions of human existence and encouraging moral responsibility towards others, we can address the root of evil and work towards a simpler and more humane world.

The exploration of evil as a result of human choices and societal structures offers complex insights into the moral implications of our actions. By recognizing the interaction between humans and external influences, we are challenged to critically examine our roles in perpetuating or rigid systems of injustice and oppression. Modern philosophical notions have shifted the focus to the role of human agency and societal structures in manifesting evil, prompting a reevaluation of the moral implications of any such angle. Philosophers have started to emphasize the importance of information evil due to human employer and duty, urging us to reflect on how our choices and behaviors contribute to the perpetuation of evil globally. The interconnectedness between individual corporations and societal systems in shaping our moral landscape is central to this discourse. Societal systems, including energy, inequality, and oppression, can create situations that facilitate the emergence of evil, legitimizing dangerous behaviors and perpetuating injustices. This underscores our collective responsibility to address and prevent its presence in our global world.

By examining our ethical responsibilities to promote justice, equality, and compassion in our interactions with others, we are urged to cultivate virtues such as empathy, unity, and social obligation to foster an extra-moral and simple society. The question of how a benevolent and all-effective God could allow evil and global struggle has been debated for centuries. However, with advancements in modern thought and understanding of human responsibility, it is crucial to rethink this issue. Contemporary thinkers emphasize the role of human choices and actions in perpetuating evil, highlighting the complex interplay between free will, ethical obligation, and the presence of evil in the world. This shift in perspective raises questions on ethical responsibility and responsibility. If people are seen as active marketers in perpetuating evil, how much are they morally responsible for suffering and injustice? Does the presence of human cooperation absolve God of duty for evil, or does it complicate the theological framework of divine benevolence?

The issue of evil raises moral dilemmas about the character of responsibility. It raises questions about reconciling ethical obligations with systemic injustices and natural disasters that transcend human movements. The concept of ethical accountability should extend beyond character organization to collective responsibility for the world. The traditional dichotomy between divine omnipotence and human free will is no longer sufficient to address the complexities of present-day philosophical concepts. Instead, a nuanced approach that recognizes the interactive nature of human business and the divine windfall is needed to navigate the ethical challenges evil poses. By rethinking the problem of evil in light of contemporary philosophical discourse and the position of human agency, we can better understand the complex relationship between ethical obligation, accountability, and divine nature. By integrating human agency into the theological framework, we can gain new insights into the existence of evil in the world.

Conclusion

The Problem of Evil has long been a significant challenge for philosophers and theologians, as it presents a paradox between hostility and an omnipotent, benevolent supreme being. Despite centuries of theodicies and defenses, the problem remains a central concern in philosophical and theological discourse. Modern philosophical thought has brought new perspectives and insights to the problem, with philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, Marilyn McCord Adams, and Eleonore Stump offering nuanced analyses of evil and its compatibility with divine attributes. Their work has prompted a reevaluation of traditional theological assumptions and opened new avenues for exploring the complexities of evil and divine nature. The Problem of Evil has profound implications for our broader theological understanding of God and the world. It shapes our ideals about God’s nature, human cooperation, morality, and the character of the universe. To address these challenges, we must continue to explore and engage with contemporary philosophical perspectives. By drawing on present-day thinkers’ insights and engaging with evil’s complexities in new and revolutionary ways, we can enhance our theological discourse and deepen our knowledge of the divine. In conclusion, the Problem of Evil remains a vexing and profound challenge for believers and thinkers alike. By embracing the insights of modern philosophical discourse and committing to ongoing dialogue and reflection, we can begin to rethink our understanding of divine nature in the face of evil.

About the authors

Moses A. Adeoye

Author for correspondence.
Email: princeadelekm@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0755-3532

Research Fellow, Department of Religious Studies, Faculty of Philosophy and Theology

References