J.L. Mackie
Australian philosopher J.L. Mackie (1917-1981) is best known for his work on ethics, but is also famous for his 1977 defence of atheism Evil & Omnipotence. This essay is the first extract in the Edexcel Philosophy of Religion Anthology. He also wrote The Miracle of Theism (1983) which considers arguments for and against God's existence.
|
Mackie has little difficulty in demonstrating that no theodicy worth the name will stand up to logical criticism - Anthony Campbell
The Problem of Evil & Suffering
God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false - J.L. Mackie
It is possible that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent - and evil does not exist
Or God is omnipotent and evil exists - because God is not omnibenevolent (evil exists by God's will)
Or God is omnibenevolent and evil exists - because God is not omnipotent (evil exists in spite of God's will)
Or God is omnibenevolent and evil exists - because God is not omnipotent (evil exists in spite of God's will)
All three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian, it seems, at once must and cannot consistently adhere to all three - J.L. Mackie
Mackie adds two other propositions that make the Logical Problem of Evil more compelling:
- A good being always opposes evil as far as it can
- If something is omnipotent it can do anything
THE COMPATIBILITY OF FREEWILL & DETERMINISM
A common solution to the Logical Problem of Evil is that many kinds of evil are not the result of God’s actions, but of the free actions of human beings. This is the "Freewill Defence" proposed by Alvin Plantinga.
Mackie asks how can this count as a solution to the problem of evil, given that God created the freewilled creatures? The theist's reply is that it is better that God made us with freewill and not as robots or automata who are kind or brave in a machine-like way. An all-powerful, good God would make a world in which human beings have freewill and can choose kindness over cruelty.
Mackie’s questions why God didn't create us so that we ALWAYS chose good over evil of our own freewill. It's possible to be freewilled and yet choose good actions instead of evil ones - we all do that sometimes, perhaps most of the time - so why not create beings who ALWAYS do this?
Mackie asks how can this count as a solution to the problem of evil, given that God created the freewilled creatures? The theist's reply is that it is better that God made us with freewill and not as robots or automata who are kind or brave in a machine-like way. An all-powerful, good God would make a world in which human beings have freewill and can choose kindness over cruelty.
Mackie’s questions why God didn't create us so that we ALWAYS chose good over evil of our own freewill. It's possible to be freewilled and yet choose good actions instead of evil ones - we all do that sometimes, perhaps most of the time - so why not create beings who ALWAYS do this?
If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s freely choosing the good on one, or several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion - J.L. Mackie
Mackie's position is known as COMPATIBILISM - the idea that human freewill is compatible with (can exist alongside) a God who determines in advance that we always do the right thing.
If Mackie is right and freewill and God's determinism are compatible, then freewill is no solution to the Logical Problem of Evil because God did not have to choose between "innocent automata" and freewilled beings who behave badly; there was a third option:
If Mackie is right and freewill and God's determinism are compatible, then freewill is no solution to the Logical Problem of Evil because God did not have to choose between "innocent automata" and freewilled beings who behave badly; there was a third option:
the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right - J.L. Mackie
If freedom means 'random behaviour', then God isn't responsible for the evil things we freely do. But Mackie argues that this sort of freedom can't really be a free "will" because it's not intentional.
What value or merit would there be in free choices if these were random actions which were not determined by the nature of the agent? - J.L. Mackie
If freedom means 'character' then there can be genuine "freewill" but this sort of freedom is exactly the sort of thing that God is responsible for, because he is the one who gives us our character.
THE PARADOX OF OMNIPOTENCE
Mackie argues that the debate about freewill exposes a contradiction in the very idea of an omnipotent God.
can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control? - J.L. Mackie A paradox is a contradictory idea - something that seems to be true and false at the same time. The Paradox of Omnipotence is whether an omnipotent being (God) could create something that he cannot control.
God ends up being non-omnipotent whichever answer you choose. If God creates freewilled creatures and promises to respect their choices, then he stops being omnipotent because there's stuff he can't do. If he goes back on his promise, he was never omnipotent in the first place, because his creatures no longer have their freewill.
|
The Paradox of Omnipotence is sometimes explored (in a more simplistic way) by asking if God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
|
Mackie defines two possible types of omnipotence; first-order omnipotence being unlimited power to act, second-order omnipotence being unlimited power to determine what powers other things should have. Mackie argues that if a God had second order omnipotence he could create something which had the power to act independently of his own power, therefore he would not have first-order omnipotence.
Of course, some theists would object that all this talk about before-and-after doesn't really apply to God. The view proposed by Thomas Aquinas and supported by the Catholic Church is that God is eternal - he exists outside of time and space and has no "before" and no "after". Mackie is prepared to admit that an eternal God is a solution to the Paradox - but it creates new paradoxes. It's difficult to see how a being that doesn't have a past or a future could create anything or change anything,
Of course, some theists would object that all this talk about before-and-after doesn't really apply to God. The view proposed by Thomas Aquinas and supported by the Catholic Church is that God is eternal - he exists outside of time and space and has no "before" and no "after". Mackie is prepared to admit that an eternal God is a solution to the Paradox - but it creates new paradoxes. It's difficult to see how a being that doesn't have a past or a future could create anything or change anything,
if God and his actions are not in time, can omnipotence, or power of any sort, be meaningfully ascribed to him? - J.L. Mackie