From
Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 37, No. 2 (June
1969), 200-202.
A review of Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare,
Evil
and the Concept of God,
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1968. Pp. 142.
A Review of
Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare,
Evil and the Concept of God
Lewis S. Ford
Whitehead once remarked that “all simplifications of
religious dogma are shipwrecked upon the rock of the problem of evil.”
Madden and Hare contend that this remark applies to theistic
doctrines, and that this failure constitutes a good reason for rejecting
theism.
Some theists evade the problem by rejecting natural
theology (Barth) or by entering into the “theological circle” (Tillich).
Some deny it by arguing that statements about God and evil use different
logics. Others attempt to solve it by a variety of stratagems such as
the ultimate divine harmony, the need for a contrast to goodness, the
need to create moral fibre, the principle of plentitude, the natural
depravity of man, and the presence of human freedom. Still others
modify traditional theism: Brightman, Whitehead, and Royce are here
described as “Quasi-theists,” which our authors assure us is not
pejorative.
Such breadth is impressive. However, I missed Berdyaev’s
speculations concerning meonic freedom and felt a certain insensitivity
to the suggestion that the Incarnation and the Atonement may symbolize
God’s way of taking upon himself the evil of the world, its existential
conquest not its intellectual “solution.” Otherwise, however, the main
options seem to have been canvassed. Since their method is largely
atomic, as in a lawyer’s brief, they seek to dispose of their opponents’
arguments one by one with monotonous regularity. A premium is placed
upon thoroughness, succinctness, and the scoring of points, with less
opportunity to explore more interesting attempts. A good many of their
counterarguments stress the amount of quite gratuitous
evil present in the world or speculate that a really omnipotent God
could have done the job better. Such arguments have little force
against purely a priori considerations, such as Hartshorne’s
observation that if the presence of evil could possibly disprove God’s
existence, then divine existence would only be an empirical and not (as
Anselm has demonstrated) an a priori hypothesis (p. 47). Their
discussion of Leibniz ignores the a priori character of his
contention that a perfect God could not have chosen any other world than
the best, so all the allegedly “better possibilities” for the world
cannot really be compossible (pp. 58-60).
Our authors neglect to mention the fact that sections of
this book have already appeared in print, particularly the discussion of
Barth and Tillich (pp. 20-32) in Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research 28/1 (September 1967) 58-69 and the examination of
Whitehead and Hartshorne (pp. 115-125) in the Review of Metaphysics
20/2 (December 1966) 278-289. Madden and Hare justify their general
procedure by rejecting “the Ten-Leaky-Buckets-Tactic” (so named by
Antony Flew,
p. 53) and by appealing to the principle of diminishing returns. If no
separate argument will hold water, why should any combination fare any
better? Moreover, if the subtler arguments turn out to be merely
variations on themes already disposed of, why need each be exhaustively
argued? Thus they note that “the appeal to persuasive power [by
Whitehead] appears to be simply a process form of the classical
free-will solution . . . which we have previously criticized in detail”
(p. 122). What is overlooked by such a method is that refinements may
render former counter arguments obsolete. So, too, their fundamental
criticism of the free-will solution is surprisingly brief (pp. 74f.),
consisting of four arguments, three of which presuppose a concept of
omnipotence clearly rejected by process theism.
With regard to Whitehead, Madden and Hare introduce the
interesting analogy that his God is like “an especially effective leader
of an organization . . . who is powerful enough to guarantee the success
of the organization if most of the members pitch in and help.” They
suggest two difficulties. “First, if cases can be found in which there
has been widespread human cooperation and yet there has been no success,
these cases would count as evidence against the existence of such a
conditional guarantee. Such cases seem easy to find.” At this point,
specific examples are needed but are not supplied. As examples of
“widespread cooperation with God” one might point to the rise of the
early church or the initial spread of Islam, both of which were
eminently “successful,” or ancient
Israel’s cooperative
successes and non-cooperative failures. Secondly, they argue that the
amount of evil in the world suggests that God is not a very persuasive
leader. “It is a little too convenient simply to attribute all the
growth to God’s persuasive power and all the evil to the world’s refusal
to be persuaded.” The measure of persuasion, moreover, is not how many
people are actually persuaded, but the intrinsic value of the goal
proposed. The only final motivation for action must be the achievement
of the good, which alone is purely persuasive. Divine persuasion may be
a “still, small voice” amid the deafening shouts and the clamouring of
the world, but it wins out in the long run—it brought the universe into
being out of practically nothing.
Posted March 25,
2007
Back to Ford Page