Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Theism</strong> 139<br />
a just God. However, a fully adequate theodicy has to do more than show the<br />
mere compatibility of God <strong>and</strong> evil: it has to reconcile the two in a religiously<br />
significant manner. Accordingly, it must draw upon philosophical <strong>and</strong> theological<br />
resources, <strong>and</strong> in respect of the latter aspect that means invoking<br />
particular claims about God. The neo-Thomistic approach I favour does so<br />
by conjoining Aristotelian metaphysics <strong>and</strong> Christian revelation.<br />
Earlier I mentioned a ‘reservation’ about the reality of evil. It is the thought<br />
that evil is not something in the world along with other things but a condition<br />
of them involving some deficiency or limitation; it is a ‘privation’. This can be<br />
brought out by reflecting on the fact that like ‘good’, the term ‘bad’ is a<br />
logically attributive adjective: it requires completion by a substantive term<br />
whose meaning provides a criterion of evaluation. 23 If someone says only<br />
‘there’s a bad one in this box’ we are not yet in a position to make sense of his<br />
claim, let alone to assess it. Once he has said what the bad thing is, however,<br />
one can set about checking this. Suppose it is a pair of scissors; then knowing<br />
what scissors are for <strong>and</strong> what sorts of conditions detract from their effective<br />
functioning, one can determine whether this is a bad (i.e. defective) pair.<br />
Perhaps the blades are blunt, or the metal is fatigued, or the rivet is loose. In<br />
each case the consequence is that the functioning of the scissors is impeded<br />
<strong>and</strong> because of this we can say that it is a ‘bad’ pair. So it is in general: a heart<br />
is bad because the absence of a valve or an accumulation of fat impedes its<br />
proper function, an apple is rotten because of the presence of certain bacteria<br />
that induce changes in its structure, <strong>and</strong> so on.<br />
Wherever it is apt to speak of a natural evil there is some further description<br />
of the situation which explains what this consists in <strong>and</strong> shows how it<br />
arises because one thing is securing its well-being at the cost of that of<br />
another (cats eating mice, bacteria consuming apples), or the proper development<br />
<strong>and</strong> flourishing of a thing is impeded by external or internal factors such<br />
as a shortage of a necessary element or a superfluity of it – a plant can suffer<br />
from too little water <strong>and</strong> from too much. Such states of affairs are certainly<br />
bad, but the point is that in order to show why this is so one needs to advert<br />
to certain goods – the presence of actual goods (the cat satisfying its appetite)<br />
or the absence of anticipated ones (the mouse growing to maturity). So part<br />
of the answer to the question of how the existence of a good God is compatible<br />
with that of evil is that God neither creates nor sustains evil; rather he<br />
creates <strong>and</strong> sustains a system of natural substances <strong>and</strong> forces whose operation<br />
has the effect that the well-being of some is secured at the expense of that of<br />
others. Where there is a bad there is a good involving the realization of the<br />
powers <strong>and</strong> liabilities of interacting systems.<br />
In general there cannot be a world of living things developing in accord<br />
with their inbuilt teleologies – growing, moving, sensing, reproducing <strong>and</strong> so<br />
on – without interactions that are to the detriment of some individuals <strong>and</strong>