Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
142 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
there existed an omnibenevolent, omnipotent <strong>and</strong> omniscient being then there<br />
could not be evil, or – contraposing – that the existence of evil implies the<br />
non-existence of God. Thus, premiss (2) is false.<br />
What I have offered is a sketch of a theodicy but it is incomplete in various<br />
respects. First, there arises a question of the scale of collateral damage. An<br />
implicit assumption of my argument has been that the goods of organic <strong>and</strong><br />
rational life outweigh the harms resulting from them. It is difficult to conceive<br />
of how the various values <strong>and</strong> disvalues might be compared, but I would<br />
allow that if it could be shown that overall the universe is a bad thing then<br />
that would refute the claims of theism. Since I maintain that theism is true,<br />
I hold by implication that the universe is overall a good thing. However, one<br />
significant aspect of its deficiencies is not within God’s power to limit, short<br />
of destroying the universe, or a part of it. For much that is bad results from or<br />
consists in human wrongdoing, <strong>and</strong> God cannot inhibit this while still maintaining<br />
our powers of free agency. He can, <strong>and</strong> I believe he does, act exceptionally<br />
to limit the evil caused by human choices but to do so always <strong>and</strong><br />
everywhere would involve his removing our freedom, frustrating our agency<br />
or reducing us to the level of unreasoning animals. Rather than do that,<br />
which would involve a reversal in divine creation, it may be that if human<br />
action falls so far short of the good to which it is called then the human story<br />
will be brought to an end. There is reason for God to co-operate in our<br />
actions so long as more good than evil results, but it would be folly to assume<br />
that he will keep us going come what may. Indeed, it is required for the<br />
justice of providence that he should not. In such circumstances, for God to<br />
close the book on human history would not be a reversal of the divine plan<br />
but a completion of it – <strong>and</strong> there is scriptural support (couched in harrowing<br />
imagery) for the expectation of this:<br />
Just as the weeds are gathered <strong>and</strong> burned with fire, so will it be at the close of<br />
the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, <strong>and</strong> they will gather out of his<br />
kingdom all causes of sin <strong>and</strong> all evildoers, <strong>and</strong> throw them into the furnace of<br />
fire; there men will weep <strong>and</strong> gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine<br />
like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.<br />
(Matthew 13: 40–4)<br />
This passage suggests a partial remedy to a second omission in my treatment<br />
thus far, namely the absence of any account of how, if at all, natural <strong>and</strong><br />
moral evils are addressed by God. So far as the matter of strict compatibility<br />
with bare theism is concerned no such issue may arise. It may be enough to<br />
show that evil is a privation parasitic upon the good <strong>and</strong> that the good<br />
outweighs the bad. But I remarked that any fully adequate theodicy must<br />
have a religious aspect <strong>and</strong> that this should express the content of a particular<br />
theology. Here I must be brief. Christianity teaches that suffering is a route