The Origin Of Evil - Lesson 3 - Students' Copy

***The Origin of Evil*** Non-Christian Explanation according to Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005, French philosopher of Hermeneutics) in his *The Symbolism of Evil*, p. 211 ff. - In the Greek and Babylonian Mythologies, there has existed, in their theologies, the wicked god and the "tragic" vision of...

***The Origin of Evil*** Non-Christian Explanation according to Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005, French philosopher of Hermeneutics) in his *The Symbolism of Evil*, p. 211 ff. - In the Greek and Babylonian Mythologies, there has existed, in their theologies, the wicked god and the "tragic" vision of existence. 1. Two gods: one is good and the other is wicked 2. That these two gods are actually the same god: good and evil at the same time 3. Hence, with the Olympian gods and goddesses, there is also a dual conception of human beings, sometimes good and sometimes evil In Christian theology, the most common explanation is Augustine's idea of *original sin*. According to Augustine, there was an idyllic world (Platonic) where evil, including death, was absent. But the sin of Adam brought evil into this world. Included in this evil is our present proclivity to wrongdoing. Recommended Reading: *Catechism of the Catholic Church* -- God Carries Out His Plans: Divine Providence (part 1, sec. 2, ch. 1, art. 1, par. 4, Rom. num. 5 ff.) Other Points include: 1. [The Gradation of Being] (*Via ex Gradu*) in St. Thomas Aquinas, Quinque Viae: The Five Way: a. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But more or less are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being \... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. - Some problems/objections with St. Thomas' fourth way. a. **Goodness is a moral quality** --- It\'s a function of human purpose and intention, not a \"kind\" of being. As Baruch Spinoza argues in his *Ethics*... As for the terms good and bad, they indicate no positive quality in things regarded in themselves, but are merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form from the comparison of thing one with another. Thus one and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and indifferent. For instance, music is good for him that is melancholy, bad for him that mourns; for him this is deaf, it is neither good nor bad. b. **Difficulties in Measuring Goodness**. How do we measure the goodness of different things? What could be the standard of comparison of two different kinds of things? Aren\'t some things better and are less complex that other things? Which is better a rose or a crocus? Are the levels of being and goodness a difference of degree or a difference of kind? For example, in biological taxonomy the hierarchical system of classification does not represent a \"chain of goodness,\" but a kind of niche-based success or fitness. c. [**The Problem of Evil**](https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/dostoevsky.shtml). How can we account for a Perfect God creating a world in which innocent children suffer? How do we account for the non-moral evil in the world? d. **Argument from Polar Concepts.** If Thomas can argue that \"for there to be degrees of goodness at all, there must be something which has goodness in the highest degree,\" it would also seem to follow that analogously there would be degrees of badness or evil. For there to be degrees of evil at all, it would seem to follow that there must be something which has evil to the highest degree. 2. [Evil as the Privation of Good]. Augustine would conclude by analogy that God illumes existence. Just as shadow is the absence of sunlight, evil is the absence of goodness. Hence, evil is nothing positive in itself, it is merely the absence of goodness. Thus, absolute evil is nonexistence. - Augustine did not invent the concept of original sin although the term itself began with him. Augustine solidified it into a smooth story what was then an emerging tradition. - Whatever its origin, the classical understanding of the original sin does have serious problems, in the realm of natural science, biblical exegesis, and theology. Paul Ricoeur writes, The harm that has been done to souls during the centuries of Christianity, first by the literal interpretation of the story of Adam, and then by the confusion of this myth, treated as history, with later speculations, principally Augustinian, about original sin, will never be adequately told. In asking the faithful to confess belief in this mythico-speculative mass and to accept it as a self-sufficient explanation, the theologians have unduly required a *sacrificium intellectus* where what was needed was to awaken believers to a symbolic superintelligence of their actual condition. (Ricoeur, *Symbolism of Evil*, p. 239 3. [The Irenaean Theodicy]. (St. Irenaeus of Lyon, 120 AD Bishop of Lyon, France) In answering the problem of evil, he supposed that the human being is made in the image of God. This image is his potentiality to be perfected by God. This process of perfection must culminate into the finite likeness of the divine. The movement to greater perfection is described by Irenaeus: 1. Present Trends Favoring the Irenaean Explanation b. Vatican II has opened the way for a reinterpretation of original sin. *Gaudium et Spes 13* says: "Although set by God in a state of rectitude, man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. - Pope Benedict XVI (then, Professor Joseph Ratzinger) writes, "in view of the recent debates on the questions connected with the original state of man and original sin, explicit treatment of this topic was *avoided*. Here too, there was agreement that the essential content of Trent cannot be abandoned, but that *theology must be left free to inquire afresh precisely what essential content is*." (emphasis added, cf. Ratzinger, The Church and Man's Calling: The Dignity of the Human Person," In *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II*. Edited by Herbert Vorgrimler. Herder and Herder, 1969). - However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to return to the traditional language. **Modern Theories of the Origin of Sin** 1. **Situationalist** a. [Piet Schoonenberg] (Dutch Jesuit Priest) -- We are born into a sinful world. This is because of the innumerable sins of all humanity taken collectively. - He explains, "Instead of Augustinian elaboration of original sin, we are substituting a Greek or even a Pelagian tendency but extending the Pelagian doctrine on bad example until it is orthodox once more... Since we understand original sin as man's historical situation, there is no need to deny a historical fall. Adam should be multiplied, not done away with." ("Original Sin and Man's Situation," *Theology Digest* 15 \[1967\] 205) - [Karl Rahner] (German Jesuit Priest) -- Extended the explanation of Schoonenberg saying that we are thrown into a situation wherein freedom is conditioned by two opposing factors. - There is present to all humans, the moment they enter the world, an offer of divine love. - There is also an absence of holiness in humanity, that should not be, prior to individual moral decision. - Rahner writes: It is ultimately not prior *in time* to redemption. Adam's sinful *action* was prior in time to Christ's redemptive action. But [original sin] and [being redeemed] are two *existentials* of the human situation in regard to salvation, which at all times determine human existence. (see "Original Sin" *Sacramentum Mundi*, vol. 4, p. 330) - Critique: For Schoonenberg, sin is external (parents, environment etc.). Unlike the teaching of the Church, that sin is internal. It is within the person. One might still sin even when one's parents are the holiest. - For Rahner, the sin of "Adam" or his *existentiell* no to the grace of God was unique in the history of sins in the sense that it gave rise to the *existential* which precedes the disposition of any person. The existential that Rahner speaks about does not refer solely to the external environment which conditions the human being. Rather, the existential is "intrinsically characterizing man." He further asserts that because of original sin, "ontological holiness" is lacking. 2. **Personalist** -- All people *de facto* sin, that all are sinners. b. [Alfred Vanneste] (Belgian Catholic Theologian): the kernel of the doctrine of original sin is that all human beings are actual sinners. The teaching of the council of Carthage (418 AD, Canon II: infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.) that infants are born in a condition of original sin is the form of this doctrine. i. Original sin -- infants are born with sin ii. Actual sin -- as soon as the child becomes a moral person, he or she will freely but inevitably sin in the first act of the will. c. [Philip Hefner] (Professor at Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago) -- In the human brain, there are the reptilian, paleo-mammalian, and neo-cortical dimensions. The Neocortical dimension has to teach the other two how to behave in a human way. In a sense, we are still influenced by our pre-historic past. (cf. Hefner, Biological Perspectives on Fall and Original Sin" *Zygon* 28 (1993), 77-99 **Other Explanations** 1. Explanation from Psycho-Analysis: The Freudian *Id* is likened to *concupiscence*. It is a pool of unconscious libidinal energies controlled by the "pleasure principle." The ego, which is more conscious and organized is aligned with the reality principle, hence prepared to forego instant gratification of instinctive drives. The ego polices the id, although the former is not always the master in its own house. It follows that concupiscence is [not the result of sin]. It is an enticement to sin but it can also foster creative drives. \- Maturity is the ability to postpone gratification -- 2. [Sebastian Moore (Benedictine monk, Moral theologian) and Harold Kushner (Jewish Rabbi)]: say that the fall is the birth of consciousness and the dawning awareness of God. For these theologians, after our first parents sinned, humanity enters a new responsibility to become stewards of creation. (cf. Kushner, *How Good Do We Have To Be.*) a. This interpretation of the fall is somewhat positive since it gave rise to the idea that the first parents assumed the responsibility to know how to be like God, how to work as God does, how God creates so that humanity will learn how to become stewards of creation. 3. [Juan Luis Segundo] (Uruguayan Jesuit Priest): Concupiscence is the intrinsic inability to completely realize our intentions which leads to sin. In his attempt to be the first theologian to explain "scientifically" sin. He refers this inability as *entropy*. It is the energy that is not created nor annihilated but would dissipate whenever one goes near or distance himself from it, just like the odor. And outside science, he proposed its contrary, *negentropy*. This is likened to *grace*. The things that God provide for men to continue the building up of the kingdom of God. Hence, these gifts that God continue to bestow upon each person becomes his/her own contribution to the ongoing project of the kingdom. Concupiscence or entropy is not necessarily negative but urges