Article Review Example: Evil and Omnipotence

A) Explain what the argument from evil is.

In the article evil and omnipotence,' Mackie centers his argument on the problem of evil, which according to results to assumptions: no god exist and at least the god of orthodox, Christianity, and Islam does not exist. Mackie starts by defining the problem of evil as God's omnipotence, god's wholly good nature, and yet evil exists. He proceeded by arguing that it important to understand that good is always opposed to evil and that a good bring always eliminates an evil to an infinitely farthest location, and that omnipotent being have no limits to the extent of their abilities. Thus, a good omnipotent being eliminates evil by definition. Therefore, evil cannot exist where there is a good omnipotent being and if there is evidence of evil existence, then, it implies that there is no existence of the omnipotent being. Mackie deduces that most people conform to the existence of evil, which implies that a good omnipotent being cannot exist.

b) John Mackie discusses a number of common objections to the argument from evil. Explain what one of them is, and explain why John Mackie thinks this objection is not successful.

Mackie proceeds writing his article in the section, where he concentrates on establishing propositions that constitute the above-defined problem as the only solution. He starts by stating "If you are prepared to say that God is not wholly good or not quite omnipotent, or that evil does not exist, or that good is not opposed to the kind of evil that exists, or that there are limits to what an omnipotent thing can do, then the problem of evil will not arise for you"(Mackie, 1955, par5).

It is admitted that various thinkers have succeeded in resolving the problem of evil through two tactics: changing the definitions or dropping one of the propositions. In addition, it admitted that omnipotent being is defined in a way that does not depict the existence of no limits in an omnipotent being. Mackie expresses his fear associated with lack of consistency suffered by those changing the definition of the word omnipotent' or evil' as they try to invite old definition into later discussions. According to Mackie's believe, an adequate solution can only exist if one recognizes unsatisfactory and inconsistent solutions that are half-hearted or temporary neglecting of one of the propositions. This proven through explicitly rejecting a proposition when discussing the problem of evil and but reiterating or assuming the same proposition in some other part of the system of thought.

All these arguments indicate that Mackie admits the existence of the solution to the problem of the evil and this solution are confined in how we define proposition's terms or in rejecting the propositions that create the problem. Thus, according to Mackie, a sustainable solution can be found by stating that the omnipotent being exists but this being uses omnipotence by assigning powers of action of certain things to avoid implicating God of using the omnipotence to deny them the ability to act ungodly. In a nutshell, a powerful being must have the power to influence things to act independently of his will if he chooses to do so.

c) Explain why you think John Mackie is right or why you think he is wrong (about what he says in (b)).

I agree with one of Mackie's stand that no valid solution to the problem of evil can be found without modification of one of the constituent propositions. However, establishing the effects of these to the essential core of the theistic position as far as the context of this article is concerned, is my major issue. According to my interpretation, an omission of one proposition appears as the best way to define the theistic position. Mackie appears to have a set up a straw man as a representative of the theistic position and then focuses on discrediting all the attempts to define this position as inconsistent and dishonest. Mackie successfully argues in a circular reasoning where it is known that based on certain set of definitions the existence of the problem to the problem of evil is does not exist and deters any other person from defining their position as different as what he has set forth without necessarily denying the essential core of the theistic position.

Mackie ties the God's nature of being omnipotent to some phenomenon beyond the realm of logic and does not seem to entertain the thought that God is truly omnipotent. Other scholars including Kant have previously suggested that there is no problem of evil by basing their argument on the reasoning that God's ability to exist behold the realm of logic would also make God's goodness and existence of evil to be beyond the realm of logic, which is in line with the argument of divine mystery. However, Mackie's thought that for God to be omnipotent God has to exist beyond the realm of logic would contribute in generating an answer for the problem of evil. Personally, I believe that God transcends logic and it is impossible to understand God within the realm of logic. And I think from the above explanation, Mackie is wrong.

References

Mackie, J. L. (1955). Evil and omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200-212.