The paper aims to provide a panentheistic perspective on the problem of evil and suffering. First the connection between the notion of God and good and evil is established. Further a definition of evil as “something, which causes suffering” together with its implications is given. Subsequently the notion of moral evil and physical evil is provided, followed by the three classical views on evil, which are: (1) there is no evil; (2) God is responsible for evil; (3) humans are responsible for evil. Finally the panentheistic view on God is introduced, who is considered as a system (sys0) consisting of numerous dynamic subsystems (sys1-n). Consequently God is both impassible, being as sys0 in equilibrium, and empathic with all dynamic subsystems (sys1-n), where, due to His immanence, He is present. The concluding part shows the meaning of suffering in Christian doctrine of Redemption and Co-Redemption.
Table of Contents
Introduction
God and the notion of good and evil
The notion of moral evil (me)
The notion of physical evil (phe)
First classical view on evil: There is no evil
Second classical view on evil: God is responsible for evil
Third classical view on evil: Humans are responsible for evil
The panentheistic view on evil
Objectives and Themes
This scholarly essay aims to provide a novel perspective on the age-old problem of evil by moving beyond classical theistic and atheistic definitions. The central research question explores whether evil can be recontextualized as a necessary "price for development" within a panentheistic framework, where God is both transcendent and immanent within the world-system.
- Analysis of classical definitions of good and evil in philosophy and theology.
- Distinction between moral evil (me) and physical evil (phe) within system theory.
- Evaluation of traditional, conventionalist, and absolutist approaches to theodicy.
- Development of a panentheistic model that reconciles divine empathy with the existence of suffering.
- The role of co-redemptive suffering as a mechanism for cosmic development.
Excerpt from the Book
The panentheistic view on evil
The problem of evil concerns the notion of God and the matter of His dwelling within the world. Therefore, a closer look at the latter issue should be appropriate. Good theology, in terms of it applicable nature to any issue, should be balanced. It should keep the balance between sin and grace, divine and human acts, and especially between God’s transcendence and His immanence. In cases where God’s transcendence is overstressed, God as invisible, ineffable, and inscrutable becomes so distant and unknowable that He hardly can be considered as existent. In cases where God’s immanence is overemphasized, reality, seen as the here and now, becomes divine and, hence, ultimate.
Consequently, no hope for something better can be nourished. In the history of Western theism, God’s transcendence has been stressed far more than His immanence. This occurred initially due to the cosmotheistic religions of the Middle East, which the rising Judeo-Christian monotheism had to distance itself from. Thus, the doctrine of immanence was left to the niches of the individual mystical experience and expelled from systematic theology. This happened because mystical experience is always difficult to be put into the rational and systematic language of theology. Mystics always appeared suspicious to the academic theologians, not only because of the exclusiveness of their experience, but also because of the unteachableness of it.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the three classical elements of the problem of evil and proposes a fourth, panentheistic view.
God and the notion of good and evil: Examines the linguistic and philosophical circularity in defining good and evil, comparing absolutist and conventionalist approaches.
The notion of moral evil (me): Discusses suffering caused by human agency and the necessity of moral responsibility.
The notion of physical evil (phe): Explores suffering in nature, suggesting that physical evil is a systemic necessity rather than an ethical category.
First classical view on evil: There is no evil: Critiques the monistic perspective which views evil as an illusion, leading to nihilistic conclusions.
Second classical view on evil: God is responsible for evil: Analyzes the dualistic approach that shifts the blame for suffering onto God, highlighting its logical and theological deficiencies.
Third classical view on evil: Humans are responsible for evil: Addresses the human-centered approach, noting the difficulty of maintaining a balance between human free will and divine omnipotence.
The panentheistic view on evil: Synthesizes the argument, proposing that God, as immanent, experiences creation's suffering as a developmental necessity within a divine matrix.
Keywords
Panentheism, Problem of Evil, Theodicy, Suffering, Moral Evil, Physical Evil, Divine Immanence, System Theory, Co-redemption, Metaphysics, Theology, Equilibrium, Trinitarian, Ethics, Responsibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this essay?
The essay explores the problem of evil by investigating why suffering exists and how it relates to the nature of God, specifically through a panentheistic lens.
What are the main thematic fields addressed?
The paper bridges theology, philosophy of religion, and system theory to analyze how moral and physical suffering fit into a cosmic order.
What is the central research question?
The author investigates if evil can be viewed as the necessary "price for development" (evprdev) rather than a mere moral failure or a divine error.
Which scientific method is utilized?
The work employs philosophical analysis, historical-theological review, and applies system theory (drawing on Ludwig von Bertalanffy) to categorize suffering as a disturbance of equilibrium.
What does the main body cover?
It provides a critical review of the three traditional responses to the problem of evil and introduces a new, balanced panentheistic alternative.
Which keywords define the work?
Key terms include panentheism, theodicy, systemic equilibrium, divine immanence, and co-redemptive suffering.
How does the author interpret the concept of "God needing the world"?
The author uses a "world-as-God’s-body" metaphor to suggest that God uses the world for self-revelation, similar to how an artist or talented individual uses tools or a machine to express their inner plenitude.
How does the panentheistic model reconcile divine pity with suffering?
Because God is immanent and present within all subsystems of the world, He is not a distant, unmoved spectator but dwells within the sufferer, thereby sharing in the experience of pain.
Does the author suggest that human suffering is meaningless?
No, the author argues that suffering holds potential for co-redemption and development, where individual pain contributes to the welfare of the whole system.
- Citar trabajo
- Dr. phil. Mag. theol. Thomas Klibengajtis (Autor), 2010, The Problem of Evil from a Panentheistic Perspective , Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/191337
