Customer Reviews

Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Marilyn McCord Adams takes on some of the ugliest theologico-philosophical tangles known to man - and does so very courageously. The fundamental dilemma, Does the believer in God commit himself to a logically untenable position when he posits the existence of an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity, and yet acknowledges the presence of evil in the world? I.e. is there a possible world in which such a situation manifests itself? Of course, these issues have been debated to death by analytical philosophers (and some have concluded that believing in such a God is inconsistent with the existence of evil).

Dr. Adams moves away from the traditional formulations of this question within analytic circles, which makes use of the utilitarian pain/pleasure calculus type approach to morality (championed by philosophers such as Bentham and Mills). Instead, she offers alternative approaches by examining the works of various theologians throughout the ages. Among the approaches considered are purity/defilement (cf. Rudolph Otto, The Idea of the Holy), the honor code, and aesthetics. She examines the most horrible of horrors encountered by man, and uses them to show how her God can overcome these horrors despite their apparent intractibility. Among some of the more interesting ideas suggested are the notion that God indeed suffers along with us humans and that even Christ (as God) had to experience abandonment by God, in order to fully participate in the human condition (even though these have been originally suggested by others).

While I will not comment on the validity of her arguments (I think the difficulties are too great for me), I do think that she offers profound insight into the nature of God (whatever such an entity might be). It is nice to know that someone still has faith in an all-loving merciful deity, despite the fact that we live in a post-consumerist, post-industrial, post-Marxist, post-Auschwitz world.

I thought Plantinga's free will defense and other theodicies/defenses had sufficed in putting to rest the problem of evil, till I read Adams book. whether one agrees with her assumptions or not, there is so much good material to be gleaned from these pages. One of the main premises that she argues for in this book is that because of God's perfect goodness he must make each individual's life a great good/value to him/her on the whole. for those who have participated in what Adams defines as horrendous evils, evils with life demeaning value-evils in which prima facie you would doubt whether the participants life could be considered a great good to him or her on the whole, she will in the end argue for a Christological response. it is the crucified Christ's identification with humanity and the evils that man suffers, that in the end has horror defeating power.

The downside for me is that in the end her view doesn't fall into the boundaries of orthodox christian thinking (more or less). She is a universalist, and her solution doesn't work out as nicely unless one accepts that assumption. but even on this point, Adams' arguments challenged me and made me think about some long held presumptions of my own. i recommend this book to anyone interested in the problem of evil; a thorough read will be well rewarded.

This was a very very painful book to read. The author when at the height of her career was a brilliant logician, and all aspiring medievalists from far and wide marvelled at her investigations into William of Ockham's thought. But now, alas, those days are over and the author has overextended her talent by attempting to take on the problem of evil (something she has engaged in before, if only qua editor) but this time by using obsolete, archaic theories of anthropology. Where did her degree in anthropology come from? There is no degree. Where are the references to contemporary anthropology? Not in this book -- in fact it seems like the author didn't bother to even read anyone whose written later than 1980! Good grief! What kind of book is this? Many of her colleagues and former students probably have tremendous sympathy over her loss of faith in analytic philosophy and all its false promises to truth and certainty. But just as many are probably chuckling at this ham-handed attempt to start anew, as if one could invent a discipline of anthrology ex nihilo. This book, as the Magistra would say if she knew any better, " is totally underwhelming."