Evil for a challenge to Philosophy and Theology- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theEvil for a challenge to Philosophy and Theology. Answer: evils are not caused by God; rather, that they are a part of the nature of matter and of mankind; that the period of mortal life is the same from beginning to end, and that because things happen in cycles, what is happening now evils that is happened before and will happen again. The above quoted lines of Celsus from the famous work On the True Doctrine clearly indicate the meaning attached to the concept of evil and the role of God in that particular concept. It is to be noted that evil, the role of God in that evil and the very existence of God have a topic of much debate since the ancient times. Paul Ricoeurs EVIL, A CHALLENGE TO PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY is one such work which questions the meaning of God and the role of God in that particular mechanism. This essay intends to shed light on this particular work of Ricoeur and will also give my response to this particular work. Jean Paul Gustave Ricur (1913-2005) was a French philosopher who is famous for combining phenomenological description with hermeneutics. Most of his works question the nature of evil in the world and the existence of God in the framework of the modern society. The essence of his major works is synonymous with the other major hermeneutic phenomenologists, Edmund Husserl and Hans-Georg Gadamer. Thus, in his major works like Evil, a Challenge to Philosophy and Theology he says The whole enigma of evil may be said to lie in the fact that, at least in the traditions of the West, we put under the same terms such different phenomena as sin, suffering, and death. However, evil as wrongdoing and evil as suffering belong to two heterogenous categories, that of blame and that of lament". He even questions the nature of the all-powerful God in lines like How can we affirm at the same time, without any contradiction, the following three propositions: God is all powerful; God is absolutely good; y et evil exists? Theodicies, in this sense, appear to be a battle for the sake of coherence, in response to the objection that only two of the three stated propositions are compatible, not all three at once. The major argument of the philosopher in this work centers round the concept of evil and he traces its different interpretation from the ancient times to its present day interpretation. His work provides a phenomenological perspective of evil and his research runs in the classic intellectual tradition from Augustine, through Hegel, Leibnitz, Kant, and Nietzsche. His work questions the very nature of evil in words like What the problem of evil calls into question is a way of thinking submitted to the requirements of logical coherence, that is, one submitted to both the rule of non-contradiction and that of systematic totalization. Therefore, it can be said that the work of Ricoeur provides a penetrating insight into the nature of evil and the role of God in that process. I would like to say here that the work of Ricoeur had a profound impact on me. The concept of evil and the role of the almighty God in that machinery in that evil had been a very debatable topic for me since my early childhood days. The work of Ricoeur aggravated that dilemma or uncertainty in me even further. His lines like There is blame where a human action held to be a violation of the prevailing code of conduct is declared guilty and worthy of being punished.Lament, therefore occurs as the opposite of blame; whereas blame make culprits of us, lament reveals us as victims. These words of Ricoeur are in synchronization with the opinion of Martin Amis in his book The Second Plane: 14 Responses to September 11 where he says It is straightforwardand never mind, for now, about plagues and famines: if God existed, and if he cared for humankind, he would never have given us religion. Furthermore, the same opinion has been articulated in the works of scholars like William L. Rowe (God an d the Problem of Evil) There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. It is to be noted that the more one reads about these contradictory opinions of authors about the nature of evil as well as God the dilemma or the confusion regarding the two concepts become even more aggravated. Moreover, the words of Ricoeur like What then invites philosophy and theology to think of evil as the common root of both sin and suffering, in spite of this undeniable polarity of blame and lament?...In its dialogical structure evil committed by someone finds its other half in the evil suffered by someone else. It is at this major point of intersection that the cry of lamentation is most sharp finds support in the words of authors like Robert G. Ingersoll when he says that Injustice upon earth renders the justice of heaven impossible. Then there are authors like To ni Morrison who has questioned the very nature of evil as a form of punishment in words like Is Heaven a reward enough for the virtuous and Hell punishment enough for the wicked?. Therefore, it would not be too wrong to say that the modern man often finds himself in a dilemma as to which interpretation he or she should accept. The questions which the readers are therefore posed with are What is the nature of evil in this world?, What is the role of God in the evil which befalls the lot of the human beings?, Is God so malignant that he would let evil befall on his creation? and others. This particular work of Paul Ricoeur gives us a profound insight into the nature of evil which exists in the world, the role of God in that evil and the very existence of God itself. Therefore, it from the above discussion it becomes clear that the concept of evil, the existence of God and the role of God in the propagation of evil is a very debatable one. The work of Paul Ricoeur arouses profound questions in the mind of the reader as regards the true meaning of the concept of evil, the nature of God and the role of God in the propagation of evil. Therefore, it would not be too wrong to say that all these concepts are very relative and their true meaning depends on the way it is being interpreted by the readers.