A Month in the Life

Congrats on your paper. A very important subject, indeed. Would it be possible to share any of your thoughts with us? This subject concerns/intrigues me very much. Just a thought.

Ann Ahrens
 

Certainly. Let me see if I can abbreviate them. Evil seems divisible into two types. There is physical evil, the kind that human beings do not contribute to creating in any significant way. So, one might consider babies being born with lukemia or tsunamis wiping out thousands of lives examples of this. The other kind of evil is moral evil. People know what is right, and don't do it, or do the opposite.

Why is it called a "problem of evil?" Bernard Lonergan correctly recognizes that the existence of evil is only considered a problem when you attempt to reconcile it with the goodness of God. We've all heard this sort of reasoning before. If God is all good, all knowing, all loving, and all powerful then why do bad things happen? If God is all good then it certainly bothers him that bad things happen. If He is all loving then He must want good things to happen and evil things not to happen. If He is all powerful then He is able to stop it. If He is all knowing then he knows about the evil that happens. So, why doesn't He stop it?

Lonergan employs a sort of divide and conquer tactic to approaching the problem of evil. Physical evil he gets rid of by understanding his metaphysical account of the world, and our epistemic limitations as human beings. The world, as we know it, is based on what he calls emergent probability. But that is the world, AS WE KNOW IT. From God's point of view (if I may use such a phrase) there just is no emergent probability. God is the unrestricted act of understanding. As the sort of creatures that we are our understanding is necessarily restricted. So his claim is that "From the point of view of the unrestricted act of understanding the non-systematic vanishes." In layman's terms that means that we don't see things like God does. It's a theodicy that is very nuanced and steeped in epistemological and metaphysical assumptions.

Moral evil is overcome in a little different way. He claims that a world in which there is free will is necessarily a better world than one in which there is none. But, in the world with free will people are going to do bad stuff. God wills us to do good, but does not interfere. So, the question becomes not just how you act period, but how do you respond to evil. For Lonergan you become a sponge that absorbs evil. You return good for evil instead of propagating evil. Thus, the highest possible human good becomes forgiveness; to return love in the face of evil and to work for the kingdom of God on earth.

These are abbreviated accounts but I think they capture the essence of what's going on in Lonergan's account of the problem of evil.

Lonergan is an absolutely amazing philosopher. He was a Canadian Jesuit priest and only died in 1984. His most important work was Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. I recommend it if you're interested in a challenging read. It's about 1100 pages long. But, he also did work in many fields besides philosopy including economics, theology, and mathematics.
 

This is very interesting. It is always and awkward situation when one is asked that difficult question, "If God is good, why...?" I've been thinking a lot about sin and pain lately. It is so easy (and convenient) to forget that the relationship God set out to have at creation was ultimately destroyed by sin. This is not to discount the ultimate act of redemption and restoration done at Calvary - I thank Him everyday for that- but it's just a reminder that much of what we blame GOD for is really the fault of sin. It does change one's perspective and reaction to pain, whether personal or otherwise, when it is viewed this way.

Thanks for your reply and for sharing.