30 Philosophy Now ●August/September 2019some people to believe in a God and others to lose their faith.
These arguments are part of the fabric of many people’s delib-
erations and perspectives, but how the arguments fit together
with personal perspectives is a complex question. It is often ‘rea-
sonably’ driven not so much by some diktat from philosophers
that one should be ‘logical’, but by the necessities of life. In our
various searches for meaning, psychological survival or personal
fulfilment, we are often concerned with what we think it is ratio-
nal to believe or do. It is hard to justify a claim about what role
an argument should play within the living of someone else’s life,
without entering into dialogue with them, and into a genuine
attempt to appreciate their situation in life. Thinkers from either
side of the debate that fail to do this are clumsy; in this sense
theodicy is indeed ugly. Discussions about problems of evil and
suffering are at their best when the participants put aside the
desire to convert someone to their own point of view, and instead
are open to an exchange that aims to deal practically with suf-
fering while simultaneously reflecting upon its nature.
You may imagine that I wish to lower discussions about prob-
lems of evil and suffering to a subjective level. I think this under-
estimates the connectedness of human experience within and
beyond the question of believing in a God. Arguments about
theodicy find their place within the context of living a life, and
of living with others. To say this is to protest against Descartes’
disengaged rationality and allow that there are real issues that
concern real choices about how to live life alongside disputes
about the logical character of philosophical arguments. Believer
and disbeliever alike will do best if they take this approach.
The most powerful reason for rejecting this kind of perspec-
tive is offered by many of the New Atheists. It could be put in
this way. If belief in God is a moral hazard then persuading
people to stop doing so would seem to be a moral good; and
belief in God isa moral hazard; therefore arguing against theod-
icy is a moral duty. We should be clear however, that the theod-
icist typically believes they are similarly justified in defending
God and in sometimes arguing for God’s existence. If they can
persuade people to believe in God then, for them, this is a moral
good and the lives of those converted will be immeasurably
improved. This is a live debate not least because what the ‘good’is by which life is to be morally evaluated is a matter of dispute.
The constituents of moral evaluation, such as the importance
of community, equality of opportunity, tolerance and individ-
ual freedom, are themselves at the heart of the disagreement.
All the while, the sacred and the ‘secular sacred’ collide with no
resolution in sight.Sharing’s Caring
Yet a desire to understand and work together needn’t be obliter-
ated by the fact of disagreement, as the philosopher Paul Hedges
notes in his book Towards Better Disagreement: Religion and Athe-
ism in Dialogue (2016). People are most able to reach mutual
understanding about experiences they share. Humans of all reli-
gious persuasions and of none share experiences of grief, tragedy
and the prospect of death. They also share the practical and ide-
ological question that arises generally and in relation to suffer-
ing: how can we live life and continue living it in the worst of cir-
cumstances? Mutual exchange between faiths about this question
is happening all the time. When the tsunami of 2004 devastated
the lives and communities of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and
Christians alike across parts of southeast Asia, many found a great
deal of camaraderie within a variety of multicultures. Multicul-
tures make up an ever larger proportion of human societies. They
offer human beings rich opportunities to overcome the worst of
life because at their best they offer unparalleled opportunities for
the exchange of perspectives, lifestyles and values. Whether in
our cities or on social media or in the global village, atheistic and
religious perspectives alike will be richer for seeing themselves
as integral parts of such a multicultural home.
Sergio Leone’s famous western was a morality play. A con-
flict between three characters plays out before us on a barren
landscape before ‘the good’ ultimately wins out. The long argu-
ment over the problem of evil is also a morality play, but the
overly abstract nature of the debate is giving the upper hand to
‘the bad’ and ‘the ugly’. It really needn’t.
© JOHN HOLROYD 2019
John Holroyd taught philosophy and religion for many years. His
book Judging Religion: A Dialogue for Our Time will be out in a
few weeks.Theodicy: searching for logical gold in the graveyard?SA
DH
ILL
CE
ME
TE
RY
©^
PR
OD
UZ
ION
IE
UR
OP
EE
AS
SO
CIA
TE,
U
NIT
ED
AR
TIS
TS
ST
ILLFR
OMFILM-GRA
B.COMEvil
.
.
.