The Life Divine, a modern exposition

The Resurrection of Theism, Prolegomena to Christian, Apology By STUART CORNELIUS HACKETT, Ph.D. Professor and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy, Louisiana College, Pineville, Louisiana

I therefore conclude that the denial of God’s omniscience does not yield a solution to the problem of evil. And not only so: but I further assert that no solution is possible through any alteration of the concept of God in the various ways suggested.

Second Set of Solutions: by Alteration of the Concept of Evil

Illusionism: the denial of evil’s existence.---As naturalism attempted to solve the problem of evil by denying the reality of God, illusionism makes its solution by denying the reality of evil. If evil is merely an illusion or an appearance, then again there is no problem of evil at all. That which does not exist can scarcely constitute a problem: and thus the whole situation vanishes in thin air, just as a mirage on the road vanishes when it is <> approached.

This solution is very ancient. It is imbedded in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism (Footnote 89: Cf. Sri Aurobindo Ghose, The Life Divine, Book II, Chapter XIV, for a modern exposition in this context.), and is popular in the Western world through the doctrines of Christian Science <>. The Augustinian solution that evil is a privation of essence or being (Footnote 90: Augustine, The Confessions of Saint Augustine, pp. 153, 154, et passim.) is likewise basically an illusionist theory of evil. For to say that everything that is, insofar as it is, is good, is to say no evil actually exists, which is precisely the allegation that evil has only an illusory existence. [[344]]

By way of objection to this solution: the solution is self-contradictory. First, because it is an indisputable fact that some evil exists; at least the evil of our thinking evil to exist when it does not---so that the proposition that all evil is illusory is thus false for the very reason that it is true, which is self-contradictory. Second, to put the same point differently: if all evil is really illusory, then why is this offered as an explanation at all? If no evil exists, then it does not require explanation. If it does exist, then it is not illusory, in which case the original hypothesis is contravened.

We may state our criticism more positively by saying that illusionism merely moves the problem of evil to another context: for the explanation of the origin and power of the illusion of evil is exactly as problematical as the explanation of evil itself. Evil then possesses at least an illusory reality, just as the mirage on the road is real as a mirage. And just as the mirage is not explained by calling it a mirage, neither is evil explained by calling it an illusion.

Since illusionism thus reduces to self-contradiction, no solution to our problem is possible in terms of a denial that evil exists.