Leibniz and Swinburne\\\'s views on the problem of evil

The problem of evil is the most serious problem in religious thinking, and now is the most important atheistic reason against the existence of God. According to this argument, existent evils in the world are not compatible with an omnipotent, omniscient and all- good God. Based on this problem, the present investigation has been written to investigate the problem of evil according to Leibniz and Swinburne's views. Based on divine providence and theodicy these two thinkershave offered solutions to solve this problem, and both of them on the basis of free will, the best created world and benefits of evils have presented their solutions. This investigation will explain the views of these two thinkers and compare their views about this problem. 1- Similarity in Leibniz and Swinburne points of view: 1-1- Motivation behind mentioning theodicy in Leibniz and Swinburne's theories = Leibniz and Swinburne are two theistic philosophers who have discussed about theodicy to defend the theists' beliefs. Leibniz mentions theodicy in order to respond to the questions and skepticism brought by Mr. Bill, his purpose was to answer some questions raised in theodicy. Similar to this, Swinburne also comes to evil and theodicy to face obstacles appeared based on evil in recent years. 1-2- The two philosophers' Perception of God Leibniz and Swinburne both consider the definition of God offered in Abrahamic religions. According to both philosophers, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. They base their theodicies according to this definition of God. 1-3-Supporting their views by referring to the theory of free will One of the major and important similarities in Leibniz and Swinburne discussion is their emphasis on free will. Both emphasize the goodness of will. The both believe that it is impossible for God to give a creature free will, and prevent him from evil which is essential for this freedom. Because when a creature is prevented from committing a bad act, he cannot be regarded as having free will. In other words Swinburne like Leibniz believes that human beings are able to make evils and this its logical result is that they have free choice and they are responsible. It is not logically possible for God to give us freedom and at the same time remove the possibility of doing evils from us. 1-4- Evil's advantages Both philosophers believe that evils have a lot of advantages. Leibniz considers the evils being profitable for the ideal system of creation. He points to cases which seem to be out of order and considers them exactly in harmony with the world and says in particular this anarchy makes the world beautiful. Leibniz even believes that this world with evils is much better than world without them, because they are necessary for producing more good things. From Swinburne's point of view suffers make an opportunity for human beings to corporate and share each other's' pains in particular. This particularly appears in a situation in which this corporation results in cure or prevention. 1-5- The ideal system of creation. From other resemblances between Leibniz and Swinburne point of view we can mention here is that both consider this world with all its sufferings and ailments or in general, evils, the best created world. And do not consider the best created world the world without evils.Leibniz believes God is good, and from the good nothing except good results. That means if there were different possible worlds, God had complete knowledge to all of them. So evil and good both were clear to God.Also God is all-good who could not have chosen anything except good. There is nothing from all-good but good. So God's choice was the best and as a result this world is the best created world. Swinburne also believes that the world with a little suffering and sickness at least is as good as a world without suffering because it is really good that human being has a deep attention toward other individuals. And this attention can be deep and serious only in situation in which other men are in bad condition. If somebody's condition is always ok there will not be any reason for others to be curious and caring about him. 2- Differencesof Leibniz and Swinburne's views: 2-1- Nature of evil Leibniz believes that evil is nothingness and as a result it needs no cause, because cause is needed in a situation in which something exists. Existence needs a cause. At the same time evil is non-existence. Leibniz says there is no cause for formal characteristic of evil because evil is non-perfection and the existent thing requires a cause while evil is non-existent. In contrast Swinburne does not believe in non-existence of evil. About the nature of evil he believes that evil is not the lack of massive goodness, rather they are existent bad things which could be eliminated by God if He wills 2-2- Classification Evils Another difference in Leibniz and Swinburne's view is the way they classify evil. Swinburne classifies the evils as moral evils and natural evils but Leibniz makes another classification and categorizes evils in metaphysics and natural and also moral evils. 2-3- Relationship between good and evil Leibniz accepts the reality of evil but declares that the existent evil is the least possible one which is essential for the existence of good which is far less than existent good. So evil is the expense that is paid for massive advantages coming from good but Swinburne in contrary to Leibniz considers good and evil necessary for each other. He also believes God does not have any choice except making an evil for us to obtain a good. And this does mean a contrast .So we can say Leibniz and Swinburne have different points of view toward the relationship between evil and good. Leibniz believes good and evil are in contrast but Swinburne believes good and evil are necessary for each other