CC BY
0Elena Narinskaya
Doctor of Theology and Religion; Associate member of Department of Theology and Religion
E-mail: Elenarinskaya@yahoo.co.uk
Oxford University
18 Havelock Rd, Oxford OX43EP, United Kingdom
God, Human Freedom and Evil: Another Attempt at a Theological Response to the Philosophical Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is a longstanding philosophical and theological dilemma that questions how to reconcile the existence of evil with certain attributes of God. Theologians and philosophers have proposed various responses to address this issue, each offering different perspectives and solutions. One such response is the attempt of this paper. It centres around the free will argument, upholding the view that the potentiality of evil arose when humans misused the divine gift. Further analysis explores the potential outcome of another divinely initiated magnanimous opportunity for humans, the one of deification, and the relationship between the misuse of free will by humans and the emergence of evil. The aim of this study is to offer further theological insights into the problem of evil in relation to human choice and the divine gift. This study, although not resolving the problem of evil as such, will offer theological insights into its origin and, with this, will try to address a certain aspect of the problem of evil in relation to its proposed human or divine origin. Although the problem of evil will continue to remain a profound and challenging issue that inspires ongoing debates and reflections among philosophers, theologians, and believers, the understanding of the nature of evil in relation to human choices and divine gifts, and its relation to the existence of suffering in the world, might become slightly clearer.
Keywords: evil, deification, free will, freedom of choice.
For citation: Narinskaya E. God, Human Freedom and Evil: Another Attempt at a Theological Response to the Philosophical Problem of Evil. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2024, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 61-92. DOI: 10.24412/29493951-2024-0120
Наринская Елена
доктор теологии; ассоциированным член богословского факультета
E-mail: Elenarinskaya@yahoo.co.uk
Оксфордский университет
18 Havelock Rd, Oxford OX43EP, Великобритания
Бог, свобода человека и зло: очередная попытка богословского ответа на философскую проблему зла
Проблема зла — это давняя философская и богословская дилемма, которая ставит под сомнение, как можно примирить существование зла с определёнными атрибутами Бога. Богословы и философы предлагают различные ответы на эту проблему, разные перспективы и решения. Одним из таких ответов является попытка этого исследования. Оно сосредоточено вокруг размышлений о свободной воле, поддерживая мнение о том, что потенциальность зла возникла, когда люди злоупотребили божественным даром. Дальнейший анализ исследует возможный результат другой потенциальной возможности, инициированной Богом для людей, а именно обожествления, и взаимосвязь между злоупотреблением свободной волей людьми и возникновением зла. Цель этого исследования — предложить дальнейшие теологические инсайты в проблему зла в связи с человеческим выбором и божественным даром. Это исследование не решает проблему зла как таковую, оно предлагает богословское решение о его происхождении и, таким образом, пытается объяснить определённый аспект проблемы зла в отношении его предполагаемого человеческого или божественного происхождения. Хотя проблема зла будет оставаться глубокой и сложной проблемой, которая вдохновляет на непрекращающиеся дебаты и размышления среди философов, богословов и верующих, понимание природы зла в связи с человеческим выбором и божественными дарами и его связь с существованием страданий в мире может стать немного яснее.
Ключевые слова: зло, обожение, свобода воли, свобода выбора.
Для цитирования: Наринская Е. Бог, свобода человека и зло: очередная попытка богословского ответа на философскую проблему зла // Теология: теория и практика. 2024. Т. 3. № 2. С. 61-92. DOI: 10.24412/29493951-2024-0120
Introduction
This study is an exercise for the mind. It constructs a logical framework and develops a line of thought based on the initial parameters. Therefore, its outcomes have limitations. However, some conclusions, particularly certain emphases within this study, might provide logical and theological foundations for further deliberations on the subject and could serve as a solid basis for future studies.
In addressing the problem of evil, it's crucial to consider the traditional descriptions of God, which serve as parameters for this theological and philosophical discussion. These descriptions include the following four definitions of God. It considers God as Omnipotent, all-powerful, and refers to the ability of the divine to do anything that is logically possible. It also upholds God as Benevolent, all-good, embodying perfect goodness and moral purity. The third definition of God used in this study is Omnipresent, that is present everywhere, always. And finally, but not exhaustively, God is described as Omniscient, knowing everything, encompassing all past, present, and future events, as well as all possibilities. These attributes form the foundation of the theological responses to the problem of evil. The challenge lies in reconciling these characteristics with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.
The landscape of this study gives an overview of relevant thought of theological and philosophical nature examining divine attributes, as well as exploring how different theological perspectives attempt to address and explain the coexistence of an all-powerful, all-good, omnipresent, and all-knowing God with the reality of evil in the world. The Augustinian view on the matter is significant, as it presents the closest resemblance with the outcome of this paper. However, further theological and historical illustrations, as well as an attempt of the new insights will allow a wider and more relevant view on this never exhaustive and all-time relevant subject.
The Problem of Evil: Discussion Questions. Origin of Evil
The question of how evil originated if God is omnipotent, benevolent, omnipresent, and omniscient is a central theme in the problem of evil. A fundamental explanation and the corner stone reality of the divine gift of free will is revisited again it order to find new insights into the possible answer to the poignant question. The argument that evil originates from the misuse of human free will is commonly ascribed to Augustine of Hippo (354-430CE), a theologian and philosopher of Berber origin who became a bishop of Roman North Africa.
This study will question the exclusivity of Augustinian origin by presenting similar arguments from other philosophers and theologians, some of whom produced similar ideas at the time of St Augustine, while others predate him.
The story of the fall of humanity, such as Adam and Eve's disobedience in many religious traditions, is often cited as the moment when evil entered the world. This paper will take a closer look at the interplay between human choices and divine intentions in relation to the origin of evil.
Definition of Evil
Defining evil in this study will remain within the boundaries of moral evil, which results from human actions. The discussion about natural evil will be left outside of scope of this paper, although further insights into the natural events such as earthquakes and diseases could be potentially drawn using the findings and direction of the argument in this paper.
The debate over whether evil is an absolute concept which opposes the will of God or leads humans away from divine goodness, is inadvertently challenged by the findings in this research.
Personification of Evil
The nature of evil raises the question of whether it is a personal force, such as Satan, or a by-product of human actions and natural processes. In many religious contexts, evil is personified by beings like Satan or demons, who actively work against God's purposes. This personification is sometimes interpreted symbolically, representing the internal and external struggles humans face. As a strong alternative to this argument this study consolidates the forces with opposing views in collecting the foundation for further arguing that evil is not a personified force but rather the absence of good, rejecting the notion of evil as a created or sentient entity.
Juxtaposition between Evil and Good
Understanding the relationship between good and evil and why this dichotomy exists is another significant aspect of the problem of evil unravelled in this study. A dualistic approach where good and evil are two equal and opposing forces is challenged in this study for monotheistic religions and considered as the influence of Gnosticism. Thus, it is placed outside the parameters of the current study.
These questions and explorations offer a comprehensive framework for discussing the problem of evil, encouraging deeper reflection on various theological and philosophical perspectives. By considering the origin, definition, personification, and juxtaposition of evil and good, this study engages more thoroughly with the complexities of this enduring dilemma.
How it all started?
On 12 March 2023, after an insightful discussion with my goddaughter about her A-level essay, I felt compelled to share our thoughts on the problem of evil in a Facebook post. Our conversation led us to a simple yet profound conclusion:
Evil does not exist on its own
We realised that evil is not something created by God or humans in a direct sense. Instead, it arises because of humans making choices that deviate from God's will. This understanding we encapsulated in the following schematic formula:
Evil = Freedom of Will — Responsibility
This formula highlights that while humans possess the freedom to make choices (freedom of will), evil emerges when these choices are made irresponsibly, without consideration of their alignment with divine will or moral responsibility. Thus, evil is not an independent entity but a by-product of misused freedom. This perspective sheds light on the complex relationship between free will, responsibility, and the existence of evil in our world.
In order to incorporate the findings of our discussion into a bigger picture of previously emerged thoughts and ideas there is a need to revisit historical development of the findings that we have vocalised.
The Origin of Evil: Perspectives from Different Religions. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
In the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the origin of evil is commonly understood as stemming from disobedience to divine commands or a departure from the will of God. This perspective highlights the ability of humans in their use or misuse of their responsibility to choose actions that either align with divine will or deviate from it. In Christianity, the narrative of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden is a seminal story illustrating how sin and evil entered the world through human choice. Judaism similarly views evil as a consequence of humans straying from God's commandments, emphasising the importance of free will and moral responsibility. Islam teaches that evil results from humans and jinn (spiritual beings) failing to follow Allah's guidance, with Iblis (Satan) being a prime example of disobedience leading to evil. The stories of sin and evil in the Abrahamic context serve various purposes, but the outcome of one of them will be highlighted for the purpose of research in this paper. On the one hand, the stories are used for didactic purposes incentifying the followers to choose good over evil. Hence, for the didactic purposes and perhaps for further simplification the juxtaposition is introduced between God and 'Satan'. This very polarisation, on the other hand, is theologically confusing, as it potentially jeopardises monotheism in suggesting that there is a force opposite to God, which implies that there is a nemesis to God and to God's divine supremacy. Abrahamic monotheism is, therefore, theologically compromised. In order to preserve theological boundaries of monotheistic religions, one is encouraged to refrain from popular didactic juxtaposition and be aware of its theological origin, as will be explained in the section below.
Dualistic Religions: Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism
In dualistic religions such as Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism, evil is perceived as an inherent force that opposes good, often personified as a cosmic adversary or antagonist to a benevolent deity. Zoroastrianism, for instance, centres on the cosmic struggle between the god Ahura Mazda and the evil spirit Angra Mainyu [Boyce, 2001; Duchesne-Guillemin, 1987]. This dualistic worldview sees the universe as a battleground between these opposing forces, with the eventual triumph of good over evil being a core belief. Gnosticism also presents a dualistic cosmology where the material world is often seen as inherently flawed or evil, created by a lesser deity in opposition to a higher, purely good spiritual realm [Jonas, 2001; Rudolph, 1983].
It's important to note that in personifying evil, one professes a form of Dualism, as seen in Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism. In these traditions, evil is not merely the absence of good or a consequence of human choices but is instead an active, opposing force that exists alongside and in opposition to good.
By examining these varied perspectives, one gains a richer understanding of how different religious traditions conceptualise the origin and nature of evil. This comparison underscores the diversity of thought regarding the interplay between good and evil, human agency, and the divine in shaping our moral universe. The study of various trends in religious thought and philosophical enquiries into the paused question allows one to appreciate the richness of thought on the mater, but also gives an opportunity to crystallise one's own understanding of the problem of evil either within one's own religious tradition or outside of it.
The Origin of Evil: Various Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives
In Platonic and Neoplatonic thought, evil is understood as a lack or deficiency of being, a distortion of the good. Plato suggested that evil arises when entities fail to actualise their inherent potential for goodness or when they fall away from the Forms, which are ideal or perfect concepts [Plato, The Republic, 2008; Plato, Timaeus, 2000]. Neoplatonism, particularly in the work of Plotinus, extends this idea by viewing evil as a deviation from the ultimate source of good, the One. In this framework, evil is not a substantive entity but rather a privation or absence of good, akin to darkness being the absence of light [Plotinus, The Enneads, 1991; Armstrong, 1967]. St. Augustine of Hippo built on Platonic ideas and proposed that evil arises from the misuse or corruption of free will, which itself is a good gift from God [Augustine, Confessions, 2008; Augustine, City of God, 2003]. According to Augustine, humans have the capacity to choose between good and evil, and evil results when they choose wrongly [Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, 1993]. His theology of original sin posits that humanity inherited a sinful nature due to the disobedience of Adam and Eve, which predisposes individuals towards evil actions [Augustine, Enchiridion, 1996]. Augustine thus frames evil both as a lack of proper order and as a consequence of free will misapplied.
Existentialist Perspectives
Existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche approached the concept of evil from a human-centric perspective. Sartre emphasised individual responsibility and the idea that humans create meaning and values through their actions [Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1992; Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism, 2007]. For Sartre, evil arises when individuals act in-authentically or fail to acknowledge their freedom and responsibility [Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism, 2007]. Nietzsche, on the other hand, critiqued traditional moral values and argued that what is often labelled as evil might actually be a manifestation of life-affirming will to power [Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1989; Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, 2008]. Both philosophers view evil as a product of human choices and actions, rather than an external force or metaphysical deficiency.
Psychological Perspectives
From a psychological standpoint, several theories explore the origins of evil within the human psyche. Sigmund Freud's psychodynamic theory suggests that evil behaviours can stem from unconscious desires, unresolved conflicts, and repressed emotions [Freud, The Ego and the Id, 1960]. Freud's concept of the id, ego, and superego highlights the internal struggles that can lead to destructive behaviours if not properly balanced [Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1961]. Carl Jung added to this by discussing the shadow aspect of the psyche, which encompasses the darker, hidden parts of the self that can manifest as evil if not integrated into the conscious personality [Jung, Aion, 1979]. Jung's explorations of psychological types further elaborate on how different personality structures can influence the emergence of evil [Jung, Psychological Types, 1971].
In addition to psychodynamic theories, social and cultural influences also play a significant role in the emergence of evil behaviours. Psychologists argue that societal factors such as cultural norms, environmental conditions, and systemic structures contribute to the perpetuation of violence, prejudice, and oppression. For example, oppressive social systems and cultural indoctrination can foster environments where evil actions become normalised or justified.
By revising diverse perspectives, one gains an appreciation and understanding of the legacy of human deliberations on the origins of evil. Each viewpoint offers unique insights into how evil can arise, and the role human choices play in it. If one is on the quest to contemplate on the problem of evil, its complex nature and various factors that contribute to its manifestation, a further in-depth analysis of some of the mentioned texts is required.
Augustine of Hippo on Free Will, Original Sin, and Evil
St. Augustine offers a profound insight into the nature of evil by defining it as the absence of good. He illustrates this concept through an analogy with physical health: just as disease and wounds signify the absence of health in the body, evil represents the absence of good in the moral and spiritual realm. When health is restored, diseases and wounds do not move elsewhere but simply cease to exist. Similarly, evil is not an entity but absence of good. This idea is articulated in his work, Enchiridion, Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love (Chapter 11).
Augustine further elaborates on the concept of original sin, tracing the presence of sin and, consequently, evil, to the disobedience of the first humans, Adam and Eve. This initial act of disobedience introduced sin into the world, resulting in a fallen human nature inherited by all subsequent generations. This inherited sinful nature predisposes humans to evil actions and moral failings. Augustine explains this in Confessions, Book XIII, Chapter 14, where he reflects on the universality of sin and its consequences: "Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."
A central theme in Augustine's theology is the relationship between free will and the existence of evil. Augustine argues that true freedom involves the ability to choose between good and evil. God, being supremely good, created humans with free will to choose freely, thus allowing them to choose good genuinely. However, this freedom also entails the possibility
of choosing evil. Augustine contends that it would be a deficiency in the goodness of God's creation if creatures were not allowed to be masters of their own choices. This freedom to choose, even if it includes the potential for sin, is essential for authentic moral agency and wisdom. In The City of God, Augustine articulates this as follows:
"For inasmuch as He is good, He made us free to choose; but he would not have us to be free to commit sin: this would be a defect in the goodness of God's works, not to allow creatures to be their own masters, and to choose good freely, which cannot be done unless evil is also possible. And so, He made man such that he might choose either, but enjoined him to choose the good only; for so only is he truly wise, and so only is he truly free, inasmuch as he is free from sin." (Book XII, Chapter 7).
In summary, Augustine of Hippo's views on evil are deeply intertwined with his understanding of free will and original sin, as well as with the nature of God and human choices. He points out that evil is not a substantive entity but a void of good which occurs when humans distort the granted to them divine goodness by misusing their God-given free will, leading to sin and moral evil. The concept of original sin underscores the inherited nature of human predisposition toward evil.
There is more to the problem of evil that Augustine unravels. In Enchiridion he asserts that the existence of evil is not the result of a positive act of God's will, but rather stems from His permissive will [Augustine, Enchiridion, I.2]. He further unravels his thought in Confessions, Book VII, Chapters 3-5, when he explores into what could be described as a profound connection between love, free will, and the existence of evil. Augustine argues that without free genuine love will be impossible. Love, by its very nature, cannot be coerced or compelled; it must be freely given. Thus, the presence of evil in the world serves as a crucial backdrop against which human beings can exercise their free will [Chadwick, Augustine: A Very Short Introduction, 1986].
What is interesting in Augustine's position is a possibility of logically furthering his thoughts into the conclusion that that the existence of evil is a necessary condition for the authentic expression of love towards God. Another possibility of logical conclusion to arise here is the potentiality of evil brought about by the divine gift of free will. One could appreciate this tension and yet almost a marriage between free will, love and evil, no matter how uncomfortable this could sound. Each component in the Triade is pivotal for validating the authenticity of God-human relationship. If humans were devoid of free will, their actions would lack moral significance, and their love for God would be rendered meaningless. However, because God has granted humanity the capacity for free choice, the potentiality of evil emerged.
The inclination towards evil in humans can be traced back to the biblical story of Adam and Eve. This aspect of human nature has been explored by many scholars and theologians. The following section of this study will examine more closely the capacity of humankind to tolerate evil.
Judaism on good and evil inclinations in humans
In Judaism, the concepts of yetser hara (the evil inclination) and yetser hatov (the good inclination) play a central role in understanding the anthropology of human nature. It stems from the biblical narrative of Genesis 8:21 depicting God's acknowledgment of the inherent moral ambiguity of human beings. Despite the pleasing aroma of Noah's sacrifice, God recognises that every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood: 'The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: 'Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done' (NIV). This passage underscores the universal human struggle between good and evil, highlighting the prevailing influence of evil inclination.
The Talmud, in Kiddushin 30b, elaborates on the intensification of the evil inclination within individuals over time. According to this teaching, the yetser hara grows stronger within a person daily, gradually gaining power and seeking to overcome them: 'Man's evil inclination grows stronger within him daily until it ultimately seeks to overcome him.' This portrayal reflects the ongoing moral battle that individuals face as they contend with the allure of temptation and the inclination towards wrongdoing.
Kohelet Rabbah 3:13, found in Midrashic literature, metaphorically depicts sin as the construction of a throne for the yetser hara. When a person succumbs to sin, they elevate their evil inclination to a position of authority, allowing it to exert control over their actions and decisions: 'When a person sins, he makes a throne for his yetzer hara.' This imagery underscores the transformative power of sin and its capacity to corrupt the human soul.
Maimonides, in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance 5:1, addresses the psychological aspect of the yetser hara. He observes that human nature inclines individuals to view themselves as virtuous while regarding others as wicked. This tendency reflects the deceptive nature of the evil inclination, which fosters a sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority while obscuring one's own flaws and failings.
Central to the Jewish tradition is the exploration of internal conflict and human anthropology, delving into the intricacies of understanding and navigating such complexities. Similarly, within the Orthodox Christian tradition, there exists a parallel engagement with the quest to comprehend the inclinations towards virtue or vice inherent in humanity.
Virtue and vice in Cappadocian Fathers
In the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers, particularly Basil the Great (329-379 CE), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 — c. 395 CE), and Gregory Nazianzus (329-390 CE), the themes of free will, the image of God, and the pursuit of virtue are central to their understanding of human nature and morality.
Basil the Great, in his work "Hexaemeron," emphasises the significance of free will in human nature. He posits that God endowed humanity with reason, intelligence, and free will, thereby granting individuals the capacity to choose between good and evil: 'God did not create man as an irrational being, but bestowed on him reason, intelligence, and free will.' This
underscores the fundamental role of human agency in moral decision-making, highlighting the responsibility individuals bear for their actions.
Gregory of Nyssa further develops this theme by exploring the concept of the "image of God" inherent in humanity. According to Gregory, the human soul, fashioned in the likeness of God, possesses the innate potential for virtue and the pursuit of divine likeness: 'The human soul, being made in the image of God, possesses the potential for virtue and the pursuit of divine likeness.' [Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man.] This understanding emphasises the intrinsic dignity and moral capacity of human beings, reflecting their divine origin and purpose.
Gregory Nazianzus, in his Orations, delves into the nature of virtue and vice, urging believers to cultivate virtuous habits and strive for moral excellence. He articulates that virtue is not merely a set of external actions, but a state of the soul characterised by harmony among its natural faculties: 'Virtue is the state of the soul in which its natural faculties are in harmony, leading to the fulfilment of its purpose.' For Gregory, the pursuit of virtue is integral to fulfilling the purpose for which humanity was created, aligning one's life with the divine order and reflecting the image of God within.
The teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers emphasise the importance of free will in striving towards the image of God as a perpetual goal for humans in their journey towards deification. Although Christian theologians were ground-breaking in their understanding of this goal, they were also acutely aware of the constant struggle with evil that it entails. This awareness resonates with the earliest philosophical discourses, which are crucial to explore in this part of the study. By examining these foundational ideas, we can better appreciate the depth and continuity of thought regarding human nature, morality, and the perpetual pursuit of virtue.
Evil as absence of God: Plato (428/7-448/7 BCE) and Plotinus (204/5-270 CE)
In both Plato's and Plotinus's philosophical frameworks, evil is conceptualised as an absence or deficiency rather than a positive entity. This understanding posits that evil arises from a deprivation of being or a failure to reach for goodness, rather than being inherently present as a distinct force.
Plato, in his dialogue "Phaedrus," characterises evil as a vulgar form of love that fixates on the transient aspects of existence, such as the physical body, rather than the eternal essence of the soul. He contrasts this with the noble love that transcends physical desires and aligns with the everlasting nature of the soul: 'Evil is the vulgar lover who loves the body rather than the soul, inasmuch as he is not even stable, because he loves a thing which is in itself unstable, and therefore when the bloom of youth which he was desiring is over, he takes wing and flies away, in spite of all his words and promises; whereas the love of the noble disposition is lifelong, for it becomes one with the everlasting nature.' This perspective underscores Plato's belief that evil stems from a misguided pursuit of ephemeral pleasures, which ultimately leads to instability and disillusionment.
Similarly, Plotinus, in his work "Enneads," expounds on the notion of evil as a privation of being, where goodness should naturally reside. For Plotinus, evil is not a substantive entity but rather a lack or deficiency in the manifestation of divine Forms. It emerges when entities fail to actualise their inherent potential for goodness or when they deviate from the perfect unity of the Forms: 'Evil is the privation of being, an absence of good where good should naturally be present. It is not a positive entity but rather a lack or deficiency in the manifestation of the divine Forms. Evil arises when entities fail to actualise their inherent potential for goodness or when they fall away from the perfect unity of the Forms.' [Enneads, esp. I.8: 'On the Nature and Source of Evil']
Together, Plato and Plotinus present a philosophical perspective in which evil is understood as a departure from the ideal or perfection rather than a positive force. This conceptualisation invites reflection on the nature of virtue, the pursuit of goodness, and the consequences of failing to align with the divine order of existence.
The philosophical exploration of human nature and the capacity for evil, rooted in the works of Plato and Plotinus, emphasises the soul's struggle towards the Good. Transitioning to existentialist views, thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Friedrich Nietzsche focus on individual freedom and the inherent potential for evil, providing a modern perspective on these enduring themes.
Existentialist View: Human capacity to create Evil
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), both prominent figures in existentialist philosophy, offer insights into the human capacity to create or perpetuate evil through individual actions and choices.
Sartre, in his work "Existentialism is a Humanism," asserts the fundamental notion that human beings are condemned to be free. This existentialist perspective emphasises the inherent responsibility individuals bear for their actions once thrown into the world. Sartre argues that humans have the autonomy to create their own values and meanings in life, and consequently, they are accountable for the consequences of their choices. This existentialist view highlights the profound significance of individual agency and the moral imperative to actively engage in shaping one's own existence.
Nietzsche, in "Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future," warns against the dangers of succumbing to the very evils one seeks to combat. His famous aphorism cautions that when confronting malevolence or injustice, individuals' risk being consumed by the same darkness they oppose. Nietzsche's insight underscores the complexity of moral struggles and the potential for individuals to be corrupted or compromised in their pursuit of justice or righteousness. This perspective serves as a stark reminder of the moral ambiguity inherent in human nature and the imperative to maintain vigilance and self-awareness in ethical endeavours.
Existentialist perspective of Sartre and Nietzsche delving into themes of individual freedom and the inherent potential for evil, while also challenge traditional and comfortable notions of morality and existence. Their insights underscore the profound moral responsibility individuals bear for their actions and choices, as well as the inherent risks and complexities
involved in navigating ethical dilemmas. Building on their existential and philosophical foundations, the concept of creatio ex nihilo introduces a theological perspective on creation and the origins of existence, expanding the discourse from human nature to the very nature of being itself.
Doctrine of creation ex nihilo as aid in understanding the non-existence and yet a
presence of evil.
The doctrine of creation ex nihilo, which asserts that God created the universe out of nothing, provides a theological framework for understanding the nature of evil as a perversion or absence rather than a substantive entity. Various theologians have drawn upon this doctrine to elucidate the concept of evil and its relationship to the divine plan.
Irenaeus of Lyons, in his work "Against Heresies," emphasises that evil has no inherent existence from the beginning and will ultimately cease to exist: 'Evil had no existence from the beginning, nor will it have any at the end.' (Book IV, Chapter 37) This perspective aligns with the notion that evil is not a created substance but rather a distortion or deviation from the divine order.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430CE), in his "Enchiridion," articulates that evil is not a substance but rather a corruption or perversion of the will [Enchiridion, Chapter 11]. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), in the "Summa Theologica," posits that God permits evil in order to bring about a greater good (Part I, Question 2, Article 3). This theological concept, known as theodicy, seeks to reconcile the existence of evil with the goodness and omnipotence of God by suggesting that evil serves a purpose within the divine plan. John Calvin (1509-1564), in the "Institutes of the Christian Religion," elaborates on the idea that God's plan of salvation includes the presence of evil for His greater glory (Book I, Chapter 18). Calvin emphasises the sovereignty of God in orchestrating all events, including the manifestation of evil, for the fulfilment of His divine purposes. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), in "The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended," echoes similar sentiments, asserting that evil is permitted by God for the manifestation of His glory and the ultimate good of His creation (Part I, Section I). This perspective underscores the theological belief in the sovereignty of God over all aspects of existence, including the presence of evil.
Together, these theological perspectives on the nature of evil within the framework of creation ex nihilo provide insight into the theological complexities of moral evil and its relationship to divine providence and redemption. They offer a nuanced understanding of evil as a distortion of the good, permitted within the divine plan for purposes ultimately aligned with God's glory and the well-being of creation.
Orthodox theologians, building similar foundational understanding of nature of evil, offer their intricate perspectives on it, delving into theological complexities that intersect with the human experience of evil and its ambiguity.
Orthodox Theologians on accidental nature of evil and evil being 'permitted'
Orthodox theologians, both pre- and post-Augustine, offer nuanced perspectives on the nature of evil, emphasising its accidental and permissive character, as well as its connection to human free will and disobedience to God's will.
Pre-Augustine theologians such as Basil the Great (329-379CE), Gregory Nazianzus (329-390CE), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 — c. 395CE) highlight the view that evil is not a substantive essence but rather an accident or a lack of goodness resulting from the misuse of free will. Basil the Great, in his "Hexaemeron," asserts that evil exists as an accident of nature rather than a separate essence (Homily 2). Gregory Nazianzus, in his "Orations," attributes the entrance of evil into the world to humanity's misuse of freedom granted by God (Oration 28). Similarly, Gregory of Nyssa, in works like "On the Making of Man" and "Against Eunomius," posits that evil arises from the elective movement of the mind and is caused by the misuse of free will (Book 1).
Post-Augustine theologians like Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662 CE) and John of Damascus (c. 675-749 CE) echo these sentiments, emphasising that evil is not a positive existence but rather the absence or disappearance of good. Maximus the Confessor, in his "Ambigua," describes evil as nothing but rather the absence of good. John of Damascus, in his "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," asserts that evil exists only by the will of the creature, underscoring the connection between human choice and the presence of evil in the world.
Orthodox Christian theology maintains a consistent understanding of evil as a deviation from the divine order, rooted in the misuse of free will and disobedience to God's will. Whether articulated by pre- or post-Augustine theologians, this perspective emphasises the accidental and permissive nature of evil and underscores the importance of human responsibility in the face of moral choice.
At this juncture, delving deeper into the works of Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene becomes imperative. Their insights on the nature of evil, particularly their exploration of the dynamic between good and evil, offer valuable perspectives that can enrich our comprehension of evil within this study.
In Maximus the Confessor's "Ambigua," the nature of evil and its relationship to good are explored with profound depth. Maximus proposes that evil is fundamentally intertwined with the absence of good rather than being a separate entity in its own right. He suggests that evil emerges when goodness is lacking or absent, portraying it as a deprivation rather than a positive reality.
Central to Maximus's conception is the idea that human free will plays a pivotal role in the manifestation of evil. Through the freedom of the will, individuals have the capacity to choose actions that deviate from the path of virtue and righteousness, thereby allowing evil to enter the world. This perspective underscores the moral responsibility inherent in human agency and the consequences of our choices.
Maximus employs the analogy of darkness and light to illustrate the nature of evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light rather than a tangible substance, evil is characterised as the absence of goodness. In this view, evil is not a substantive reality but rather a void left by the absence of goodness.
Furthermore, Maximus emphasises that evil is closely linked to the turning away from God, the ultimate source of goodness. When individuals distance themselves from God and His divine will, they become susceptible to the influence of evil. Thus, evil is not merely a moral failing but a spiritual separation from the divine.
Ultimately, Maximus portrays evil as lacking inherent substance of its own. Like a shadow cast by the presence of goodness, evil is dependent on the existence of good and cannot exist independently. Through this framework, Maximus illuminates the intricate relationship between good and evil, highlighting the essential role of goodness in defining and overcoming evil.
In "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" Book II, chapter 29 John of Damascus expounds upon the nature of evil and its relationship to good with philosophical depth. He posits several key assertions regarding the essence of evil. He starts with asserting that evil does not possess inherent existence but rather manifests itself solely through the deliberate choices of rational beings. Evil, in this view, is not a substantive entity but rather a consequence of human agency and wilful deviation from the path of righteousness. Furthermore, he describes evil as the absence of good, emphasising its existence only insofar as beings turn away from the source of goodness. In this conception, evil is not a tangible reality but rather a void created by the rejection of virtue and moral integrity.
John of Damascus also characterises evil as a void, a lack of being, rather than a positive reality. Evil, in this sense, is not something that possesses substance or essence but rather a negation or deficiency of goodness. Using the metaphor of a shadow, John of Damascus illustrates the nature of evil as something without inherent substance but rather a phenomenon cast by the obstruction of light. This imagery underscores the ephemeral and insubstantial nature of evil. Finally, he emphasises that evil is not a created thing but rather a departure from the good, a falling away from the divine will. In this understanding, evil is rooted in disobedience to God's moral order and a rejection of His divine guidance. Through these insights, John of Damascus presents a comprehensive understanding of evil as the absence or privation of good, arising from the deliberate choices of rational beings and the turning away from the divine will.
Both Maximus and John clarify the non-created and, in a sense, non-functional reality of evil. However, the problem remains of non-created nature of evil and yet its profound effect to influence, destruct and even deviate human experience of the divine. At this stage, revisiting Augustine's writings becomes essential, given his profound insights into the parasitic nature of evil. His exploration of the non-created yet palpable experience of evil offers invaluable contributions to addressing the complexities surrounding this issue.
Augustine of Hippo on parasitic existence of evil
Augustine expounds upon the parasitic existence of evil in several of his works, elucidating its nature as a corruption or privation of good. He asserts in his Enchiridion that evil has no independent existence but only exists as a corruption or deprivation of good. Evil, in this view, is not a substantive entity but rather a distortion of what is inherently good (Chapter 4). In his Confessions, Augustine further emphasises that evil is not a substance but rather a perversion
of the will and a distortion of what is good. This perspective underscores the role of human volition in the manifestation of evil and its deviation from the divine order (Book VII, Chapter 12).
In City of God, Augustine depicts evil as a lack of good and a distortion of the proper order established by God. Evil, according to Augustine, disrupts the harmonious arrangement of creation ordained by God, leading to disorder and chaos (Book XII, Chapter 7). Using the metaphor of a wound or disease, Augustine illustrates the nature of evil as a departure from health or wholeness in his Enchiridion. Evil, like a wound, exists only insofar as it deviates from the state of well-being intended by God (Chapter 11). Similarly, Augustine likens evil to darkness in his Enchiridion, portraying it as a phenomenon that lacks positive existence but is merely the absence of light. Evil, in this conception, is not something that possesses substance but rather a void created by the absence of goodness (Chapter 12).
Through these insights, Augustine presents a comprehensive understanding of evil as a parasitic force that exists only insofar as it corrupts or distorts what is inherently good. By employing various metaphors, he illustrates the ephemeral and insubstantial nature of evil, emphasising its dependence on the presence of goodness.
After revisiting ancient philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers who have pondered the problem of evil, it is now time to synthesise their original ideas and offer a unique contribution to the discourse. This study continues to consider the nature of evil within the framework of divine attributes, specifically benevolence, omnipresence, to provide a comprehensive understanding of this profound issue. It also further analyses the notions of free will and divine voluntary withdrawal for the purpose of human exercise in free will, choice, and ultimately in offering their contribution to the God-human relationship.
Further Theological reflection on benevolent and omnipresent God and the freedom of
will
The concept of a Benevolent God, defined as all good, inherently suggests the absence of evil within God's nature. If God is truly benevolent, then evil cannot exist within God, as it would contradict His essential nature of goodness. Similarly, the idea of an omnipresent God implies that there is no space or realm outside of God's presence. In this view, there is no room for evil to exist beyond or separate from God, as God permeates all of existence.
In order to reconcile the notion of divine perfect creation of the world and the existence of evil, Jewish mystical tradition introduces two notions, one of Tzimtzum (divine withdrawal by contracting His infinite light) and another one of Shevirat HaKelim (the shattering of the vessels), as found in the Kabbalistic teaching of Isaac Luria (1534-1572) [Fine, 2003; Scholem, 1995]. The parable narrates that in order to create the world God had to make space for it by contracting His light [Tishby, 1989]. A finite light was projected into ten vessels, known as Sefirot, however, the vessels were not able to contain divine light and shattered [Matt, 1995]. The shards of these vessels, mixed with divine sparks, scattered throughout the creation. This caused a primordial chaos and is seen as an origin of evil and imperfection in the world [Dan and Kiener, 1986; Patai, 1990].
This concept raises questions about what fills the space vacated by God's withdrawal and whether evil could potentially occupy that space. It also allows for the understanding of evil as a phenomenon open to further interpretation. Kabbalistic interpreters can be seen as reconciling a perfect God with imperfections in creation by creating this powerful parable. In this parable, God is portrayed almost as an alchemist embarking on a grand experiment, which ultimately collapses, revealing a fundamental flaw in the universe due to the vessels' inability to contain the divine light. Later Jewish traditions, particularly within the Hasidic movement, pay significant attention to searching for the divine light scattered throughout the world [Fablovskiy, 2024].
Pondering further on the interplay between creation of the world and divine withdrawal, one could notice that the gift of freedom of will, or choice bestowed upon humanity necessitates a certain distance or "backing off" by God to allow humans the autonomy to exercise their will. If God were to intervene excessively, it could undermine human freedom and render the concept of free will meaningless.
These theological reflections highlight the complexities of reconciling the existence of evil with the attributes of a benevolent and omnipresent God, as well as the theological implications of human freedom and divine interaction with the world. THE SPACE of voluntary withdrawal of God provides some understanding of the notion of human's ability to exercise free will, and more so, to continue the process of synergetic collaboration. This space can be likened to a blank page, filled with opportunities for co-creation with God. Humans have the choice to align themselves with God's will or to steer away from it, thereby exercising their freedom of choice.
Within this realm of freedom, individuals have the capacity to engage in constructive or destructive co-creation. Constructive co-creation involves collaborating with God to bring about positive outcomes and contribute to the flourishing of creation. In contrast, destructive co-creation occurs when individuals act independently of or in opposition to God's will, leading to harmful consequences and the emergence of evil.
The voluntary absence or withdrawal of God from this space opens the possibility for evil to emerge or be chosen into existence. In this context, evil arises when individuals reject or disregard the divine presence and instead opt for paths that lead away from God's goodness and wisdom.
Thus, the space created by the voluntary withdrawal of God serves as an arena for human agency and choice, where the potential for both constructive and destructive co-creation exists. It is within this dynamic interplay between human freedom and divine presence that the emergence of evil becomes a possibility, highlighting the profound responsibility inherent in the exercise of free will. Freedom of choice, therefore, allows the possibility for humans to engage in furthering a goodness of divine creation, i.e. constructive creation with God, or in destructive creation without God, which potentially paves the way for evil to emerge.
Understanding the attributes of God and the exercise of human free will naturally leads to exploring the potentiality of evil, as the freedom to choose inherently includes the possibility of choosing away from God. Within the space of mystical withdrawal of God, his voluntary absence, evil could emerge, or more precisely could be 'chosen' into existence.
Potentiality of Evil
The question of whether evil truly exists is a complex philosophical and theological inquiry. To address this question, it's important to understand what is meant by the existence of evil. If evil is defined as the absence or deprivation of good, rather than a substantive entity in its own right, than its existence is limited to the area of deviation from goodness. However, the idea of evil having an independent existence raises significant theological and philosophical challenges. If evil were to exist as a created entity, one might inquire about its origin and the entity responsible for its creation.
According to theological conceptions of God as all-good and omnipresent, it seems contradictory to attribute the creation of evil to God. The notion of God creating evil would indeed be an oxymoron, as it would conflict with the fundamental attributes of divinity.
If God did not create evil, then one might question whether evil could have been self-created or created by another entity. However, the concept of self-creation from nothing is generally regarded as impossible outside the realm of God's creative power.
One intriguing possibility is the idea that in the voluntary withdrawal or limitation of God's presence, there may be an allowance for the emergence of evil as a side effect of human exercise of free will. In this view, God's decision to grant humans autonomy and freedom of choice could create a space where the potential for evil to arise exists, even if it is not directly willed or created by God.
Ultimately, the question of the existence of evil is deeply intertwined with theological, philosophical, and ethical considerations, and it needs to be continued focusing on human choice of drifting away from God.
Further on Human ability for destructive creation
The human ability for destructive creation involves the exercise of free will and autonomy, and to some extent within the framework of divine intentionality. According to theological perspectives, humans have been granted the capacity to step away from the definitions and intentions of God, thereby functioning within the reality of a voluntary absence of God. This autonomy, referred to as freedom of will or choice, allows humans to make decisions and take actions that may deviate from or contradict the divine will.
It is within this space of freedom that the potential for evil to emerge exists. When individuals exercise their freedom of will in ways that are contrary to the principles of goodness, righteousness, and virtue, they may contribute to the manifestation of evil in the world.
The concept of something existing without being created can be likened to a parasite, which grows and thrives by leaching off a host organism without necessarily being independently created. In this analogy, evil could be understood as a parasitic force that feeds off the destructive forces in creation, emerging as a result of human actions and choices that deviate from the divine order.
Thus, the potential for evil to exist without being directly created by God lies in the dynamic interplay between human agency and divine providence. Through the exercise of free will, humans have the capacity to shape and influence the moral landscape of the world,
contributing to the emergence or suppression of evil in accordance with their choices and actions.
Evil could only be willed into existence by human choice in the space of the voluntary
absence of God
The emergence of evil within the space of the voluntary absence of God is intricately linked to the exercise of human choice and agency. From this perspective, evil is not a matter of creation by God but rather a consequence of human decisions made within the context of divine allowance.
Firstly, the choice of God to allow a space of voluntary absence of the divine sets the stage for the potential emergence of evil. This allowance for human autonomy and freedom of will creates a space where individuals have the capacity to make choices independent of direct divine intervention.
Secondly, humans have the choice to step into this neutral space, which can be considered ground sero or a neutral position devoid of activated potentiality for evil to emerge. In this state, individuals have the freedom to exercise their will and make decisions that may either align with or deviate from the divine order.
Lastly, within this space of voluntary absence, individuals may make further choices to actively step away from God, thereby invoking or amplifying the potential for evil to emerge. These choices represent a deliberate departure from the principles of goodness and righteousness, leading to the manifestation of evil in thought, word, and deed. Furthering on this path leads to active invocation of evil experiences.
Thus, the existence of evil is intricately tied to the interplay between divine allowance and human choice within the space of voluntary absence of God. Evil emerges not as a result of divine creation but as a consequence of human decisions made in defiance of the divine will, highlighting the profound moral responsibility inherent in the exercise of free will.
Theological / anthropological dilemma
The theological and anthropological dilemma regarding the existence and containment of evil ultimately revolves around the nature of God and humanity, as well as the interplay between divine will and human free will.
God, as traditionally conceived in theological frameworks, is all-good and devoid of evil. Humans, created in the image of God, possess inherent goodness but also the capacity for moral agency and choice. The space from which God has withdrawn allows for the exercise of human free will, which was granted as a gift to humanity.
This withdrawal of God from the space is not intended to allow for the emergence of evil but rather to enable humans to exercise their autonomy and make choices freely. However, the exercise of free will introduces the potential for both moral goodness and moral evil, as humans are capable of behaving in ways that are inconsistent with their inherent goodness.
Unlike God, who does not make unconscious decisions and consistently embodies goodness, humans are prone to inconsistency in their choices and behaviours. This inconsistency can lead to the emergence of evil within the complexities of human nature and experience.
Therefore, evil emerges within human complexities as a consequence of the exercise of free will and the potential for moral deviation from the divine will. While humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent goodness, their capacity for choice introduces the possibility of both moral goodness and moral evil, highlighting the complex and nuanced nature of human existence. We have now established that evil emerges within the human complexities. This leads the discussion to the question of divine endurance of human choices to stray away from the creator and lean towards their evil inclination.
Divine mystery of patience towards human choice of 'non-creation' of evil
The divine mystery of patience towards human choice regarding the non-creation of evil poses profound theological questions about the nature of God and the existence of evil. It is asserted that God, being supremely good and all-powerful, did not create something that is antithetical to His nature, such as evil. This raises questions about God's capacity to tolerate evil, given His omnipotence and benevolence.
If humans, through their capacity to exercise free will, have the potential to create evil, why is it that God cannot do the same? The answer lies in the understanding that humans cannot create outside of God. To suggest otherwise would imply that humans possess a greater creative power than God, which contradicts traditional theological beliefs.
This notion supports the idea that evil is not a created thing but rather a consequence of human choices that deviate from the divine will. Goodness, on the other hand, is understood as intrinsic to God's nature and essence, rather than something created by God.
Therefore, if evil is not a creation and lacks essence, it cannot exist independently. Evil is a distortion of goodness inherent in God's creation. It emerges from human choices that depart from divine goodness.
In summary, the divine mystery of patience towards human choice regarding the non-creation of evil underscores the complex relationship between God's nature, human free will, and the existence of evil. It invites contemplation on the nature of goodness, the limits of human agency, and the profound mystery of divine providence. Goodness is not typically understood as a creation but rather as a fundamental aspect of God's nature and essence. In theological thought, goodness is considered an inherent quality of God, reflecting His perfect nature. Therefore, goodness is not something that is created but rather an essential attribute of God Himself.
Similarly, if evil is not considered a creation but rather a distortion or absence of goodness, it would follow that evil does not possess its own essence. Evil is a departure from goodness rather than a substantive entity in itself. Therefore, evil exists as a negation or perversion of what is inherently good, rather than having independent existence. The following part of study will further deliberate on this question.
Can evil exist independently, as an entity: objective Evil or Personified Evil.
Evil as a Wave metaphor
The concept of evil existing independently, as an objective entity or personified force is a contradiction to the understanding of evil as a consequence or manifestation of human actions. Latter understanding denies definition of evil a separate entity with its own consciousness or essence.
Using the metaphor of a wave, evil can be likened to the ripple effect caused by a disturbance in the moral fabric of the universe. Just as a splash in a puddle creates waves that radiate outward, human actions that deviate from goodness can generate effects that propagate throughout creation, be it in society and in the whole world.
In this view, evil is not a distinct entity that exists independently of human agency. Instead, it is evoked or brought into existence as a consequence of human choices to move away from the divine will or moral order. Evil, like a wave, does not will itself into existence but is rather a result of the choices and actions of individuals.
Furthermore, evil lacks the qualities typically associated with independent existence, such as consciousness, self-awareness, and personhood. It is not a sentient being capable of intentional action but rather a phenomenon that emerges as a result of human moral agency.
Therefore, while evil may manifest itself in various forms and expressions, it is ultimately understood as a consequence of human choices and actions rather than a separate entity with its own independent existence.
Contemplating further on the origin of evil. Posing the following questions: How do we resolve the problem of evil?
How can one solve the problem of something that does not exist?
What is it that we have that could be called EVIL?
One approach to resolving the problem of evil is to recognise that evil, in its traditional understanding, does not exist as a separate entity or substance but rather as a deviation from the divine essence of goodness. From this perspective, evil is not a created matter but rather a by-product of human choices and actions that depart from the moral order established by God. However, there is a problem with this approach. If something exists outside of divine creation, divine essence or being, it cannot be defined, as something that does not exist cannot be defined.
If evil is not a created entity, it could be viewed as a by-product of human synergetic collaboration that has gone awry. As synergetic partners and co-creators, humans were granted the freedom of will and choice. This gift, though not intended to produce evil, implied the possibility of deviating from the goodness of creation and diverting it into the absence of goodness, which ultimately constitutes the reality of evil.
Although God allows for the possibility of evil to exist within the framework of human freedom, this does not mean that God actively creates or intends evil. Instead, evil emerges as a consequence of human misuse or misalignment of their freedom and agency with the divine will.
Therefore, while evil may be within divine awareness, it is ultimately a human byproduct rather than a divine creation. Resolving the problem of evil involves recognising the complexities of human freedom and moral agency within the context of divine providence and seeking to align human choices and actions with the principles of goodness and righteousness.
Evil = humans + free will: the problem of evil pins down to the problem of how humans
exercise their free will
The problem of evil is intricately tied to the exercise of human free will and the consequences of human choices. While evil itself is not a divine creation, it emerges as a tangible consequence of human actions and decisions.
Humans, endowed with free will, have the capacity to make choices that can either align with or deviate from the divine will or moral order. When individuals choose to act in ways that are contrary to goodness, righteousness, and virtue, the result is often the manifestation of evil in various forms.
Evil, in this sense, is experienced as a tangible consequence of one's actions and choices. It arises from the human inclination towards selfishness, greed, hatred, and other negative impulses that lead to harm, suffering, and injustice in the world.
While evil itself is not created by God, the experience of evil is very real and palpable in human existence. It serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of human nature and the moral responsibility inherent in the exercise of free will.
Therefore, there is a problem of human inclination towards evil, which has profound and tangible effects on the whole creation. The understanding of this problem ultimately centres on appreciating the challenge of how humans exercise their free will and the moral consequences that result from their choices. Recognising the tangible reality of evil as a consequence of human actions is essential in addressing the profound ethical and existential questions raised by its presence in the world.
The problem of evil as a problem of IMPACT.
Is evil a human problem? Do humans have a relationship with evil?
Viewing the problem of evil as a problem of impact underscores the human dimension of the issue. Evil is not an external force acting upon humanity but rather a consequence of human choices and actions. In this view, humans bear responsibility for the existence and perpetuation of evil through their capacity to evoke or practice it by turning away from the divine. Bringing the outcome of this deliberations further one could insist that human problem with evil could be described as self-inflicted.
Regarding the question of whether humans have a relationship with evil, it is important to consider the nature of evil itself. Evil, if understood as a distortion or absence of goodness, does not allow humans to have a relationship with it. However, evil can indeed penetrate the human psyche and manifest as destructive thoughts, behaviours, and attitudes. Evil could fill the human-self and fest there as a disease to the extent that it could become an integral part of human reality. The concept of something existing without being created can be likened to
a parasite, which grows and thrives by leaching off a host organism without necessarily being independently created. In this analogy, evil could be understood as a parasitic force that feeds off the goodness and integrity of creation, emerging as a result of human actions and choices that deviate from the divine order.
While evil may not have an independent existence, it can become deeply ingrained within human consciousness and behaviour, manifesting as a pervasive influence within individual and collective realities. In this sense, humans may not have a direct relationship with evil as with a tangible entity, but they can certainly experience its effects and be influenced by its presence within themselves and the world around them.
Acknowledging the human capacity to perpetuate and be impacted by evil highlights the importance of ethical reflection, moral discernment, and spiritual growth in addressing the profound challenges posed by its existence.
The territory of humans and evil: the nature of the IMPACT between humans and evil
When humans turn away from God, there are often consequences, as seen in the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve's expulsion from paradise. Throughout history, human actions and choices have contributed to the perpetuation of evil in the world.
Evil appears to be most natural inclination of human behaviour for several reasons. Firstly, if individuals do not actively strive towards goodness, they may be more susceptible to negative thoughts and impulses such as jealousy, promiscuity, and gluttony. These tendencies can arise from innate human desires and instincts, as well as external influences such as societal norms and cultural conditioning.
Furthermore, evil may seem ingrained in human impulses because it requires little effort to succumb to base desires and selfish motivations. In contrast, goodness often requires conscious choices, efforts, and practices, such as empathy, compassion, and self-discipline. Therefore, while evil may feel like a default state or inertia, goodness is often the result of intentional and continuous responses to divine calling or an appreciation of the gift of humanity.
Ultimately, the relationship between humans and evil is characterised by a constant tension between innate inclinations towards selfishness and self-interest, and the moral imperative to strive towards goodness and virtue. Recognising this dynamic is essential in fostering ethical awareness and promoting positive transformation both individually and collectively.
Humanly acquired & accumulated reality of Sin & Evil
The reality of sin and evil is not part of divine intention for creation; rather, it is a consequence of human choice to step away from God's intended order. When humans choose to pretend that God is not omnipresent and act as if they can live in a world without divine presence, they create a new reality separate from God's original design.
This act of pretending or creating a reality where God does not exist can be seen as the original sin, as it introduces a new dimension of separation and estrangement from the divine. Before this choice was made, sin and evil did not exist as tangible realities; they emerged as consequences of human decisions to deviate from the divine will. As biblical narrative
presents, Adam and Eve hid from God at some point in their relationship (Genesis 3:8). They pretended that God was not omnipresent by creating this false reality in their minds and acting on it. This blasphemous thought was outside the originally created human character but was later acquired and became problematic when humans began exercising their free will and choice. As people started to act against their originally good nature, they became accustomed to it and established themselves in this newly acquired inclination toward evil.
The problem of evil, then, arises when humans act in defiance of their originally created character and choose to follow their own desires and inclinations instead of aligning with the divine purpose. Once humans begin to exercise their free will in ways that contradict their inherent goodness, they open the door to the practice of evil and the accumulation of sinful behaviours.
In this view, the tension between God and humans regarding evil stems from the moment when humans first chose to pretend that God does not exist and act outside of their originally created nature. This deviation from the divine order has profound consequences, leading to the acquisition and accumulation of sin and evil in the human experience.
Is freedom of will a problem for God-human relationship?
Did God create himself a problem? Is freedom of will a problem that brought evil?
The concept of freedom of will presents a complex dynamic in the relationship between God and humanity. While freedom of will grants humans the opportunity to make choices and participate in their own development and destiny, it also introduces the potential for moral ambiguity and the possibility of choosing paths that deviate from the divine will.
From a theological perspective, freedom of will is not inherently problematic for the God-human relationship. Instead, it reflects God's desire for authentic and meaningful relationships with His creation. By granting humans freedom of will, God created an opportunity for humans to become like God — to be deified. God passed into the human hands their destiny allowing them to participate in their own spiritual growth and development, and to choose to align themselves with the path they choose.
One could start by describing that God created a limited version of Godself in Adam and Eve, while granting them the opportunity to outgrow their limitations and to expand themselves to their full potential — deification. However, instead of choosing the upward trajectory of their development Adam and Eve chose to solidify themselves in their limitations. And they solidified their path by their choices which lead them to expulsion from Paradise.
Therefore, the exercise of freedom also brings with it the potential for moral responsibility and accountability. When humans misuse their freedom to choose actions that are contrary to the divine will, they create the possibility for evil to enter into the world. In this sense, freedom of will becomes a double-edged sword, offering both the potential for growth and transformation, as well as the risk of moral failure and the perpetuation of evil.
The story of Adam and Eve in the biblical narrative illustrates this tension between freedom of will and the potential for moral disobedience. Despite God's continued efforts to guide and redeem humanity, the problem of evil persists due to the ongoing choices and actions of people. God does not give up on the humankind and continues to further address his
call for humanity, for its deification, this time through the revelation of Christ. Tragically, the problem of evil persists even after the Incarnation of Christ, which stands as a divine initiative second in magnitude only to creation itself.
What is the problem of humans with God that they persistently choose evil?
The problem of humans persistently choosing evil over God can be attributed to various factors, including their limitations in understanding both God and themselves. Despite the revelation of the full capacity for deification through the Incarnation of Christ, humans often fail to realise this potential due to their flawed perception and flawed choices.
While God has provided the opportunity for humans to participate in their own deification, the failure to attain this state lies not with the divine, but with humanity itself. The choice to prioritise sin and evil over God prevents individuals from reaching their full potential and experiencing the transformative power of divine grace.
Both evil and sin are non-created matters, intrinsically linked to the choices made by humans utilising their freedom of will. Instead of directing this gift towards deification, individuals often succumb to the allure of sin and evil, perhaps because it seems easier or offers a perceived short-term gain. However, this path ultimately leads individuals further from God and detours them from the desired path to deification. While evil may provide an illusion of fulfilment or satisfaction, it ultimately distances people from the divine and hinders their spiritual growth and development.
In summary, the problem of humans persistently choosing evil over God stems from their limitations in understanding and their flawed choices. By prioritising sin and evil, individuals miss out on the opportunity for deification and distance themselves from the divine path intended for them by their Creator. It is ultimately in human's hand to navigate their freedom of will towards God and deification, but instead their choices lean towards evil.
Suffering as a consequence of evil Irresponsibility as a passage for evil
The relationship between evil, suffering, and human responsibility is a matter of complex and often deeply intertwined choices and decisions. Evil, often stemming from the misuse of the divine gift of free will, can indeed lead to suffering for humans. This suffering is a consequence of human actions and choices, which ultimately result in self-inflicted harm. When humans abuse their free will and make irresponsible choices, they contribute to the proliferation of evil in the world. Instead of embracing the intended purpose of the gift of free will — to participate in their own deification — humans often shirk their responsibility and engage in actions that lead to their own self-destruction.
Irresponsibility, therefore, serves as a passage for evil to take root and flourish. By denying responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof, humans allow evil to fester and spread. This irresponsibility manifests in the abuse of freedom of choice and will, as individuals prioritise their own desires and interests over the greater good.
To address the problem of evil, it is essential to confront human denial of responsibility and grow self-consciousness of individuals to be accountable for their actions. By acknowledging the inherent moral agency bestowed upon them by the divine, humans can exercise their free will in ways that promote goodness and fruition of all the creation. Only then can the cycle of suffering perpetuated by evil be broken, and the path to true deification be realised. Contrary to the ideal, evil keeps on feasting on irresponsible choices and on human abuse of their freedom of choice and freedom of will. This leads the discussion to the inevitable question.
Did God make a mistake by giving humans freedom of will?
The question of whether God made a mistake by giving humans freedom of will is a deeply poignant one, albeit a part of philosophical and theological inquiry. Some may argue that the existence of evil and suffering in the world, resulting from humans' misuse of free will, suggests a potential flaw in the divine plan. However, others may view free will as an essential aspect of humanity's relationship with God, enabling genuine moral agency and the possibility of love, virtue, and spiritual growth.
While humans have indeed often failed in applying the gift of free will constructively, it is essential to consider the broader context of the human journey and the ongoing process of spiritual development. The self-destructive tendencies of humanity, as evidenced by various forms of injustice, violence, and environmental degradation, highlight the profound responsibility entrusted to individuals in the exercise of their free will.
However, it is also important to recognise the resilience and potential for redemption within the human spirit. Despite the challenges and setbacks, humanity continues to strive for progress, compassion, and justice. The endurance of hope amid adversity suggests the possibility of a different outcome and a transformative response to the ethical and existential questions raised by the human condition.
Ultimately, the question of whether God made a mistake in granting humans free will may remain unanswered until the culmination of human history. At that time, the fullness of divine wisdom and providence may be revealed, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the role of free will in the divine plan and the ultimate destiny of humanity. Until then, individuals are called to wrestle with these profound questions, guided by faith, reason, and a commitment to moral integrity.
Humanity has not yet reached the ultimate of self-destruction, leaving a glimpse of hope and the possibility of a different answer to the persistent question of evil, as well as to the question posed in this part of the study. The next question to address is the interplay between freedom and responsibility.
Freedom and Responsibility: "Freedom is not procured by a full enjoyment of what is desired, but
by controlling the desire." Epictetus (50-135CE), Stoic
The relationship between freedom and responsibility is a fundamental aspect of human existence, with implications for individual behaviour, societal dynamics, and ethical considerations. Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher, famously stated that true freedom is
not found in indulging every desire but rather in exercising control over one's desires. This concept underscores the idea that genuine freedom entails the ability to make deliberate and responsible choices, rather than simply acting on impulse or immediate gratification.
In contemporary society, however, there is often a disconnect between freedom and responsibility. Many individuals prioritise personal desires and interests without considering the broader consequences of their actions on humanity, the environment, and future generations. This lack of responsibility can lead to behaviours that perpetuate evil, causing harm and suffering to oneself and others.
One of the significant challenges facing humanity is the tendency to separate freedom of will from the corresponding responsibility that accompanies it. When individuals fail to acknowledge their responsibility for the consequences of their choices, they may engage in behaviours that contribute to the proliferation of evil in the world. This could manifest as exploitation of natural resources, disregard for the well-being of others, or the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of ethical principles.
In contrast, the divine intention behind the gift of freedom of will is the conscious choice of responsible action, ultimately leading to human deification. True freedom, in this sense, is not the absence of constraints but rather the ability to align one's will with the divine purpose and participate in the unfolding of a higher moral order.
Avoidance of responsibility and the tendency to blame others for the consequences of one's actions represent a deviation from the intended use of freedom of will. When individuals prioritise personal gain or convenience over ethical considerations, they contribute to the perpetuation of evil and hinder their own spiritual growth and development.
Therefore, the integration of freedom and responsibility is essential for fostering a more ethical and harmonious society. By recognising the interconnectedness of individual choices and their broader impact, humans can strive towards a deeper understanding of the divine purpose behind the gift of freedom of will and work towards the realisation of their ultimate potential for deification. The opposite of this strive is the avoidance of responsibility or blaming someone or something else for the consequences of one's own actions. This dynamic can be described by the formula: evil equals freedom of will minus responsibility.
Evil = freedom of will — responsibility
The problem of evil, rather than simply being a somewhat erroneous dichotomy between good and evil, is deeply rooted in the polarisation of human choices. The polarisation between good and evil is not theologically correct, as there is no such dichotomy; goodness is a reflection of God, while evil is not even a created matter. Instead, there is a complex interplay of human choices between two distinct paths: imitatio Dei (imitation of God) and contra Deum (opposing God) which involves a fundamental choice. By choosing opposition, one aligns with the camp of the Opposer, a title that could be associated with evildoer. This dynamic echoes the biblical sentiment found in the parable where Jesus says, "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30). This underscores the stark contrast between following God and opposing Him.
Opposition of God refers to the human choice to reject or negate God, embodying characteristics or behaviours that are contrary to those attributed to God. When human will deviates from the divine will, it has the potential to step into the realm of evil. In other words, evil is evoked as a consequence of human choices that move away from alignment with the divine.
On the other hand, imitatio Dei, or deification, is only possible when the divine gift of freedom of human will merges with its source — the divine will of the Creator. True deification occurs when humans align their will with the divine will, embodying characteristics and behaviours that reflect the divine nature.
Thus, the problem of evil arises not from an external force or entity, but from the choices made by individuals in relation to their alignment with or deviation from the divine will. By embracing imitatio Dei and striving for alignment with the divine, humans can transcend the limitations of their finite nature and participate in the process of deification.
Ultimately, the choice between imitatio Dei and contra Deum is not merely a matter of good versus evil, but a reflection of the deeper existential tension between alignment with the divine and deviation from it. By consciously striving to emulate the divine and aligning their choices with the divine will, individuals can navigate this polarisation and work towards their ultimate spiritual fulfilment and union with the divine.
A compromise view on the responsibility and freedom of will cold be found in neo-Pelagian understanding of the world as a fallen world, and the choice of a lesser of two evils within it, which stems from a modern reinterpretation of the theological views associated with Pelagianism, a doctrine originally propagated by the British monk Pelagius in the fourth and fifth century. Neo-Pelagians acknowledge that the world is marked by sin and imperfection, they see the world as being in a state of moral and spiritual degradation due to humanity's collective disobedience to God. In a fallen world, choices are often complex and fraught with moral ambiguity. Neo-Pelagianism suggests that individuals must navigate these complexities by exercising their free will and moral reasoning. The concept of choosing the lesser of two evils becomes significant here. It implies that when faced with two morally challenging options, individuals should choose the one that results in the least harm or the greatest good, reflecting a pragmatic approach to moral decision-making.
The NO comparison between evil and good and the ultimate definition of evil
Evil can be only understood as a parasitic force that thrives on various aspects of human choice and behaviour. Like a parasite, evil feeds off elements such as loyalty, inclination, direction, action, priority, and more. When individuals make choices that are aligned with evil, these choices serve as nourishment for its growth and perpetuation.
Loyalty: When individuals prioritise loyalty to malevolent ideologies, groups, or individuals, they contribute to the reinforcement and spread of evil in the world. By aligning themselves with corrupt systems or harmful agendas, they provide a fertile ground for evil to thrive.
Inclination: Evil often exploits human tendencies towards selfishness, greed, hatred, and other negative inclinations. When individuals succumb to these base instincts and allow them to guide their actions, they become susceptible to the influence of evil forces.
Direction: The choices individuals make regarding the direction of their lives can either lead towards righteousness and virtue or towards darkness and corruption. Evil gains momentum when individuals consciously or unconsciously steer themselves towards paths that are contrary to the principles of goodness and morality.
Action: Evil manifests itself through the actions of individuals who perpetrate harm, injustice, and suffering. Each act of cruelty, violence, or exploitation contributes to the proliferation of evil in the world, further entrenching its influence on human society.
Priority: When individuals prioritise their self-interest, power, or material gain above ethical considerations and the well-being of others, they create fertile ground for evil to thrive. By elevating selfish desires above moral principles, they enable the expansion of evil's influence.
In essence, evil thrives on the choices individuals make in various aspects of their lives. By recognising the potential consequences of their decisions and actively resisting the allure of malevolence, individuals can work towards stemming the spread of evil and fostering a more compassionate and just world.
The comparison between evil and good is fundamentally flawed from a theological perspective. Goodness cannot be defined by evil; rather, evil is defined by the absence of goodness. Goodness exists independently because its source is divine, reflecting the inherent nature of God. In contrast, evil does not have its own existence; it is not a created entity but a by-product of human actions and choices. This understanding emphasises that while goodness has a positive and substantial existence, evil is merely a VOID or lack of that goodness, arising from human deviation from the divine path.
Conclusion
The ultimate discussion here centres on the relationship between God and humans, particularly the human journey towards reaching out to God. Through the lens of understanding evil, one is able to see the profound significance of human choice and divine awareness, emphasising the continual striving for divine goodness despite the potential for deviation. This exploration underscores the dynamic interplay between human free will and the divine nature, highlighting the ongoing quest for spiritual alignment with God's inherent goodness.
At the heart of this discussion lies the relationship between God and humanity, as well as the invitation for humans to embody divine attributes and participate in the process of deification, by continuous strive towards imitatio Dei as well as making free, conscious and responsible daily choices towards it.
God, characterised by sacrificial love, loyalty, creativity, and hard work, extends an invitation to humanity to emulate these divine qualities and partake in the divine nature. This invitation is not merely an abstract concept but a call to action, urging individuals to align their lives with the divine will and contribute to the ongoing process of creation and redemption.
Imitatio Dei involves more than just emulation; it requires active participation in a synergetic relationship between God and humans. This relationship is characterised by mutual collaboration and co-creation, wherein humans work alongside God to bring about positive change and manifest divine attributes in the world.
Through acts of sacrificial love, loyalty to higher principles, creative endeavours, and diligent labour, humans can embody the divine qualities inherent within them and contribute to the unfolding of God's plan for creation. This process of deification is not achieved through individual efforts alone but through a harmonious partnership between God and humanity.
Ultimately, the divine invitation for humans to be deified reflects the inherent potential within each individual to transcend their limitations and participate in the divine nature. By embracing this invitation and actively cultivating divine attributes in their lives, humans can fulfil their ultimate purpose and contribute to the realisation of God's kingdom on earth.
In conclusion, this exploration of evil reveals that it fundamentally revolves around human choice and divine awareness. Goodness is not defined by evil; it exists independently, and its source is divine. In contrast, evil does not have an independent existence; its source is rooted in human choice and the deviation from divine goodness. This underscores the importance of understanding the interplay between human free will and the inherent nature of goodness as reflections of divine intent.
Indeed, goodness and evil are distinct concepts with separate origins and natures. Goodness emanates from the divine essence, representing qualities such as love, compassion, justice, and virtue. As an intrinsic aspect of God's nature, goodness is not contingent upon the existence or actions of evil. It stands on its own, providing a moral compass and guiding individuals towards righteous conduct and benevolent actions. When individuals deviate from the path of goodness and align themselves with selfishness, greed, hatred, and other negative tendencies, they contribute to the manifestation of evil in the world. Evil is not a self-sustaining force but relies on human actions and decisions for its expression and perpetuation being contingent upon human choices and behaviours.
It is of no surprise that at the end of this work in analysing different aspects of evil the realisation arises that perhaps definitions of evil remain unclear, but what became apparent is that it is all about human choice and divine awareness. However, throughout the analysis in this study, various aspects of evil were delved into, examining its nature, origins, consequences, and implications. Exploring philosophical, theological, and ethical perspectives sought to unravel the complexities surrounding this profound existential phenomenon.
Yet, amid this intricate inquiry, a fundamental discovery was made linking emergence of evil with human choice. It is the result of individuals deviating from the divine will and succumbing to negative inclinations and behaviours. Through their actions and decisions, humans play a pivotal role in the manifestation and perpetuation of evil in the world.
Moreover, the exploration in this study underscores the importance of divine awareness in understanding and addressing the problem of evil. While humans possess the freedom to choose between good and evil, their choices unfold within the broader context of divine providence and guidance. God's awareness encompasses all aspects of human existence, including the choices individuals make and the consequences that follow.
Ultimately, by recognising the significance of human choice and divine awareness in the dynamics of evil, one gains further insight into the complexities of the human condition and the enduring struggle between good and evil. Extending this conclusion further prompts a deeper consideration, culminating in a somewhat thought-provoking final remark. It becomes evident that the mere potentiality of dormant evil quietly but profoundly reinforces the concept of human freedom of choice. This notion inherently acknowledges the presence, or at the very least the potentiality, of evil as a reference point in humanity's quest for spiritual ascension. Perhaps the realisation of this prompts further fervency in aligning one's loyalties with the One and Only, the Source of light and love, the One who creates and gives life.
References
Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford. The Authoritarian Personality. Harper, 1950.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Benziger Bros, 1947.
Armstrong, A.H. Plotinus. Harvard University Press, 1967.
Augustine of Hippo. City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. Penguin Classics, 2003.
Augustine of Hippo. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Augustine of Hippo. Enchiridion. Translated by Albert C. Outler. Westminster John Knox Press, 1955.
Augustine of Hippo. Enchiridion. Translated by Thomas Hibbs. Hackett Publishing Company, 1996.
Augustine of Hippo. On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by Thomas Williams. Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.
Augustine, Saint. City of God. Book XII, Chapter 7. Translated by Henry Bettenson, Penguin Classics, 2003.
Augustine, Saint. Confessions. Book VII, Chapter 12. Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford University Press, 1991.
Augustine, Saint. Enchiridion. Chapter 4, 11, 12. Translated by Albert C. Outler, Westminster John Knox Press, 1955.
Augustine, St. Enchiridion: Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love. Translated by J. F. Shaw, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3, edited by Philip Schaff, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.
Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford University Press, 1991.
Augustine. Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love. Translated by Albert C. Outler. Westminster John Knox Press, 1955.
Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods, edited by Philip Schaff. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.
Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Basil the Great. Hexaemeron. Translated by Blomfield Jackson, Catholic University of America Press, 2013.
Basil the Great. Hexaemeron. Translated by Blomfield Jackson, Catholic University of America Press, 2013.
Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Routledge, 2001.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Revised edition. University of California Press, 2000. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.
Chadwick, Henry. Augustine: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 1986. Dan, J. and Kiener, R.C. (eds.) The Early Kabbalah. New York: Paulist Press, 1986. Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques. "Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu." In Encyclopedia Iranica, edited by Ehsan Yarshater. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000.
Epictetus, "Discourses and Selected Writings," translated by Robert Dobbin, Penguin Classics, 2008. Fablovskiy, I. O, Falling Scruples. New York: HarperCollins, 2024.
Fine, L. Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic Fellowship. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003.
Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. Translated by James Strachey. W. W. Norton & Company, 1961.
Freud, Sigmund. The Ego and the Id. Translated by Joan Riviere. W. W. Norton & Company, 1960. Fromm, Erich. Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart, 1941.
Gregory Nazianzus. Orations. Translated by Martha Vinson, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002. Gregory Nazianzus. Orations. Translated by Martha Vinson, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002. Gregory of Nyssa. Against Eunomius. Translated by Stuart George Hall, Oxford University Press, 2016. Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man. Translated by Michael Glerup, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2014.
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man. Translated by Ronald E. Heine, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2014.
Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Translated by John Keble. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Translated by S.D.F. Salmond, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014.
Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. Beacon Press, 2001.
Jung, Carl G. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Princeton University Press, 1979. Jung, Carl G. Psychological Types. Translated by H. G. Baynes. Princeton University Press, 1971.
Maimonides. Mishneh Torah: Sefer Mada, Hilchot Teshuvah (Laws of Repentance). Translated by Eliyahu Touger. Moznaim Publishing Corporation, 1990.
Matt, D.C. The Essential Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995.
Maximus the Confessor. Ambigua. Translated by Nicholas Constas, Harvard University Press, 2014. Midrash Rabbah: Ecclesiastes (Kohelet). Translated by Jacob Neusner. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row, 1974. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. Vintage Books, 1989.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. Vintage Books, 1989.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic. Translated by Douglas Smith. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books, 1989.
Patai, R. The Hebrew Goddess. 3rd ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.
Plato. Phaedrus. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Project Gutenberg, 2008.
Plato. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Plato. Timaeus. Translated by Donald J. Zeyl. Hackett Publishing Company, 2000.
Plotinus. Enneads. Translated by A. H. Armstrong, Harvard University Press, 1988.
Plotinus. The Enneads. Translated by Stephen MacKenna. Penguin Classics, 1991.
Rist, John M. Plotinus: The Road to Reality. Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. Harper & Row, 1983.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Translated by Hazel E. Barnes. Washington Square Press, 1992.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism is a Humanism. Translated by Carol Macomber. Yale University Press, 2007.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism is a Humanism. Translated by Carol Macomber. Yale University Press, 2007.
Scholem, G. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.
The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kiddushin. Translated by Adin Steinsaltz. Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2012.
Tishby, I. The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1989.
Zaehner, R.C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. Phoenix Press, 2003.
Zimbardo, Philip. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House, 2007.
