omnibenevolence

Omnibenevolence is the property of possessing maximal goodness. Some philosophers, such as Epicurus,{{efn|The earliest statement of the problem of evil is attributed to Epicurus, but this attribution is uncertain.}} have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence.

Etymology

The word omnibenevolence derives from the Latin prefix omni-, meaning "all", and the words bene and volens, meaning "good" and "will", respectively. Thus the term means "all good will".{{cite web |title=Definition of Omnibenevolence |url=https://www.oed.com/dictionary/omnibenevolence_n |language=en}}

Usage

The term is patterned on, and often accompanied by, the terms omniscience and omnipotence, typically to refer to conceptions of an "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful" deity. Philosophers and theologians more commonly use phrases like "perfectly good",This phrase is used in many notable encyclopedia and dictionary entries, such as:

{{Cite encyclopedia |first=Michael |last=Tooley |title=The Problem of Evil |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |year=2021 |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/}}
{{Cite encyclopedia |first=Simon |last=Blackburn|title=Evil, the Problem of |encyclopedia=The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy}} or simply the term "benevolence". The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

The earliest record for its use in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is in 1679. The Catholic Church does not appear to use the term "omnibenevolent" in the liturgy or Catechism.{{citation needed|date=May 2019}} Saint Thomas Aquinas in particular explained in Summa Theologica that God may indirectly want evil in the physical world, when this is necessary for the greater good of the order of the universe.{{Cite web|title=Summa Theologiae: The cause of evil (Prima Pars, Q. 49)|url=https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2|access-date=2020-08-12|website=www.newadvent.org}}

Modern users of the term include George H. Smith in his book Atheism: The Case Against God (1980),{{Cite book | last=Smith | first=George H. | year=1980 | title=Atheism: The Case Against God | publisher=Prometheus Books | isbn=087975124X | url=https://archive.org/details/atheismcaseagain00smit_0 }} where he argued that divine qualities are inconsistent. However, the term is also used by authors who defend the coherence of divine attributes, including but not limited to, Jonathan Kvanvig in The Problem of Hell (1993),{{Cite book | last=Kvanvig | first=Jonathan L. | year=1993 | title=The Problem of Hell | url=https://archive.org/details/problemhell00kvan_269 | url-access=limited | publisher=Oxford University Press | pages=[https://archive.org/details/problemhell00kvan_269/page/n12 4] | isbn=019508487X}} and Joshua Hoffman and Gary Rosenkrantz in The Divine Attributes (2002).{{Cite book | last=Hoffman | first=Joshua |author2=Gary Rosenkrantz | year=2002 | title=The Divine Attributes | publisher=Blackwell Publishing | isbn=0631211543}} Used throughout the book.

The terminology has been used by some prominent Roman Catholic figures, examples being Bishop Robert Barron, Doctor of Sacred Theology in his 2011 book Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith.{{cite book|author=Robert Barron|author-link=Robert Barron (priest)|title=Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith|date=2011|isbn=978-0307720511}}

Philosophical perspectives

The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate deity has raised certain atheistic objections, such as the problem of evil and the problem of Hell. Responses to such problems are called theodicies and can be general, arguing for the coherence of the divine, such as Swinburne's Providence and the Problem of Evil, or they can address a specific problem, such as Charles Seymour's A Theodicy of Hell.

Proponents of pandeism contend that benevolence (much less omnibenevolence) is simply not required to account for any property of our Universe, as a morally neutral deity which was powerful enough to have created our Universe as we experience it would be, by definition, able to have created our Universe as we experience it. William C. Lane contended that pandeism thereby offered an escape from the evidential argument from evil:{{Cite journal | last = Lane | first = William C. | date = January 2010 |title = Leibniz's Best World Claim Restructured | url = http://apq.press.illinois.edu/47/1/lane.html | journal = American Philosophical Journal | volume = 47 | issue = 1 | pages = 57–84 | access-date = 9 March 2014}} In 2010, author William C. Lane contended that:

{{quote|In pandeism, God is no superintending, heavenly power, capable of hourly intervention into earthly affairs. No longer existing "above," God cannot intervene from above and cannot be blamed for failing to do so. Instead God bears all suffering, whether the fawn'sWilliam Rowe used, as an example of needless suffering, a fawn horribly burned in a forest fire and unable to move, yet suffering for additional days before its death. or anyone else's.

Even so, a skeptic might ask, "Why must there be so much suffering,? Why could not the world's design omit or modify the events that cause it?" In pandeism, the reason is clear: to remain unified, a world must convey information through transactions. Reliable conveyance requires relatively simple, uniform laws. Laws designed to skip around suffering-causing events or to alter their natural consequences (i.e., their consequences under simple laws) would need to be vastly complicated or (equivalently) to contain numerous exceptions.{{rp|76–77}}}}

Religious perspectives

The theological justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God.{{citation needed|date=May 2019}} For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm|title=The infinity of God|encyclopedia=Catholic Encyclopaedia|publisher=newadvent.org|access-date=2008-05-02}} Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology.{{cite web|title=Perfect Being Theology|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/perfect-being-theology|access-date=20 May 2014}}

Theologians in the Wesleyan tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute.{{citation needed|date=May 2019}} Some Hyper-Calvinist interpretations reject omnibenevolence.{{citation needed|date=May 2019}} For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for its expression of this stance.

Christian apologist William Lane Craig argues that Islam does not hold to the idea of omnibenevolence.{{cite web|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-islamic-conception-of-god-morally-inadequate|title=Is the Islamic Concept of God Morally Inadequate?|publisher=Reasonable Faith|author=William Lane Craig|author-link=William Lane Craig}}

In the Holy Bible

{{bibleref2|Galatians|5,18-23|NKJV}} lists "kindness" among the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit God. So far, it is believed to be an attribute of God.

Notes

References

External links

[https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/on-the-goodness-of-god The Goodness of God]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20030724060920/http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Omnibenevolence.htm Notes on God's Omnibenevolence]

Category:17th-century neologisms

Category:Conceptions of God

Category:Good and evil

Category:Philosophy of religion

Category:Superlatives in religion