1)Present Bayle’s case against the “orthodox” view. Why does Bayle think the
Manichaean position is better supported? Do you think Bayle ultimately
accepts Manichaeism? Why or why not?
Pierre Bayle is a renowned philosopher who lived during the Protestant persecution, whose
works seek to address the philosophical “problem of evil”. For Bayle, the problem of evil is
reconciling God’s omnipotence and goodness with the existence of evil. Bayle ultimately argues
that the existence of evil in our world, which is evidently very real, is incompatible with the
orthodox view of an all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing God. While he also asserts that the
Manichean hypothesis does a better job of solving the problem of evil than the orthodox view, he
ultimately refutes as a concept unable to be understood using the greatest extent of our logical
reasoning.
To understand why Bayle deems the Manichean hypothesis a more plausible explanation for the
existence of evil in contrast with the Orthodox view, we must first understand the framework of
the Orthodox view. It rests on the assumption that God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-
good being and that he is the one who granted humans the gift of free will. This theory suggests
that with free will humans have the choice to act in a positive or negative manner, and should
they choose the latter, physical evil results as a consequence. Under this idea, God would not be
able to prevent evil without infringing upon free will. This idea leads to the Doctrine of Felix
Culpa, which suggests that human sinfulness is the only opportunity for God to display his
justice and his mercy. Other orthodox viewers suggest that possibly God did not foresee our
misuse of free will. Bayle has several critiques of this view, first he argues that God giving
humans the ability to commit evil, even within free will, is inconsistent with the idea of supreme
goodness. Bayle uses the example of giving someone a gift you know they will misuse in a way
that will harm them, and asserts that this does not make you benevolent giver, as someone who
truly cared about you would revoke the gift if they knew it was harming you, and argues if God
was truly “good” he would do the same with free will. He also suggests the idea of God not
being able to foresee this misuse of free will is inconsistent with his all-knowing nature.
Manichaeism on the other hand, acknowledges God as a supremely good being not as all-
powerful or all-knowing. This theory proposes the idea of two supreme beings, one good and one
evil, who are both limited in power by each other. Bayle uses a Reductio Ad Absurdum to show
why this idea of two separate entities is necessary to solving the problem of evil. He first takes
on the orthodox assumption of one infinite being in control of reality, he then assumes good and
evil to both be very real entities, neither of which are an absence of the other. As goodness and
evil are inherently contrary, both cannot exist within a single supreme being, therefore, two
entities are necessary to explain this duality in our world. Bayle argues that the Manichaen view
does a better job than the Orthodox view at solving the problem of evil because the duality of a
, good being and an evil being is consistent with the real world experiences of happiness and
suffering, which cannot be explained by the orthodox view.
Despite this acknowledgement, Bayle ultimately deems the Manichean hypothesis to be false and
absurd. His argument lies in the idea that two opposing eternal forces are inherently contrary to
the framework of order within human reasoning. He claims that logic suggests there would be
one infinite, almighty and good being, and therefore the dualism of Manichaeism makes it
fundamentally logically flawed. In his sceptical resolution, Bayle asserts that it is very clear that
God and evil both do in fact exist, and if something exists in reality, it must be logically possible.
He concludes the extent to which humans are able to reason and the limits of our logic make it
impossible to fully comprehend how this duality is possible in our world. He says this is a truth
we must accept without being able to fully logically comprehend.
2. How does Leibniz attempt to exonerate God for the existence of moral evil?
Why does he think that the occurrence of physical evil is nonetheless justified?
Do you think Leibniz’s defense of human freedom is successful? Why or why
not?
Leibniz was a profound philosopher whose greatest work the Theodicy was a response to Bayle’s
idea in the problem of evil. Leibniz seeks to reconcile the goodness and justice of God with the
evil and suffering that exists in the world. As Bayle’s views assert that a traditional Orthodox
concept of God is inconsistent with the reality of evil, Leibniz disagrees with him on many
fronts. In order to understand how he absolves God of all responsibility for moral evil and also
justifies the existence of physical evil, it is important to understand that Leibniz has a very
specific understanding of what it means for God to have “created the world”. First, he clarifies
that a world is a collection of individual substances, people, objects, excetera, as well as the
occurrences, experiences and interactions that happen to those substances. He suggests there is
an infinite number of “possible” worlds and only one actual world, our world, which is the “best”
world out of any of the possible worlds, hence why it was chosen by God.
Along with this idea, Leibniz views human sinfulness as something not directly caused by God
but simply a byproduct of human free will, as God is undoubtedly supremely good, he could not
be responsible for sin. He also contradicts Bayle by suggesting evil could have a privative nature,
or in a sense be simply a lack of goodness rather than an independent force. Considering this in
conjunction with his belief in an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, Leibniz suggests that
God surveyed every single of the possible worlds and still decided through his infinite wisdom
that this was the best one, and the world does have moral evil, therefore any world that does not,
must in some incomprehensible way still be much worse than this one. In this framework, the
existence of moral evil is in fact consistent with the idea of God’s goodness, as he is choosing
the best possible.
Manichaean position is better supported? Do you think Bayle ultimately
accepts Manichaeism? Why or why not?
Pierre Bayle is a renowned philosopher who lived during the Protestant persecution, whose
works seek to address the philosophical “problem of evil”. For Bayle, the problem of evil is
reconciling God’s omnipotence and goodness with the existence of evil. Bayle ultimately argues
that the existence of evil in our world, which is evidently very real, is incompatible with the
orthodox view of an all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing God. While he also asserts that the
Manichean hypothesis does a better job of solving the problem of evil than the orthodox view, he
ultimately refutes as a concept unable to be understood using the greatest extent of our logical
reasoning.
To understand why Bayle deems the Manichean hypothesis a more plausible explanation for the
existence of evil in contrast with the Orthodox view, we must first understand the framework of
the Orthodox view. It rests on the assumption that God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-
good being and that he is the one who granted humans the gift of free will. This theory suggests
that with free will humans have the choice to act in a positive or negative manner, and should
they choose the latter, physical evil results as a consequence. Under this idea, God would not be
able to prevent evil without infringing upon free will. This idea leads to the Doctrine of Felix
Culpa, which suggests that human sinfulness is the only opportunity for God to display his
justice and his mercy. Other orthodox viewers suggest that possibly God did not foresee our
misuse of free will. Bayle has several critiques of this view, first he argues that God giving
humans the ability to commit evil, even within free will, is inconsistent with the idea of supreme
goodness. Bayle uses the example of giving someone a gift you know they will misuse in a way
that will harm them, and asserts that this does not make you benevolent giver, as someone who
truly cared about you would revoke the gift if they knew it was harming you, and argues if God
was truly “good” he would do the same with free will. He also suggests the idea of God not
being able to foresee this misuse of free will is inconsistent with his all-knowing nature.
Manichaeism on the other hand, acknowledges God as a supremely good being not as all-
powerful or all-knowing. This theory proposes the idea of two supreme beings, one good and one
evil, who are both limited in power by each other. Bayle uses a Reductio Ad Absurdum to show
why this idea of two separate entities is necessary to solving the problem of evil. He first takes
on the orthodox assumption of one infinite being in control of reality, he then assumes good and
evil to both be very real entities, neither of which are an absence of the other. As goodness and
evil are inherently contrary, both cannot exist within a single supreme being, therefore, two
entities are necessary to explain this duality in our world. Bayle argues that the Manichaen view
does a better job than the Orthodox view at solving the problem of evil because the duality of a
, good being and an evil being is consistent with the real world experiences of happiness and
suffering, which cannot be explained by the orthodox view.
Despite this acknowledgement, Bayle ultimately deems the Manichean hypothesis to be false and
absurd. His argument lies in the idea that two opposing eternal forces are inherently contrary to
the framework of order within human reasoning. He claims that logic suggests there would be
one infinite, almighty and good being, and therefore the dualism of Manichaeism makes it
fundamentally logically flawed. In his sceptical resolution, Bayle asserts that it is very clear that
God and evil both do in fact exist, and if something exists in reality, it must be logically possible.
He concludes the extent to which humans are able to reason and the limits of our logic make it
impossible to fully comprehend how this duality is possible in our world. He says this is a truth
we must accept without being able to fully logically comprehend.
2. How does Leibniz attempt to exonerate God for the existence of moral evil?
Why does he think that the occurrence of physical evil is nonetheless justified?
Do you think Leibniz’s defense of human freedom is successful? Why or why
not?
Leibniz was a profound philosopher whose greatest work the Theodicy was a response to Bayle’s
idea in the problem of evil. Leibniz seeks to reconcile the goodness and justice of God with the
evil and suffering that exists in the world. As Bayle’s views assert that a traditional Orthodox
concept of God is inconsistent with the reality of evil, Leibniz disagrees with him on many
fronts. In order to understand how he absolves God of all responsibility for moral evil and also
justifies the existence of physical evil, it is important to understand that Leibniz has a very
specific understanding of what it means for God to have “created the world”. First, he clarifies
that a world is a collection of individual substances, people, objects, excetera, as well as the
occurrences, experiences and interactions that happen to those substances. He suggests there is
an infinite number of “possible” worlds and only one actual world, our world, which is the “best”
world out of any of the possible worlds, hence why it was chosen by God.
Along with this idea, Leibniz views human sinfulness as something not directly caused by God
but simply a byproduct of human free will, as God is undoubtedly supremely good, he could not
be responsible for sin. He also contradicts Bayle by suggesting evil could have a privative nature,
or in a sense be simply a lack of goodness rather than an independent force. Considering this in
conjunction with his belief in an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, Leibniz suggests that
God surveyed every single of the possible worlds and still decided through his infinite wisdom
that this was the best one, and the world does have moral evil, therefore any world that does not,
must in some incomprehensible way still be much worse than this one. In this framework, the
existence of moral evil is in fact consistent with the idea of God’s goodness, as he is choosing
the best possible.
