Omnibenevolence (from Latinomni- meaning "all", bene- meaning "good" and volens meaning "willing") is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Some philosophers[who?] 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.
The word is primarily used as a technical term within academic literature on the philosophy of religion, mainly in context of the problem of evil and theodical responses to such, although even in said contexts the phrases "perfect goodness" and "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes "infinite benevolence".
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",[1] 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]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.[2]
Modern users of the term include George H. Smith in his book Atheism: The Case Against God (1980),[3] 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),[4] and Joshua Hoffman and Gary Rosenkrantz in The Divine Attributes (2002).[5]
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:[7] In 2010, author William C. Lane contended that:
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's[8] 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.[7]: 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] 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.[9] Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology.[10]
^ abLane, William C. (January 2010). "Leibniz's Best World Claim Restructured". American Philosophical Journal. 47 (1): 57–84. Retrieved 9 March 2014.
^William 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.
^"The infinity of God". Catholic Encyclopaedia. newadvent.org. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
Wierenga, Edward. "Intrinsic maxima and omnibenevolence." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 10, No. 1 (March 1984), pp. 41–50.
External links
The Goodness of God
March 21, 2023
omnibenevolence, from, latin, omni, meaning, bene, meaning, good, volens, meaning, willing, defined, oxford, english, dictionary, unlimited, infinite, benevolence, some, philosophers, have, argued, that, impossible, least, improbable, deity, exhibit, such, pro. Omnibenevolence from Latin omni meaning all bene meaning good and volens meaning willing is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as unlimited or infinite benevolence Some philosophers who 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 The word is primarily used as a technical term within academic literature on the philosophy of religion mainly in context of the problem of evil and theodical responses to such although even in said contexts the phrases perfect goodness and moral perfection are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes infinite benevolence Contents 1 Usage 2 Philosophical perspectives 3 Religious perspectives 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External linksUsage EditThe 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 1 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 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 2 Modern users of the term include George H Smith in his book Atheism The Case Against God 1980 3 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 4 and Joshua Hoffman and Gary Rosenkrantz in The Divine Attributes 2002 5 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 6 Philosophical perspectives EditThe 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 7 In 2010 author William C Lane contended that 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 s 8 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 7 76 77 Religious perspectives EditThe theological justification stems from God s aseity the non contingent independent and self sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God citation needed 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 9 Hence omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology 10 Theologians in the Wesleyan tradition see Thomas Jay Oord argue that omnibenevolence is God s primary attribute citation needed Some Hyper Calvinist interpretations reject omnibenevolence citation needed 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 11 See also Edit Religion portalBenevolence disambiguation Dystheism Good and evil Light and darkness Misotheism OmnipresenceReferences Edit This phrase is used in many notable encyclopedia and dictionary entries such as Tooley Michael 2021 The Problem of Evil Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Blackburn Simon Evil the Problem of The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Summa Theologiae The cause of evil Prima Pars Q 49 www newadvent org Retrieved 2020 08 12 Smith George H 1980 Atheism The Case Against God Prometheus Books ISBN 087975124X Kvanvig Jonathan L 1993 The Problem of Hell Oxford University Press pp 4 ISBN 019508487X Hoffman Joshua Gary Rosenkrantz 2002 The Divine Attributes Blackwell Publishing ISBN 0631211543 Used throughout the book Robert Barron 2011 Catholicism A Journey to the Heart of the Faith ISBN 978 0307720511 a b Lane William C January 2010 Leibniz s Best World Claim Restructured American Philosophical Journal 47 1 57 84 Retrieved 9 March 2014 William 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 The infinity of God Catholic Encyclopaedia newadvent org Retrieved 2008 05 02 Perfect Being Theology Retrieved 20 May 2014 William Lane Craig Is the Islamic Concept of God Morally Inadequate Reasonable Faith Further reading EditBasinger David In what sense must God be omnibenevolent International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Vol 14 No 1 March 1983 pp 3 15 Bruch George Bosworth Early Medieval Philosophy King s Crown 1951 pp 73 77 Flemming Arthur Omnibenevolence and evil Ethics Vol 96 No 2 Jan 1986 pp 261 281 Oord Thomas Jay The Nature of Love A Theology 2010 ISBN 978 0827208285 Oppy Graham Ontological Arguments and Belief in God Cambridge University Press 1995 pp 171 172 Smith George H Atheism The Case Against God Skeptic s Bookshelf Prometheus Books June 1980 ISBN 978 0840211156 Wierenga Edward Intrinsic maxima and omnibenevolence International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Vol 10 No 1 March 1984 pp 41 50 External links EditThe Goodness of God Notes on God s Omnibenevolence Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Omnibenevolence amp oldid 1127601155, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
