Evil and Transfiguration

  • Errol E. Harris
Part of the Tulane Studies in Philosophy book series (TUSP, volume 26)


The problem of evil is the most difficult confronting the theist, and the existence of evil has always been cited by atheists as the most persuasive fact in support of their disbelief. How, it has been demanded, can evil in any form be thought compatible with divine goodness, omniscience and omnipotence? If everything that happens is in any sense God’s act, if all reality and occurrence is the effect of God’s power and will, he must be the ultimate cause of all error and evil, the reality of which none can plausibly deny. How, then, can God be at once omnipotent and benevolent?


Philosophical Theology Religious Devotion Nazi Concentration Camp Ambiguous Referenee Finite Mind 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Reason and Belief (Yale University Press, 1975), p. 546.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    Op. cit., p. 510Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Ibid, and p. 524Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    See, however, ray paper, ‘Rationalism and Reason’, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  5. 1.
  6. 1.
    Cf. my Revelation through Reason, Ch. VI, pp. 100–103.Google Scholar
  7. 1.
    See Nicomachean Ethics, 1174b, 1175a.Google Scholar
  8. 2.
    Cf. T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, Book IV; F. H. Bradley, Ethical Studies, Ch. III.Google Scholar
  9. 1.
    Cf. Plato. Phaedo, 60B.Google Scholar
  10. 1.
    Cf. Revelation through Reason, pp. 106–111.Google Scholar
  11. 1.
    A carpenter or a tennis player is ‘good’ so far as his skill conduces to success, but success in special pursuits is itself good only so far as it contributes to the goodness of life as a whole, and that in the final issue is the moral end.Google Scholar
  12. 1.
    Cf. New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London, 1955), 8, pp. 144–69.Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    Cf. W. G. Maclagan’s discussion in The Theological Frontier of Ethics (London, 1961.), Ch. II.Google Scholar
  14. 1.
    The Brothers Karamazov, Bk. V, Ch. IV.Google Scholar
  15. 2.
    Cf. Epistle XXIII.Google Scholar
  16. 1.
    Process must not be understood as purely temporal. There is also a necessary aspect in which, qua process, it constitutes an eternal whole eternally self-realized; for unless this were so, no process could be actually progressive.Google Scholar
  17. 1.
    Cf. my discussion of Spinoza’s theory in Salvation from Despair, Ch. VII, §7.Google Scholar
  18. 2.
    Romans VIII, 7, 14–15.Google Scholar
  19. 1.
    Ethics, V, xviii, Schol.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tulane University New Orleans 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Errol E. Harris

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations