چکیده:
The question of evil is one of the most difficult and controversial theological-philosophical discussions. Many thinkers have given in the “Nizām Aḥsan” (the best system) theory to respond to this question. The “best system” means the best and most complete system created by God. John Hospers has opposed this theory. In this article, his theory is examined and criticized in the two fields of “human” and “global” at three levels of “inability of God,” “ignorance of God,” and “non-benevolence of God.” Moreover, the responses made to his views are discussed in “posteriori” and “a priori” layers. The main purpose and premise of the article is criticizing Hospers’ arguments at three levels with regard to the “Best System” theory. The necessity of such an article came from the lack of attention to Hospers’ arguments against the “Best System” theory by previous researchers. The data was collected through the library research using the existing sources about the works of John Hospers, which was then analyzed through intellectual analysis, critical analysis, and content analysis. The most important result of the first level of analysis was “the appropriate, wise endowment of freedom to human” and “the difference between the essences of the material world and the otherworld.” Moreover, “the informed, wise, and non-cruel will” is among the findings of the second level. Finally, “the excellence of spirit” and “evils as sources of goodness” are the results of the third level.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Haspers claims that the existence of evil in the world leads to the denial of the aforementioned three divine attributes (,Hospers .
Second level: Divine ignorance and ambiguity in the creation of the best system Haspers believes that the existence of evils and defects in the design of the world refers to a lack of planning wisdom and ignorance in the field of God’s architecture.
Haspers believes that no matter how theologians try to justify and answer, they cannot deny this ignorant creation, because a rational thinker, with deep thought, asks that if God is a skilled architect; he should have coordinated the components of the building of the world with careful planning so that all or most of these evils, defects, and problems would be eliminated.
After proving the existence of evil in the world, he writes: “The reality of such suffering is one of the main reasons for many people who find it difficult to believe in a God who is benevolent” (Hospers, undated: 109).
In the book Philosophy of Religion, chapter on the problem of evil, the fifth solution, Haspers refers to the difference between the concept of good in two forms of divine and human perception, and writes: This claim that “what we call evil is actually good, what seems evil to us when viewed from the perspective of absolute knowledge is actually good” (Hospers, 1372: 532) is false.
(
, 
, 
)
