The Problem of Evil by M. B. Ahern (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 157 tional metaphysical terms. It is time for each side to listen to the other. This does not mean a forfeiture of convictions about reality; it does mean accepting the tentativeness of any human enterprise, whether it be practiced by oneself or someone else. I am certain that Baltazar and other disciples of Chardin have heard enough about the " dangers " of their approach; so too have others heard enough sharp comments about their " static " world-view. In many ways there is not that much difference in conclusions. I would find it difficult to choose between " actus purus " and " the fullness of activity." WILLIAM J. FINAN, 0. P. Yale University New Haven, Conn. M. B. AHERN. The Problem of Evil. New York: Schocken Books, 1971. Pp. 96. $4.50. The most interesting thing in the world would be to know if God is like any of the ways in which we conceive of him, particularly the way in which we describe his actions and explain his motivations. Almost any argument over evil, and God's involvement with it, sets up rather rigid guidelines for his activity and limits him to specified alternatives. The issue is whether, in fact, God has open to him only the avenues set down in our arguments or whether he is free to act in ways other than those which conform to our particular logics. To say this is not to suggest that God may not accept one of the ways of action we set down for him. Our arguments may be close to his own way of thinking, and even identical at some points. The problem is that we have an anthropocentric way of treating any ironclad logical conclusion of ours as if it exhausted God's alternatives. Mr. Ahem's new treatment of the problem of theodicy has the great virtue of recognizing the wider sets of possible modes of action and purposes in the divine activity and basing the discussion of evil on a recognition of the possibilities open to God in arriving at his decisions. However, Mr. Ahem does pose his problem primarily as one of either the adequacy or the logical cogency of certain arguments already given, as he interprets these. That approach tends to tum the question of evil into a logical analysis of various arguments, whereas the issue is why and how God acted in virtue of what he is like. In other words, the question hinges on gaining greater insight into God's nature more than it does on the form of arguments previously given, each of which has its own assumed notion of God that explains why he might act as described. If other treatments of evil have seemed to decide the question conclu- 158 BOOK REVIEWS sively on one side or the other, perhaps the chief merit of Ahern's treatment is to try to demonstrate that the issue must remain open and inconclusive. God's existence is left as "an open question." (p. vii) Such indetermination and inconclusiveness is much more in the spirit of post-modern man, who has given up his trust in the finality of " modern " reason. There are, as Ahern points out, " several kinds of problems about God and evil, not only one." (p. ix) In this case what we have is not one issue to be argued too conclusively in one direction or another but rather the basic issue of trying to determine what the questions are and in how many ways they might be phrased. Such an approach does not lead to definite conclusions , but it does involve a more realistic appraisal of our situation. This much being granted, however, it is true that Mr. Ahern does go through various formulations of the arguments as if the alternatives presented were mutually exclusive and must be accepted or rejected just as offered. He speaks of " theists " as if they were one group, of fixed mind and agreed in outlook. In Chapter I, Ahern's treatment does split down the " problem " of evil into various forms rather than one, and this makes more sense out of our dilemma than a simplistic notion. That is, if, as he suggests, there are...