3.1 Problem of Evil and Suffering

Question 1

Islamic teaching on the difference between good and evil

Answer 1

We are all born with a natural instinct to decide the difference between right and wrong and we have a free will to do the right (Allah’s guidance) and wrong (temptations of Shaytan).

Question 2

Buddhism teaching on the difference between good and evil

Answer 2

Teaches that evil is something we create ourselves - not something we intrinsically are or that an outside force infects us with.

Question 3

Theists teaching on the difference between good and evil

Answer 3

No problem with the existence of evil as they accept that they can never know the mind of God so it becomes a part of faith. But what about when bad things happen to good people? Some philosophers have further developed this idea to argue that evil in the world is evidence for the claim that God does not exist.

Question 4

Natural Evil

Answer 4

Refers to evils caused by the natural state of things e.g. the 2018 Indonesian earthquake but also more minor evils such as disease, injuries and accidents.

Question 5

Moral Evil

Answer 5

Refers to evils that have come about as a direct result of human intention and choices e.g. the Las Vegas Route 91 music festival shooting in October 2017. The evil here lies in human action. Moral evil encompasses everything that humans can do to each other e.g. theft, rape, bullying

Question 6

The logical problem of Evil

Answer 6

Argues that the existence of a perfectly good, all-powerful deity is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. It asserts that if such a God existed, it would stop all suffering. However, since evil exists, the argument concludes that either God is not perfectly good, not all-powerful or does not exist at all.

Question 7

Mackie on the logical problem of evil

Answer 7

The logical problem of evil attacks the heart of the traditional concept of God. Mackie sees inconsistencies that the following premises cannot all be true at the same time:
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is omnibenevolent
4. God exists
Whilst none of the premises directly contradict any of the others, we can deduce a contradiction from them.

Question 8

Hume in ‘dialogues concerning natural religion’

Answer 8

Hume concluded that, as evil does exist, the God of classical theism does not.

Question 9

Mackie quote

Answer 9

‘It can be shown that religious beliefs don’t lack rational support, but they are positively irrational’

Question 10

Mackie ‘Evil and omnipotence’ introduction

Answer 10

Mackie first argues that the problem of evil fundamentally undermines the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. (He omits the attribute of omniscience from his argument).
He supports his arguments by trying to come up with solutions, which then shows to be inadequate.
These fall into two categories ADEQUATE and FALLACIOUS solutions.

Question 11

Adequate solutions

Answer 11

• Adequate solutions essentially avoid the problem altogether e.g. by changing the definition of God through denying his omnipotence or by limiting the meaning of omnipotence.
• Other possible solutions include arguing that evil is an illusion, a privation of good or simply a misunderstanding on our part. What seems like evil to us might represent a ‘universal’ good.
• MACKIE ARGUES none of these adequate solutions are actually adequate at all. Those adopting these solutions are guilty of inconsistency.
• When they practice their religion in reality, they reassert the proposition that God is omnipotent.

Question 12

Fallacious solutions

Answer 12

• Fallacious solutions attempt to solve the problem while retaining the traditional definition of God e.g. by acknowledging that suffering exists but suggesting that it is a necessary element in human moral development or that it is necessary as a counterpart to good or that it is the result of human free will.
• MACKIE ARGUES while these theodicies explicitly say that they retain their belief in God’s goodness and omnipotence, they implicitly weaken these beliefs in order for their arguments to work; they skip between two different beliefs in order to cover up the fact that they are abandoning one of them.

Question 13

The paradox of omnipotence 1

Answer 13

• The paradox is whether an omnipotent being can create something he cannot control, a being with free will (if he can create something he can’t control he is not omnipotent)
• God’s power compared to parliamentary sovereignty. Mackie asks of the possibility for a parliament to make a law restricting its own legislative power. Similarly can an omnipotent being make rules that then bind them? Mackie argues these questions cannot be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’

Question 14

The paradox of omnipotence 2

Answer 14

• Considers whether an eternal God, one outside space and time, could solve the paradox of omnipotence. - He admits an eternal God could solve the paradox but with new paradoxes it is difficult to see how a being without a past, present or future could create anything.

Question 15

Mackie’s conclusion

Answer 15

• The problem of evil cannot be solved, none of the solutions are satisfactory.
• While he does address free will defence, he does not directly address theodicies rooted in Christian belief (as their interpretations of God and the Bible give specific answers to Mackie’s generalised conclusions.

Question 16

William Rowe

Answer 16

The evidential problem of Evil was put forward Mill and later developed by William Rowe (who abandoned his belief in God). Hume calls the problem of evil the ‘rock of atheism’ and Rowe himself talks about making an argument for atheism rather than solving the ‘evidential’ problem of evil.

Question 17

The evidential problem of evil THE EXAMPLE OF THE DYING FAWN

Answer 17

• One explanation for suffering and evil could be that God allows it to happen because to prevent it would stop a greater good from happening.
• Row gives the example ‘a forest fire starts from a lightning strike. A fawn is trapped in the fire, burned horribly, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death finally relieves its suffering’. He asks, what greater good could possibly be served by the intensity and length of the fawn’s suffering? The fawn was innocent, no lesson was learnt and the fire was started by NATURE.
• Since the fawns suffering is preventable and pointless, their exists instances of suffering that an omni-God could prevent without interfering with some greater good.
  ARGUMENT FROM PROBABILITY (no good reason why God permits evil)