Evidential Problem Of Evil Flashcards
Why does the Free Will Theodicy fail to explain natural evil
Falls short on explaining natural evil ( Indian Ocean Tsunami) - natural disasters contradict the assumption that all suffering is justifiable in a world governed by an omnibenevolent god as tectonic disasters aren’t influenced by human choices- thus shifting the blame to a divine entity that exists outside the material real to account for such disasters
Futile to worship a deity that isn’t both OMNIS
However: a believer would point towards Hick’s soul making theodicy= Christ like = all Enter heaven
Overall = numerous deaths caused by natural disasters to which people have no opportunity t develop morally = inadequate
Why does the free will theodicy fail to justify moral evil
Trivialises suffering of innocent people illustrated through evidential problem of evil
Explain evidential e.g. holocaust- belligerent cycle of torment which leads to no good outcome, paradox to OMNIlove
Synonymous Irving greenberg critique of FWT risks euphemising and undervaluing suffering of innocent people which labels evil to be a tragic and meaningless aspect of existence completely dismantling mother Julian’s ‘ all will be well’
However, st Augustine of hippo evil is privatio boniji , evil doesn’t exist in its own right just absence of good, evil and suffering continue to permeate his good world due to a deficit of moral goodness rather than a separate creation of moral goodness.
If I have time I can refute this further with process theology
Overall, former argument trivialises suffering of innocent people is strongest as it strips people dignity and humanity, implying that their pain is less meaningful
How does Mackie’s suggest that it doesn’t resolve the logical problem of evil
mackie= why wouldn’t god create a world where free will exists but evil is minimised without permitting large scale unjustified/ gratuitous suffering
Points towards a solution=omnipotent god should be able to create beings who are both free and always choose good, thus preserving free will and mora goodness
If god can’t do this reject both prongs of inconsistent trials, making it not viable
However, Plantinga genuine free will means real freedom to choose between good and evil. If makcies argument were true -choose good all the time it would be a result of divine manipulation not freedom= logically impossible to have free will if u r restricted to 1 choice
Overall= mackie stronger as why would god allow mass evil just to ensure the possibility of free will sounds long winded if there is a possibility to make humans choose good every time simple solution
Swinburnes principle of testimony
Doesn’t cohere with god’s ineffability as PoT requires people too explain their experiences w the mystical as in order to v edify that they had an RE they must articulate their experiences in order for the 3rd person to take that to be true
However, ottos concept of the numinous, where consciousness enters a sphere that goes beyond the domain of ethics into a phrase which he termed as the ‘wholly other’ characterises RE = ineffable
Confirmation of gods transcendency cuz gd is above and beyond human linguistics.
Labels human experiences to be Sui generis( unlike anything we know)
Which completely dismantles the very concept of Swinburnes PoT where people r forced to phrase their experiences of being under the influence of a divine power into words
