Evil and Suffering Flashcards
1
Q
What is the Epicurean Paradox?
(3) And who came up with it?
A
- Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot (he is impotent)
- Or he can, but does not want to (he is wicked)
- If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
Epicurus 3rd Century BCE
2
Q
What is the Logical Problem of Evil?
(3) And who came up with it?
A
The Inconsistent Triad
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omnibenevolent
3. Evil exists
J L Mackie 20th Century
3
Q
What is the Paradox of Omnipotence?
(4) And who came up with it?
A
- Any theodicy claims to safeguard God’s omnipotence but in fact diminishes his power.
- He asks ‘Can an omnipotent God make things he cannot subsequently control?
- Or can an omnipotent being make rules which then bind himself?’
- This reveals a paradox regarding God’s omnipotence
J L Mackie 20th Century
4
Q
What is a response to the Epicurian Paradox?
(4) And who came up with it?
A
- What we consider to be good may not be what God understands goodness to be
- Our understanding is relative to time and culture which is both finite and constantly changes.
- God is immutable (unchanging) and infinite (outside restrictions of space and time)
- It may be possible that there is no logical contradiction within the ‘inconsistent triad’.
St Thomas Aquinas 13th Century
5
Q
What is the evidential problem of evil?
(4) Who came up with it?
A
- The logical argument fails, having been defeated by the Free Will Defence
- It would be reasonable for God to allow some limited suffering to enable humans to grow and develop.
- The “evidential” argument against the existence of God is based on the evidence of the kinds of evils and the amount of them.
- Intense human and animal suffering is “a clear case of evil”, but his argument is about “unjustified evil”
William Rowe 20th Century
6
Q
What is the Argument derived from the “evidential problem” of evil
(3) Who came up with it?
A
- There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
- An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
- Therefore, one must conclude there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
William Rowe 20th Century
7
Q
Examples of intense and extreme instances of suffering
(2) What argument is this for?
A
- Natural evil: It is estimated that a total of 227,898 people died in the Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004.
- Moral evil: In ‘The brothers Karamazov’ (1880) Dostoyevsky has his main character Ivan, list appalling, detailed atrocities done by humans to innocent children, concluding ‘better for God to have created no world than this one’.
Evidential problem of evil
8
Q
Example of Pointless suffering
(4) Which argument is this for?
A
- A fawn is in a forest that is distant from humans and lightning strikes the forest, which in turn starts a forest fire. The fire badly burns the baby deer which lies in terrible agony for a few days until it finally dies.
- As far as humans can tell, this evil of the fawn suffering is pointless.
- We cannot “prove” premise 1, but it is rational, or reasonable, to believe that it is true
- Rowe argues “The idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing a greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad seems an extraordinarily absurd idea, quite beyond our belief.”
Evidential problem of evil
9
Q
What is the link between suffering and evil
(4)
A
- Suffering is caused by evil, whether natural or moral.
- Typical church response is that suffering will be recompensed in heaven
- Others say this makes it seem as though suffering in this life does not matter e.g. Auschwitz, Brothers Karamazov
- Implies that God remains uninvolved
10
Q
What is Augustine’s Free Will Defence?
(4) When was this?
A
- Evil didn’t come from God. God’s creation was faultless and perfect
- Evil came about through the misuse of free will, therefore, God is not responsible for evil (a privation of good) and is justified in allowing it to stay.
- Original theodicy argued that suffering is our fault and a punishment for sin - revised interpretations insist it is for the greater good, allowing humans to develop valuable qualities
- Soul deciding theodicy
4th Century
11
Q
What is Plantinga’s Free Will Theodicy?
(5)
A
- When we talk about God’s omnipotence we do not mean that he can do absolutely anything
- God’s omnipotence means that God is able to do all things that are logically possible for him to do.
- Thus, God could not create a world with morally free creatures who will always choose to do good.
- This juxtaposes free will and determinism which is paradoxical..
- Moral good is only possible if there is also moral evil, therefore it must exist.
12
Q
What does Swinburne add to the Free Will defence?
(6)
A
- The less God allows humans to bring about large-scale horrors, the less freedom and responsibility he gives them.
- This would result in a world where things matter, but not very much; the real choices remain God’s. To intervene, to prevent large-scale horrors, would compromise true freedom.
- Death. Despite the suffering it causes, death is essential to the freewill theodicy because life is very definitely limited. Only with a limited lifespan can we have genuine responsibility for our actions. We know that we can bring about genuine good and genuine evil by our actions.
- ‘A situation of temptation with infinite chances is no situation of temptation at all. If there is always another chance, there is no risk.’
- There would not be over-riding reasons not to do a bad act, if you are always preserved from its consequences. If you cannot damn yourself no matter how hard you try, your salvation will be inevitable.
- A God who wishes that all humans shall be saved is a Being of dubious moral status.’
13
Q
Define
Determinism
Supports Free Will Theodicy?
A
We have no free will at all
Freewill theodicy fails
14
Q
Define
Compatibilist Freedom
(2) Supports Freewill theodicy?
A
- Determinism and freewill are compatible ideas. A human being can do what he/she wants to do even though this is determined by background factors
- We would be free to do what we wanted but what we wanted would be determined
Freewill theodicy fails
15
Q
Define
Non-compatibilist freedom
(3) Supports Freewill theodicy?
A
- Liberty of indifference
- Freewill and determinism are not compatible ideas.
- Whilst we may be influenced in various ways (nature / nurture) we are NOT wholly determined and can genuinely choose X or Y. This is our experience of life.
Freewill theodicy succeeds
