Evil and Suffering Flashcards
natural evil
give an example and a Biblical example
any suffering brought about as a consequence of events outside the control of free will agents
e.g. earthquakes
Old Testament - flooding of Red Sea
moral evil
any suffering brought about through the actions of a free will agent
e.g murder
who created the logical problem of evil
Epicurus - 3rd century
God wants to abolish evil and can’t or he can but does not want to. If God can or wants to why is it here
who reinvented the logical problem
J L Mackie - 20th
the inconsistent Triad
tries to resolve the questions about Paradox
what are the 3 points on inconsistent Triad?
- God is not omnipotent - loves world but can’t prevent evil
- God is not benevolent - has power but does not want to
- evil does not exist - problem is our intrepation of our experience
how does the inconsistent Triad rest on assumption -2
- assumes God were omnipotent and benevolent he would therefore remove evil but evolved may serve some higher purpose.
- Aquinas what we assume to be good may not be what we understand as good - Like God, relent to time and culture which changes
who created the evidential argument - 3
- William Rowe
- argument based on evidence of the kinds of evils and amount of them
- argument based on unjustified evil , as not all suffering is pointless
what is Rowes argument - 3
- exist instances of intense suffering which are omnipotent being could of prevented without losing some greater good
- an omniscient wholly being would prevent intense suffering unless it could not without losing some greater good
- concludes doesn’t exist an omnipotent omniscient wholly good being
what does Dostoyevsky say and which argument doe sit apply to
‘better for God to have created no world than this one’ - evidential
what is Rowes example
fawn - pointless suffering
what are some links between suffering and evil - 3
- suffering is caused by evil
- Rowe accepts some suffering is good
- Dostoyevsky ‘I most respectfully return my ticket’
determinism
no free will at all
compatibilist view of freedom
freedom and determinism compatible
we are free to do what we want but what we want would be determined
non compatiblst view of freedom
free will and determinism not compatible - God could not given us a nature which ensures that we always did what was good
what is the free will defence
gift of free will - gives permission to do evil and ability to opportunity to do evil
who were the 3 main people in the free will defence
augustine, plantinga and Swinburne
what was augustines 2 major assumptions
- evil didn’t come from God
- evil came from misuse of free will
who does plantinga attack and what’s his argument
Mackie
tries to show Gods existence is not logical impossible in face of existence of evil
1, things can be logically absurd GoD IS ABLE TO DO LOGICALLY POSSIBLE THINGS. could not create a world were people choice good
2. a world with free people is better than no free creatures
3. moral good is only possible if there is also moral evil
what are swinburnes 3 points about free will defence
- response to holocaust - less freedom humans get to bring about large scale horrors
God would be like overprotective parent - death is essential life is limited bring about genuine actions
- must be accountability to actions
critiques of free will defence
- without freewill would be robots - evil worth price
- free will theodicy only address moral evil not natural
- how convincing is it in justifying evil as an acceptable price for our freedom
what was Griffins argument
process theodicy
who was Griffin influenced by
AN whitehead on quantum machinanics
constant change - God being process growing and changing
church teachings can only be accepted on common experience
How does Griffin reject the traditional christian view
- genesis is mistranslated the world was created from nothing. should be understood as God bringing order out of pre existences
- God can’t be said to be in full control of universe
what does Griffin conclude
- God can’t control the workings of physical universe
- God is powerful but not omnipotent
- God’s role persuade matter into greater complexity and order more complex more enjoyable
- The complexity is a gradual process - God can’t interfere God has no power in this scene.
- God suffers with us
how does process theodicy implicate the problem of evil and suffering for faith - 1
- official teaching of catholics
strength of process theodicy - 4
- Gods lack of omnipotence avoids issue of why God doesn’t intervene
- God as fellow sufferer provides comfort
- Justifies God and evil and suffering co - existing on basis of God willing increasing complexity
- based on quatum machinancs making it fit with science
weakness of process theodicy - 3
- Theists reject as making God weaker and unworthy of worship
- doesn’t address why God would will increasing levels of suffering which could get worse
- majority scientists reject idea of eternal universe
who created soul making theodicy
Hick
what is epistemic distance
a distance between God and humans
what does Hick bier for his theodicy
God created an imperfect world deliberately
Adam and Eve imperfect from start
parent who doesn’t shield child
what was Irenaeus argument and where did it come from
intrepation of Gensis 1
the prescence of evil was a deliberate action of an omnibenevolent God who wanted his creation to develop spiritual perfection.
what is moral evil
give qualitlites of second order goods
Give Leibnizs quote
first order evil ( misery)-> second order good.
First order evil (pain) -> first order good
when humans mistreat their free will
courage, generosity are second order goods
best of all possible worlds
misery into hope
pian into pleasure
what are second order goods?
universe is better with some evil rather than no evil
come from first order evils
hicks response to objections - 3
- It does not justify animal suffering.
Response: Animals have no fear of death but experience pain to warn of danger and survive. - There are still pointless evils in the world.
Response: Certain evils must remain a mystery to maintain epistemic distance/ freedom. Being able to explain all evils would leave us without faith or hope. - It does not justify the extent of evil in the world.
wat is plantingas response to hicks
illogical to argue that humans could have been created to always choose good
free will can’t account for natural evil which he links to fall in genesis 3
what is Mackie oppion on hick
rejects
he understood second order goods come from first order evils but second order evils are also important
third order goods give us chance to prove
Concludes God doesn’t exist as God could give free will to choice good if he was omnipotent
strengths for Hick - 4
- purpose for suffering
- compatable with science
- accessable to all through analogy
- maintains belief in life after death - rewarded
weaknesses for hick - 3
- intense suffering is soul breaking
- concept of heaven for all seems unjust
- Hick accepts evolution so how can he differ between human and animal suffering
