evil and suffering

Question 1

natural evil vs moral evil

Answer 1

natural evil: pain and suffering caused by natural processes

moral evil: evil caused by human choice

Question 2

the inconsistent triad

Answer 2

-god is omnipotent
-god is omnibenvllent
-evil exists???

Question 3

context behind FWD

Answer 3

-St Augustine’s understanding of evil and sin puts FWD in context

-Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate forbidden fruit and were cast out of Eden

-This misuse of FW unbalanced the harmony of Gods creation and led to the privation of the goodness in the world that we call evil

-also influences philosophers like Platinga and Swinburne

Question 4

FWD

Answer 4

-theodicy that claims evil and suffering is the inevitable consequence of human FW

-human FW and it’s consequences are worth the sacrifice of the evil and suffering that comes with it

-central to FWD is Leibniz claim that ‘this is the best of all possible worlds’

Question 5

Alvin Plantiga on FWD

Answer 5

-claims there are 3 world options

WORLD 1: world as it is. human FW and no casual determination and therefore wide spread evil and suffering

WORLD 2: no human FW with God causing everyone to do good all the time

WORLD 3: human FW exists but everyone’s chooses to do good all the time (Mackie argues that this is not possible)

Question 6

Richard Swinburne on FWD

Answer 6

-argues god cannot intervene even when such moral evil occurs as the death of 6 million jews as such intervention would compromise human FW.

-natural evil makes our decisions and lives more meaningful as we have to make them in the context of suffering that we must endure

-a world without evil (therefore FW) is a ‘toy world’ one void of meaning

Question 7

FWD strengths

Answer 7

-Plantinga shows FWD is logically possible in terms of natural and moral evil

• FWD accounts for natural evil as it presents human beings the opportunity to develop second order goods

-A toy world would be meaningless (Swinburne)

-resents a compatibillist account of FW

Question 8

FWD weaknesses

Answer 8

-logically possibility doesn’t make it true

-account of natural evil rests on outdated biblically interpretation of the fall

-evidential problem of evil?

-do we even have FW? (sam harris)

Question 9

first-order goods vs second-order goods vs third-order goods vs fourth-order good

Answer 9

first-order good= a good at the basic level of human experience (delicious meal or breaking leg)

second-order good= more valuable and significant than first-order goods (compassion or cruelty)

third-order good= FW allows humans to choose between these two things

fourth-order good= god creates humans with FW which teaches us to be morally responsible

Question 10

john hicks-soul making theodicy key points

Answer 10

•humans are the high point of evolution

•the word is a ‘vale of soul-making’ (john keats phrase) world is geared to enable spiritual growth

•god set epistemic distance between himself and humanity
to allow humans to choose to have a relationship with god

•sin is inevitable, it is failure to live in right relationship with god

Question 11

soul-making theodicy context, four key influences:

Answer 11

-his rejection of the widely accepted augustinian soul-deciding theodicy (as outdated and theologically unsatisfactory)

-wished to apply modern scientific, theological and philosophical insight

-the need to respond to the challenges of atheism (eg that of mackie)

-his religious convictions that arose out of personal experience

Question 12

soul making and universalism

Answer 12

the belief that ultimately all humans will enjoy eternity with god eg ‘go to heaven’

Question 13

mackie on FWD

Answer 13

set out his example of FWD in under to disprove it, his example is one of clearest and most compelling examples of FWD.

his rejection of it was opposed famously by theologian alvin plantinga

Question 14

FWD rejections (mackie)

Answer 14

-logically possible for someone to freely choose good at every point of choice

-theodore god could have made people so they have true free choice yet always choose good

-he didn’t do so, so he
•lacks power
•lacks love
•does not exist

Question 15

FWD defense (plantinga)

Answer 15

-3 possible worlds

-only 1st is logically possible and not robotic

-natural evil, punishment for the fall, god created/allowed natural evil because of human sin in eden

Question 16

soul-making objections

Answer 16

-doesn’t address issue of animal suffering as they can’t develop spiritually

-concept of epistemic distance does not resolve problem of purposeless evil

-theodicy does not justify the very worst of evils

Question 17

hicks response to objections

Answer 17

-pain needed to warn animals of danger

-purposeless evil has to remain a mystery so epidemic distance isn’t lost, we don’t know god exists so can freely choose relationship with him

-if worst evils are removed next evils would become the worst

Question 18

strengths of soul-making theodicy

Answer 18

-theodicy fits with current scientific thinking on evolution

-idea of epistemic distance justifies all kinds of evil and its extent, since final goal of heaven for us all justifies the means

-claim that the concept of eternal damnation in hell is a defeat for the love of god makes sense

Question 19

soul-making theodicy weaknesses

Answer 19

-if humans are evolved animals how is it that they are in the image of god?

-hicks justification of animal suffering is weak, the end doesn’t justify the means, heaven doesn’t make the suffering justified

-if all are ultimately saved, god is ultimately overriding human freedom

Question 20

process theology context

Answer 20

-arose twentieth-century by David Ray Griffin

-an attempt to take into account the insights of quantum mechanics

-this led to rejection of a number of traditionally held christian beliefs e.g
•ex nihilo
•concepts of god omnipotence
•so-called truths of bible

Question 21

process theodicy key points

Answer 21

•god and universe both have necessary, panentheistic and external existence

•god can’t control his body (the universe), he persuaded the universe into ever-increasing complexity and order

•god is responsible but not culpable for having sparked off evolutionary process that resulted in so much suffering, god shares our suffering

Question 22

process theodicy strengths

Answer 22

-fits in with current scientific knowledge and with biblical criticism

-god as fellow sufferer because entire sensory experience of universe is ‘in’ him means those who suffer have assurance that god understands what they are going through

-rejection of gods omnipotence means there is no conflict between the existence of an all-loving god and the reality of evil

Question 23

process theodicy weaknesses

Answer 23

-some theists claim that we cannot be sure of the cotrrrvt translation and interpretation of genesis 1:1

-doesn’t apply to animals who suffer just as much

-such cod is unworthy of worship

-idea of objective immorality is deeply dissatisfying and unsatisfactory for many theists