Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

RE AS level (Ahmed/Zulfiqar) > Evil + Suffering > Flashcards

Evil + Suffering Flashcards

1
Q

Define natural + moral evil:

A
  • Natural evil ~ Caused by natural state of things + what the world does to us.
    Example - Such as earthquakes, floods…

Obvious blame is given to God as its easy for an omnipotent (all loving) God tp control the force of nature. since christians believe God created the laws of nature

Bible ~ God uses natural evil to punish people
New testament ~ Jesus performed miracles from nature

  • Moral evil ~ Committed by humans + through human interaction
    Example - murder, adultery, rape… Auswitch (Adler)
  • Some moral evils can be natural evils or vice versa. > Tsaunami caused many flimsy homes destroyed, mainly poor people as they couldnt afford. Why do we allow people to live in poor conditions?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What did Augustine argue about evil?

A
  • He said evil doesnt even exist. Anything that does not have goodness in it, we call evil.
    Its the “privation of good”
  • Bhuddists argue suffering is simply a product of human mind, if we dealt with attachment + life better, we wouldnt get so upset. b
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the logical problem of evil:

A
  • Its a prioro deductive argument. (If the premises are true, then the conclusion has to follow, if the premises are proven wrong, the the whole thing is wrong)
  • Relates to Gods omnipotence (all powerful) + omnibenevolence (all loving)
  • Includes Epicurus’ inconsistant triad, where it means that not all of it can be true,
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Summarise Epicurus inconsistent triad:

A

1) God is omnipotent (all powerful)
2) God is omnibenevolent (all loving)
3) Evil exists

  • If he was all powerful, he could remove evil
  • If he was all loving, he would wish to remove evil but, it still exists
  • So why does evil still exists? And if he does exist then he is not all loving + powerful
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Solutions that deny 1 of the 3 statements:

A
  • Solution 1(denying Gods omnipotence) : The solution is simple, if hes not all powerful evil
    is beyond his control + he cannot be blamed.
    However, for most, if hes not all powerful, he
    wouldnt be God. (But this is matter of faith)
  • Solution 2 (denying Gods omnibenevolence) : For chrsitians, this would be unthinkable.
    God being all loving is the basis which
    supports those expweiencing evil, for the
    future hope of heaven.

Freud - Believes this is wish fulfillment, theres no all loving God, just a desire. However, neither are possible to show that they’re true.

  • Solution 3 (Denying evil exists) - Proposed by Augustine as evil is just a “privation of
    good. However, this is NOT an accepted solution, clearly
    evil exists.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Solutions who argue there is a reason wht God allows evil to exist:

A

1) Free will defence -

God has to allow evil in order to preserve free will. To bring about the “best goods”, we have to be free to choose. If God controlled evil, there would be no evil. so humans are morally responsible for moral evil.

2) Hicks eschatological solution -

Theology of death, judgment, heaven + hell. God has all the time to bring people to freely love the good. > eventually, everyone will reach heaven.
So evil is necessary to be part of the process by which we become fit for heaven.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the evidential problem of evil:

A
  • Focuses on the omniscience (all knowing) of God, he knows all about the suffering.
  • They are known facts about evil which are evidence against the existance of God:
    1) Evil which is overwhelming in quantity + quality
    2) Evil that is pointless because it serves no useful purpose
  • As God is all knowing, he knows all the evemts that will happen before he made the universe
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Using examples, Summarise evil thats overwhelming in quantity + quality:

A
  • Natural evil example: “The great dying” when 90% of marine species + 79% of land species disappeared, by series of natural disaster.

God is responsible for evolution of life on earth, which is governed by laws of nature, so why did God allow cruelty to animals, if cruelty to humans is a bad thing?

  • Moral evil example: Ivans example of a 5 year old girl hated + brutally abused by her parents.

The evil people suffer costs too much.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Using examples, summarise the evidence from pointless evil:

A
  • Rowes example of a dying fawn: Lightening strikes in a forest resulting in fire, a fawn is trapped in the fire + burns, laying in agony for a few days, when he eventually dies.

The agony he goes through is pointless, it suffers+ dies alone. No human knows about it + no good comes out of it. If God was omniscience then why all this pointless evil when he knew about it?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What does Ivan argue about suffering in relation to evil:

A
  • Concludes that God asks too much of a high price for promising heaven in the future. Its beyond the means for us to pay that much.
  • He wants no part in the joys of heaven, even if he turns out that he’s wrong about evil.
  • This applies to all types of evil.
  • Moral + Natural evil go hand in hand, evil is he direct cause of suffering
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Summarise arguments tha show evil,suffering is good:

A
  • Some suffering is good.
    for example : going to the dentist. The pain it causes you, actually brings out more goodness.

People can learn from their mistakes in all aspects of life + can be restored by suffering as it brings strength.

  • Suffering caused brings about some of the best feelings in human nature.
    for example : natural distasters take place, and many people around the world help donate

When someone is suffering, we symohasise, we feel compassion + empathy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Summarise the Free will defence:

A
  • Argues God has given humans control over their actionsin order to bring about greater goods.
  • Pain is stimulus of this, you can either develop positive qualities, or negative
  • Risk of pain is not something everyone opposes to,it can be exicting.
  • Those who defend the FWD have to prove 2 things: 1) its impossible to have FW, and not
    have moral evil.
                                                                                                           2) Results of having FW is worth the 
                                                                                                            price.
  • Mackies FW
    Mackies rejection of FW
    Platingas defence of FW
    Strengths + weaknesses of FW
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Summarise Mackies account of the FWD:

A
  • First order goods : Happiness + pleasure
    First order evil : Pain + misery
    If we comes across someone in pain/happy:
  • Second order goods/evil : Goods - Reduce misery by being sympathetic, loving…
    Evils - Make misery worse by being greedy, selfish,envy…
  • 2nd order goods > minimise 1st order evil + maximise first order goods
  • We therefore have a free choise to minimise/maximise love or evil.
  • Third order good : Freedom (allows us to choose which goods/evils to put in place)
  • God is justified in allowing evil as it gives us freedom to choose or reject the good.
    Teaches us to be morally responsible.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Summarise mackies rejection of the FWD:

A
  • What Mackie says:
    1) Logically possible for a person to make free, good choices all the time2) God couldve created humans who only made good choices
    3) God did not do so
                       Therefore:

1) Either God lacks the power to do so
2) God is not loving enough to do so
3) FWD fails
4) God does not exist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How atrong is Mackies argument against the FWD?

A
  • Platingas: Rejects Mackies argument as its impossible for God to create humans who
    make good choices all the time.
                     Even if someone wanted to lie, you couldn't
                as in a no evil world, evil thoughts dont exist

                God is powerful, and can do everything that is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Summarise Platingas defence of the FWD:

A
  • To disprove Mackies, Plantings has to do 2 things;

1) Show Mackies claim that God could’ve created humans so they always, freely choose
good, is logically impossible

2) Has to provide a logically possible reason to why God allowes evil. Doesn’t have to be
true reason, just logically possible.

  • Platingas claim that Hod allows evil to exist for 2 “Morally suffiecient reasons” (MSR), explains the logical problem of evil (MSR1) + explains natural evil (MSR2)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Summarise Platingas MSR1(logical problem):

A
  • Platinga implies the view of free will knowa as Libertarianism (humans have a degree of free will + held morally responsible for their actions

The view that casual determinism (view that every event is determined by previous events by laws of nature, so humans DONT have FW), is false

  • Libertarian FW is “morally significant) as it allows people to put Mackies 2nd order goods in place. This kind of freedom is best, as people are morally responsible for their decisions
18
Q

Summarise Plantingas 3 Possible worlds (PW) that God could’ve created :

A
  • PW1:
    a)God creates people with morally significant FW
    b)God does not casually determine people to choose whats right/wrong
    c)There is evil + suffering
    (Logically Possible)
  • PW2:
    a)God does not create people with FW
    b)God casually determines people in every situation
    c)There is NO evil + suffering
    (Logically possible)
  • PW3:
    a)God creates people with FW
    b)God casually determins people in every situation
    c)There is NO evil + suffering
    (Logically IMPOSSIBLE/Logically INCOMPATIBLE)
  • So, Platinga defeats Mackies claim that FWD is logically incosistent.
19
Q

Summarise Plantingas MSR2 (natural evil) :

A
  • God allowed natural evil as part of Adam + Eves punishment for their sin in the garden of Eden.
  • It is logically possible that natural evil is allowed by God because of human sin in the garden of Eden.
20
Q

Can the FWD account for Natural Evil?

A
  • Its caused by the forces of nature.
  • Often said that God has no excuse for allowing natural evil

FWD can to some extent account natural evil:

  • Gravity is main culprit of natural evils like earthquakes, falling from great heights,,,
  • If God was to stop all these accidents from happening, we would inevitably realise that something/someone is in control of the world
  • Nature has to be free to follow the lwas by which it works
  • Just as we have to be morally free to choose between good and evil, nature has to be free to work without intervening
21
Q

Strengths of the FWD:

A
  • Plantingas account of FWD shoes both MSR1 + 2 are logically possible, so Plantinga refutes Mackie
  • Platings is right to insist against Mackie, as its logically impossible for PW3 to exists. Even an all powerful God could not do the logically impossible
  • Often argues that FWD cannot explain natural evil since its not cause by human free will. Nevertheless, natural evil brings about 2nd order goods which is valued highly
22
Q

Weaknesses of the FWD:

A
  • In Platingas case, even though his MSR1 and 2 show that the FWD is logically rational, it doesnt show that its true, particularly his explanation of natural evil.
  • The FWD relies on a libertarian account of free will, this cannot be proved, but only assumed. Other philosophers/scientists hold a determinist view.
  • The FWD has no convincing response to the evidential problem of evil. Its very difficult to make relations with the sheer amount of evil, to God being all knowing.
23
Q

Summarise Hicks soul making theodicy:

A
  • Finds its roots in the philosophy of Irenaeus
  • God created an imperfect world to start with, which allows humans to freely develop into the “image of God”
  • The perfect world is something to look forward to in the future, something we will all create together.
  • Argues that Augustines theodicy is no longer acceptable.
  • Believes that the world is a place of soul making.
  • This relationship with God can only be achieved through each individual being free to choose between good + evil.
24
Q

Summarise why Hick disagrees with Augustines theodicy?

A
  • Points out the scientific, logical + moral flaws, such as natural evils existed long before the emergence of humans.
  • For him the Ireaneus’ ideas are better.
    Humans were created as imperfect beings, but have the capacity of being “children of God”.
  • Believes that the world is a place of soul making, not soul deciding (Augustine)
  • Augistine believes hell is a place of torment for people who reject christ.Whereas Hick, believes this would be unthinkable for a loving God, if hell was true, it would be the worst part of the problem of evil.
25
Q

Summarise Hicks metaphore of parents love as Gods love:

A
  • As children learn to love their parents throgh a free response to their parents care, thats how pur love develops with God.

God is described as our father, no father can force a child to love them.

-Just as parents create their kids biologically + develop their character, so does God, he waits for them to develop into the likeness of Christ.

Whats one difference between how children respond to parents + humans to god?

  • Whereas some children never learn to respond with their parents, eventually human race as a whole will respond to God + will be saved and enter heaven.

-

26
Q

Wha does Hick mean by the “Epistemic distance” from God?

A
  • Ths is a “distance of knowledge” between humans and god.
  • If humans knew that God existed, then their freedom would be lost, they’d do everything God would want them to do.
  • This means moral + natural has to exist in order for us to develop second order goods.
  • This gives us place for development, if evil was taken away then the effect would take away our development.
  • Therefore, evil is compatible with the exsistence of an omnipotent God.
27
Q

Why does Hick also reject Mackies argument of people always choosing good?

A
  • If God made people always choose good, then the response to God would no be authentic - it would be compelled.
  • Love cannot be forced otherwise the way to love god would be inauthentic. This then becomes worthless.’
28
Q

Summarise responses of Hick to 3 main objections of his theodicy:

A

A) His theodicy does not justify ANIMAL SUFFERING:

Response: Pain warns animals of danger, so pain has to exist

                      Animals have to exist and suffer to a degree thst we cannot explain

B) There are still POINTLESS EVILS in the world:

Response: If there were no irrational evils in the world, we would understand all forms of
evil, our epistemic distance would be lost.

                     Explaining all kind of suffering would leave us without faith + hope, but these
                     are important for our development

C) His theodicy does not justify the EXTENT OF EVIL:

Response: All evils are a matter of degree. If we remove one evil, the next to worst evils 
                       will seem the very worst

                       The more evil we remove, the less moral freedom + responsibility humans 
                        are left with, which defeats the reason for allowing evil to exist.
29
Q

Strengths of Hicks soul making theodicy:

A
  • He uses the view that we are at an epistmeic distance from God. This can be used to justify any form of evil. As the end (heaven is for all) justifes the means
  • His arguement that evil is important forsoul making is a strong argument. Its unrealistic that we can experience great goodness without also being exposed to great evils
  • His theodicy incorporates evolution as part of the 1st stage of human development, so the theodicy fits with scientefic evidence of the origin of human race.
30
Q

Weaknesses of Hicks soul making theodicy:’

A
  • Hicks comments concerning animal pain are strange. The appeal to the epistemic distance to justify animal suffering fails, as theres no benefit to animals themseleves
  • The theodicy fails to to justify the means. Suffering of animals + humans is not justifed through thr promise of evil. Is God justified in allowing evil without the consent of those on whom its done to?
  • Many Christians reject Hicks theodicy because it doesnt match some christians teachings.

For example: If all humans are being saved, what was the point of Jesus’ crucifixion?

31
Q

Summarise Griffins Process Theology:

A
  • Was more in line with the thinking of Hebrew scholars
  • Process thought claims that God did NOT create “ex nihilo” (from nothing), but rather crafted the world from PRE - EXISTANT matter which is why its flawed
  • Gods role ~ to develop what was already there , by “persuading” into a state of greater complexity.

Example: Evolution of life was one aspect of the persuasion

  • Griffin REJECTED Gods omnipotence as if it was “creation out of chaos”, then the chaotic materials had some power beforehand.
  • According to Griffin, the chaotic materials have 2 TYPES OF POWER;:
                             1) Power they partially determine themselves
                         2) Power they can influence eachother
32
Q

Summarise Griffins rules on how to/not to develop a theodicy:

A

1) - We can’t believe any doctrine, jusy because what is says is not logically impossible.
We should seek the most reality we can find

2) - Any revealed theology must be abandoned if it does not make sense. (should abandon thought of Gods creation out of nothing)
3) - We should ACCEPT commonly accepted ideas about our existance.

      Example: Most people accept evil is real, so should we then

4) - The Bible, nor the Church, bor any Tradition, can guarantee the truth of any Christian doctrine

33
Q

In what ways does God + the Universe exist?

A
  • They exists necessarily, panethestically + eternally
  • Griffin claims that it does not make sense to thinl of God as a trannscendent (God is above + beyond space) being.
  • Its more sensible to say God + the Universe exist necessarily + panaetheistically (view that all is in God).
  • So, God + a world exist necessarily. Just as humans have embodied minds, God is as the soul of the universe.
  • Believes that God + the universe are eternal (exist without beginning or end)
  • God is not transcendent + cannot intervene to eliminate evil

Bible shows many times God intervened to eliminate natural + moral evil, so why cant he eliminate it as a whole?

  • The answers do not make sense for Grffin, such as the FWD, they all lead back to evidential problem of evil.Why did God create a universe if so much evil would come from it?
34
Q

Summarise Grffins Process view:

A
  • God created universe from pre chaotic matter
  • They both exist necessarily + panesthetically (God is soul of universe)
  • God cannot control physical aspect, just as human cannot control the working body. So God is not omnipotent
  • Over periods of time, God can persuade chaotic matter into organised form (electrons..)
  • Gods “creation” amounts to drive forward increasing comlexity in matter. Such as Big bang, creating us,,
  • Nowhere in this process does the idea of direct/miraculous intervensions arise
  • the evidential problem of evil therefore does not arise, God cannot intervene to eliminate evil
  • All there is, is a long process of divine persuasion.
35
Q

Why did God persuade matter towards complexity?

A
  • Increasing complexity gives a rise to increased richness of experience, which brings possibility of enjoyment
36
Q

So where did evil come from?

A
  • Janus was roman God of begginnings + endings
  • He therefore is seen as having 2 opposing faces: looking at the past + the future
  • Evil arose as increased complexity has 2 Faces:
                   ~ Brings increased capacity of enjoyment
               ~ Brings increased capacity of suffering
  • This relationship is mataphysically necessary, built into the nature of things.
37
Q

So why did God start evolution, which led to so much evil?

A
  • Gods idea was to produce good, not avoid suffering
  • Human parents have kids, desoite the suffering it might cause. If God prevented things from going wrong, the world would not have any significant valur in it
  • For God to not have brought about good, would’ve been evil.
  • God shares all our suffering, As god is “the fellow sufferer who undertsand
38
Q

Why does God not at least prevent some natural evils?

A
  • Griffin says, the entities that cause naturl evils (molecules, electrons…) are very hard for agod to affect + take a very long time.
  • So any chnages in them are very slow
39
Q

Strengths of Griffins process Theology:

A
  • Griffin has a sense of realism of what God can and cannot do. His argument of God is not omnipotent is seen as a realistic amswer to the problem of evil
  • The discovery through quantum mechanics, that at reality it is a chaotic process of flux + change, gives support to Griffin that Gods creation of universe was from pre chaotic matter
  • the fact that God suffers because he contains the entire sensory experience of the universe, means believers who suffer know that God undertsands.
40
Q

Weaknesses of Grffins Process Theology:

A
  • Gods lack of omnipotence can be seen as a strenght. Although the process God is powerful, for many his lack of omnipotence makes him not worthy of worship
  • Even if process God is not omnipotent, at the point he saw that his persuasion of the universe into greater levels of complexity was equally bringing bigger amount of evils, then why did God start a process he could not control?
  • process theology admits there is a risk in Gods strategy. if the element of risk is so great + victory against evil is not guaranteed, then why do we have to carry on the fight against evil?

RE AS level (Ahmed/Zulfiqar) (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions