Evolution, Sin, and the Problem of Evil Flashcards
The problem of evil
The existence of evil and suffering challenge the following divine attributes:
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Perfect Goodness
Two categories of evil
Natural Evil - dependent on humans
Moral Evil - independent of humans
Two problems of evil
The Logical Problem
The Evidential Problem
Ayer
The Inconsistent Triad
The Logical Problem
P1. God is omniscient
P2. God is omnipotent
P3. God is perfectly good
P4. An omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good being has knowledge of all instances of evil, the power to stop evil, and the desire to stop evil
C1. If God exists, God will stop evil. (From P1, P2, P3, and P4)
P5. Evil exists
C2. God does not exist. (From C1 and P5)
The Evidential Problem
The evidential argument is an inductive argument
It uses some, or all, of the following as evidence in favour of the atheist position:
Particular instances of evil and suffering
Particular distributions of evil and suffering
The sheer amount of evil and suffering
(just look!)
Evolution - violence
Evolution is often portrayed as a process full of randomness and brutality, where survival is driven by chance rather than design, leading to suffering and waste in nature
The evolutionary process includes catastrophic events and high mortality rates, challenging the idea of a benevolent or purposeful force behind life.
Evolution - unpredictability
The unpredictability and wastefulness of evolution suggest a vision of the natural world that conflicts with the idea of a perfect, omnipotent deity governing it
Evolutionary processes involve ‘random’ mutations and natural selection, which produce vast quantities of non-moral suffering.
Evolution - traits
Evolutionary theory suggests that humans are predisposed to both altruism and aggression, as traits that have been advantageous in survival
Charles Darwin
‘What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel work of nature!’
David Hull (1992) Nature
‘The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray’
Tennyson, In Memoriam
‘Nature red in tooth and claw’
David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Critiques the teleological argument, citing the ‘great misery’ in nature as incompatible with divine design
Ichneumonidæ
It lays its eggs within a host
Larvae then feed of their living host until they are strong enough to fly away, in search of hosts of their own to repeat the same cycle
Ichneumonidæ - Darwin
‘I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars’
Robert John Russell
NIODA - Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action
God does not have to break the laws of nature to enact changes to the physical world
If there is a range of possible outcomes, God can select an outcome God has – chosen the outcome from among the quantum mechanically allowed options
Quantum Mechanics can be interpreted theologically
Genetic mutations are central drivers of evolutionary change so this shows how God could act in the evolutionary process to direct the process in real-time via determining the outcome of quantum events causing genetic mutation
Quantum effects are relevant, due to bottom-up causality
Divine action is always present in quantum events, where God intentionally actualises states promoting life
NIODA - issues
Emily Qureshi-Hurst - NIODA makes God directly responsible for harmful genetic mutations
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), seven of the top ten global causes of death are linked to genetic factors
Evolution - benefits
The randomness of evolution might alleviate God of some responsibility under a free will defence BUT he still has to guide creation so this does not work
Pelican chick
Two chicks are born, but only one is raised to adulthood
The second chick is an ‘insurance policy’
When the first chick is deemed strong enough to survive, the second chick is either starved by the parents or pushed out of the nest by its sibling
Why traditional solutions fail (3)
The Free Will Defence - Only works for moral evil, and cannot apply to an era before human beings evolved. Inequality of suffering.
Evil is a Result of the Fall - Evolutionary suffering vastly pre-dates the emergence of humans, and is incompatible with a historical Fall like that in Genesis 1-3
Soul-Making Theodicy - Requires the controversial claim that animals have souls
Possible solutions (4)
The Devil is responsible
This is the best possible way
God co-suffers with us
Eschatological redemption
C. S. Lewis
‘It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or, at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene…If there is such a power, as I myself believe, it may well have corrupted the animal creation before man appeared’
Christopher Southgate
‘Theologically we may posit that the frustration of the creature, be it of the insurance pelican chick, or the sheep parasitized by the worm Redia… is received by the Son through the brooding immanence of the Spirit, and uttered in that Spirit as a song of lament to the Father. All that the frustrated creature suffers, and all it might have been but for frustration, is retained in the memory of the Trinity’
Nicola Hoggard Creegan
‘God does not sit in heaven like a despotic demigod willing evil on animals. God rather wills power and strength and good predator skills and intelligence and complexity and beauty, and along the way animals suffer - but so does God with and within them.’
Collosians 1:20
‘And through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross’
Presents Christ’s work as cosmic in scope – reconciling ‘all things,’ not just human souls
Co-suffering
It means that suffering is not meaningless or abandoned; instead, it is shared by God, offering comfort, purpose, and the hope of eventual healing and restoration
Why animals in heaven is a problem?
A rabbit’s heaven does not have foxes in it
Part of an animals nature is its desire to eat/hunt/chase
Eschatological Redemption
Some theologians argue Romans suggests all creation, including animals, will be redeemed
Traditional doctrines focused on human souls, but modern theology increasingly includes animals
Christ’s resurrection is seen by some as the beginning of cosmic, not just human, renewal
Bethany Sollereder
‘Without redemption, without the completion of God’s work, creation stands without coherence: the story remains unfinished. Nor can the suffering of creation fund final resolution without redemption’
Elizabeth Johnson, Ask the Beasts
Argues for a fully inclusive eschatology in which non-human life shares in God’s final purposes
Romans 8:22-23
‘We know that the whole creation has been groaning together as it suffers together the pains of labor and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.’
Includes animals but emphasis on the ‘but’
