issues Flashcards
issues list
is Augustine’s view of the origins of moral and natural evil enough to spare god from blame for the evil in the world?
can the need to create a vale of soul-making justify the existence or the extent of evils?
which of the logical or evidential aspects of the problem of evil pose the greatest challenge to belief?
is it possible to defend monotheism successfully in the face of evil?
is Augustine’s view of the origins of moral and natural evil enough to spare god from blame for the evil in the world?
main strength: never suggest that god in any way tolerates evils or wants to have a world with evil in it.
other theodicies suggest that evil Is not really that bad- brings good situations in the end
Augustine never allows the idea that God wants to have anything to do with evil.
however many agree that evil is just more than privatio boni
eg cruelty to a child/animal is much more powerful and harmful than just a lack of goodness of the tormentor
some Christian scientists take up this idea of non-reality evil. they try to explain evil as some kind of illusion: sin sickness and death would disappear if they were understood to be nothingless.
however it is hard to deny that pain cruelty and sickness really exist. even if they are ultimately illusions the illusions are real enough and hs real symptoms eg death from illness can’t be ignored.
Augustine’s views give us no explanation of why God gave some angels too little grace so that they fell into disobedience. even taking into consideration that variety is good there was no need for that variety to include some angels with so little willpower or goodness that they rebelled against god. the theodicy suggests that God didn’t think ahead. also, Augustine’s events don’t align with the bible.
even if we accept that evil is no more than a lack of perfection- doesn’t explain why god allowed this lack of perfection into the world in the first place.
its impossible to find a cause or a motive for the angels to sin unless they were created imperfect in the first place.
evil would have to come from nowhere unless god made it and if it did come from nowhere it raises serious issues regarding gods omnipotence and omnibenevolence
omniscience- if god knows everything in the sense that he can see into the future and knows what we will do then what did he create the world, knowing that we would use our free will and freely choose to sin? even if the choice was ours. god still made the choice to create the world knowing in advance what would happen and could be blamed for making that choice. did god not know what angels or people would do and can’t tell the future?
can the need to create a vale of soul-making justify the existence or the extent of evil?
one argument against irenaean view is that some people suffer a lot more than others.
does this mean that god wants some people to grow but doesn’t care about others? some people are unable to benefit from suffering but they still experience it.
animal suffering is hard to explain. the human soul is special and unique to humans and there no life after death for animals. many animals suffer when there are no people around to learn lessons by witnessing it.
some people seem to be made worse by their suffering- turn bitter lose faith become mentally ill
view of salvation- the same outcome of salvation for all would have happened without the sacrifice of Jesus which makes the whole gospel story appear superfluous and pointless. hick’s optimistic view that everyone will eventually freely come to god could be criticised- if turning to god is inevitable it also cant be free, we are only free if the options are genuine.
hick viewed that human freedom is so important that is it worth the price of natural and moral evil
the price we are expected to pay for our freedom of choice is just too high
hick has a consequentialist view- god uses unpleasant means but they are justified by the ends.
kant took a fundamental principle that humans shouldn’t be used as a means to an end
if hick is right then god allows suffering as a means to soul making where some people suffer so that others can learn
god doesn’t only allow evil and suffering but that he actually planned it to happen and worked it into his diesgn for the world before the world was even made,
only possible world involving suffering as well as freedom there is still no need for god to have created a world at all.
which of the logical or evidential aspects of the problem of evil pose the greatest challenge to belief?
logical- just explain it in full
evidential- relies on our experience of evil
god vs there is good and bad by chance
with the uniqueness of god leaves us without anything on which to base our calculations of probability
god infinite
us finite
is it possible to defend monotheism successfully in the face of evil?
some people argie tjat even if evil does provide a strong evidence against the existence of an omnipoentent omnibenevolent god there is still stronger evidence that such a god exist
overall more good than bad pushes probability of god
were not expected to understand its about faith
