Problem Of Evil Flashcards
Mackies formulation of logical problem of evil
A good thing always eliminates evil as FAR AS IT CAN
There is not limit to what an omnipotent thing can do
The existence of evil alongside an OMNI God entails logical contradiction
Evil exists
God isnt omni/doesn’t exist
Evidential POE - William rowe
Inductive
‘Problem of evil’
Sheer quantity and quality of evil in existence lowers the probability of omni God existing
Plantingas response to Mackies formulation of the logical problem of evil
‘God and other minds’
Says that Mackies premise one “eliminates evil as far as it can” fails to disprove logical PoE
Physician analogy: ‘doesn’t forfeit his claim on moral excellence in failing to do so’ . If a physician doesn’t remove the pain in ur leg (evil) by removing your leg (worse evil) it doesnt mean he isn’t moral
God will allow certain evils to avoid eliminating a greater good therefore first premise is wrong
Formulation of evidential POE
- Omni God would only allow minimum amount of evil to achieve greater good
2: quantity and quality of evil is more than the requirement for (1)
3: omni God doesnt probably exist
Plantingas defence of the free will defence
‘Nature of necessity’
Says that Gods omnipotence is logically limited, cannot create square circle
FWD: free will depends on libertarian concept of free will: alternate possibilities,
- he argues that God should just create a world with limited possibilities where all beings can ‘freely choose the good’
- certain possibilities would be removed from the agents realm of choice, therefore the agent can choose a possibility and be refrained from doing so
Natural evil: FWD Plantinga
2 points
1: natural evil can be accounted for as a 1st order evil like pain, might be necessary precondition for higher order goods.
For example without things like fires, we wouldn’t have firefighters to demonstrate higher order goods
2: natural evil may be free actions of satan and fallen angels it would be a form of moral evil in this case, and would be justified from God to permit it to allow free will
These arguments dont have to be convincing just not a logical contradiction; allowing evil to exist alongside god
Stephen Wykstra - argument against Rowes formulation of evidential problem
Condition of ReasoNable Epistemic Access
- undermines the evidential value pointless evil examples.
- it is unreasonable make inference from only the appearance of pointless evil.
- Rowes point of pointless evil is therefore invalid and and unreasonable
SKEPTICAL THEISM: we must be skeptical about how much we know about WHY God does what he wants.
Parent analogy: gap between human and God intellectual is massive
Origins of the FWD - John Mackie
Augustinian theodicy - born perfect and evil=misuse of free will
Mackies account of the FWD
- first order goods/evils = pleasure and pain
- second are sympathy/cruelty.
The second are more valuable when freely chosen
“It is better than men act freely” rather than be “innocent automata”
Freedom is therefore the third order good , and first and second order evils are necessary without elimination for the greatest good of free will.
Mackies rejection of FWD
“Query assumption that evils…are necessary accompaniments of freedom”
“Freely choose the good”
“Inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good”
Basically just give men free will to always choose the good
Three strengths of the FWD
- diffuses the logical problem of evil
- Plantinga says the FWD preserves gods omnipotence (that is only within the realms of logic), as it would be illogical to eliminate evil in a world where humans possess free will
- appeals to the 2.3 Christian’s in the world, Augustinian theory, biblical pov on evil.
Four cons of the FWD.
- may diffuse the logical POE, but not the evidential POE. God could’ve permitted much less suffering without eliminating free will
- Free will is not justified for the suffering (pointless suffering : Rowes two cases).
Dostoyevsky - “the poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture” “i return the ticket” - relies on a libertarian concept of free will, which is rejected in favour of hard determinism
- doesn’t answer reason for natural evil, especially animal suffering as Christian’s and christian theologians dont think animals possess free will : Aquinas (ST): “To kill a mans ox is theft”
Soul making theodicy - John Hick origins
Iraneun theodicy
Created imperfectly
John hicks soul making theodicy
(Evil and the God of love)
- based of Iraneun theodicy because hick said there is more promise in it as it allows us to develop and aligns with Christian theory about salvation
“Man as still in a process of creation”
1: two stage creation distinction between ”image” and “likeness”
Genesis 26: let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
The two stages offer more promise theologically and accord with scientific understanding of development of life.
2: soul making
Capacity for free will and evil allows genuine spiritual growth, the process which he calls: soul making “good in a richer more valuable sense ” because it it a process and takes effort and time
3: vale of soul making- the world is an arena for the development of humans into the likeness of God with epistemic distance in order to not easily acquire knowledge of creator
- seems to function autonomously
- seems to develop thorugh natural gradual processes
-law governed
4: universal salvation
In the cases of Rowes sue and Bambi where they can’t develop or anything soul making continues in afterlife
‘Eventual outworking of that purpose ’
Three strengths of soul making theodicy
- takes positive optimistic outlook on human existence
- embraces two stage creation genesis 26 which aligns with human evolution concepts
- provides convincing explanatio for natural evil as a necessary vessel from the vale of soul making
