problem of evil Flashcards
philosophy
how to define evil
profoundly immoral and wicked
logical problem of evil definition brief
a priori, deductive, evil & classical god cant exist together
evidential problem of evil definition brief
a posteriori, inductive, evidence of evil in the world makes belief in god unjustified
strengths x3 of logical problem of evil
- empirical evidence of evil, existence of widespread suffering in world is observable and undeniable. empirical basis = hard to dismiss
- clear contradiction in the inconsistent triad (epicurean hypothesis) makes it seem some attributes are false
- follows deductive reasoning
weaknesses of the logical problem of evil
- free will defence. god allows evil because its a consequence of granting humans free will
- “greater goods” argument - posits god allows evil to exist because it leads to greater goods (virtues like compassion, courage) = moral growth
-WP Alston - we cannot unstand god because human perspective is limited. we cant see full picture.
- Plantinga - god chooses to limit himself to allow free will.
WP Alston critique of the logical problem of evil
we cannot understand god because human perspective is limited, we cant see full picture
Plantinga critique of logical problem of evil
god chooses to limit himself to allow free will
Mill’s argument on the problem of evil
cruelty observed in the natural world contradicts the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent deity.
what supports mill’s problem of evil
darwin- Ichneumonidae wasps
nature is “not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent”
2 arguments against mill’s theory for problem of evil
- irenean theodicy, suffering in nature promoted spiritual growth. suffering can bring out the best in people => developmental + part of god’s plan
-free will and natural laws, suffering is a necessary result of genuine freedom
who are the main scholars on LPOE
JL Mackie
Epicureas
Hume
main aspects of the LPOE
- deductive
- a priori
- inconsistent triad (epicurean hypothesis)
- natural and moral evil
scholars for EPOE
JS Mill
William Rowe
Gregory S Paul
why did Rowe reject LPOE
- he recognised there are grounds on which the premises could be challenged and therefore as a deductive argument, it fails.
only “pointless and unecessary suffering” that “occurs daily and in great plentitude” counts against a god
what are the variables for EPOE
- magnitude
- duration
- distribution
= quality of evil
Rowe’s two examples of “pointless and unecessary suffering”
- 5 year old girl raped and beaten to death
- fawn dying slowly in a forest fire
Daniel Howard-Snyder and WP Alston’s criticism of Rowe
and what is it shut down from
builds on Aquinas
as humans, we are unable to understand god’s divine rational and plan for humanity
shut down from Rowe’s 5 year old girl example. this extent of suffering to an innocent child cannot be permissible from a loving God.
quote from the holocaust prisoner
“if there is a god he will have to beg for my forgiveness”
JL Mackie POE
proposed that a truly loving god could just make our choices solely good - instead of creating a struggle between good and sin, where humans are able to commit atrocities
=> also the fact that humanity was created with the propensity to sin, even subjecting innocent others to suffering and loss
what to mention examples x2
atrocities eg nagasaki or the holocause
what does the EPOE do basically
challenges why the magnitude of evil is so great. and how a loving and powerful god could allow evil on such a grand scale
rowe quote main
“unecessary and pointless evil”
rowe examples x2
fawn dying in forest fire = silent, no purpose
5 year old girl beaten and raped
who and what does Mill reference
Darwins Ichneumonidae wasps - who eat caterpillars slowly from the inside out
=> how beings in our universe were seemingly created to impart suffering or suffer
Irenaeus main ideas 2.5
Spiritual maturity
freedom to choose (humans chose evil tho)
how is irenaeus nuanced in his perspective
he admits that God is partly responsible for evil as he created a situation where evil was possible. BUT it is humans who choose it
irenaeus spiritual maturity
genesis 1:26 “let us make man in our image”
god’s image made humans have intelligence, morality but we lack completion
this can only be attained through transformation into god’s likeness (Anne Jordan)
=> suffering develops humanity
who coined the term “vale of soul-making”
Keats
what did Keats say
“vale of soul-making”
what aspect hinges on irenaeus’ views
for us to develop, this must be out of free will
“willing cooperation of human individuals”
it could not be bestowed but has to be developed.
irenaeus other argument (contrast arg) quote
“how, if we had no knowledge of the contrary, could we have instruction in that which is good?”
irenaeus eschatological justification
The soul-making process continues after death if not completed in this life
All humans will eventually achieve perfection and be admitted to the kingdom of God
In the final state, there will be no more evil, as its purpose in facilitating human development will have been fulfilled.
=> HE WANTS UNIVERSAL SALVATION
Hick book
his theodicy :
Evil and the God of Love
how does hick develop upon irenaeus
counter-factual hypothesis
if God created a utopia, we would be like “automatons” without real choice
where does Vardy chime in
he offers the example of the King and the Peasant girl
a king could easily force a peasant girl to marry him, but their union would be much more meaningful if their love was genuine.
Hick main two phrases and explain
- epistemic distance
for humans to be geniunely free, they needed to be created at an epistemic distance from God. - religiously ambiguous
as a result, the world is religiously ambiguous, means different people can look at the world and find different religious conclusions
=> if God was a present, clear creator, we would not be truly free to choose god.
Hick example for religiously ambiguous and epistemic distance
in his story of the road to the celestial city
how does hick develop on irenaeus’ eschatological justification
he is a universalist, all people will be transformed by the love of god, whether in this life or the next.
what is the counter-factual hypothesis
claims that a static, utopian world where there is no moral consequences to our action would not licit moral growth.
we would be like automatons, our love would be valueless.
what is a weakness of hick’s universal salvation
it isnt a meritocracy
swinburne input into POE
contrast argument
natural evils are logically necessary for people to know how to create evil or prevent it
essentially you need to know evil to do good
swinburne main quote x2 and book
God should not make a “toy world”
“he’d be like the over-protective parent”
book - The Existence of God
augustine on POE reasoning w quote
Evil exists because we created it and deserve it.
**“Evil is either sin or punishment for sin”. **
Adam and Eve created original sin – a corruption in human nature giving us an irresistible temptation to sin (moral evil) – which was created by Adam and Eve’s sin against God.
They were also forced to live in a fallen world which is full of evil, as punishment.
Evil is ‘privatio boni’ – an absence of good.
Evil doesn’t actually exist, Augustine says it is like blindness – not a thing in itself, just the absence of sight.
Evil is merely the result of our falling away from God’s goodness.
irenaeus book
Against Heresies
