Problem of Evil

Question 1

4 types of evil?

Answer 1

MORAL EVIL: The willful acts of human beings (such as murder, rape, etc.)

NATURAL EVIL: Natural disasters (such as famines, floods, etc.)

PHYSICAL EVIL: Bodily pain or mental anguish (fear, illness, grief, war, etc.)

METAPHYSICAL EVIL: Imperfection and chance (criminals going unpunished, deformities, aging, etc.)

Question 2

How did Epicurus, Augustine and Mackie formulate the problem of evil and suffering?

Answer 2

Epicurus: “Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Augustine: “..cannot abolish evil or he will not…”

Mackie: The inconsistent triad:

1. A benevolent God exists.
2. An omnipotent God exists.
3. Evil exists.

Question 3

Outline Hume’s deductive formulation of the problem of evil

Answer 3

P1: Evil exists.

P2: A God, who is all-loving and all-powerful, would not allow evil to exist if he existed.

C: A God, who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent therefore does not exist

Question 4

What is the evidential problem of evil and suffering?

Answer 4

The sheer amount of evil and suffering present within the world cannot be reconciled with the God of classical theism, a small amount of evil might be tolerated:

to distinguish between right and wrong

to provide motivation for believers to ‘do the right thing’

to highlight God’s goodness

However, it is not clear why God permits, in some instances large amounts of suffering, e.g. the Holocaust. The evidence of unnecessary evil suggests that God does not exist.

Question 5

Explain the Epicurean paradox, what is it also known as?

Answer 5

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” — ‘the Epicurean paradox’. - John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (1990)

Epicurus’s argument as presented by Lactantius actually argues that a god that is all-powerful and all-good does not exist and that the gods are distant and uninvolved with man’s concerns. The gods are neither our friends nor enemies.

Also known as the “riddle of Epicurus”, or the “Epicurian trilemma”.

Question 6

What did Irenaeus believe about creation? Why?

Answer 6

That it has two stages:

Humans were first created in the ‘image of God’.

They will then be created in the ‘likeness of God’.

(Based on ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ (Genesis 1:26))

Question 7

How does Irenaeus consolidate the existence of God and a world filled with evil and suffering?

Answer 7

• Human beings bear a similarity with God, yet they are also radically different to God, nevertheless they are unique in creation in that they alone can have a personal relationship with him. God created a Universe that contains evil to provide us with opportunities to develop qualities necessary for perfection and to exist in the likeness of God.
• Evil and suffering enable us to refine and improve our own character and relationship with God.
• God created the natural order so that we have free will (epistemic distance) and are able to choose between good and evil. ‘How if we had no knowledge of the contrary, could we have instruction in that which is good’ (Irenaeus)

Question 8

What are the strengths of the Irenaean theodicy? (9 in total)

Answer 8

• Doesn’t just justify but provides a purpose behind evil and suffering
• The concept of humans progressively improving is compatible with evolution
• Avoids the issue of a perfect creation turning away from God whilst also allowing for free-will and God’s omni-characteristics
• Allows for the humanity to recognise the value of a relationship with God. If we were forced to worship him, Hick argues we would become like a “robot”.
• Developed into a compelling ‘soul-making’ theory by John Hick.
• Irenaeus provides a recognisable and achievable goal for humanity that stresses the relevance and value of life on earth perhaps more than Augustine’s theodicy does.
• Because God creates the universe and humanity out of imperfect matter, Irenaeus’ theodicy avoids the issue of this being ‘ex nihilo’, which would render him wholly responsible for the introduction of evil into the world.
• Reinforces that justice will be served in the after-life even if we suffer now (a notion that cannot be objectively proved or disproved).
• Swinburne supports elements of the Irenaean theodicy: “We would never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a hedonistic paradise”

Question 9

Weaknesses of the Irenaean theodicy? (12 in total)

Answer 9

• The idea that everyone goes to heaven is not just, it is inconsistent with Orthodox Christianity and ‘The Fall’ of Genesis 3. It also demotes Jesus’ role from ‘saviour’ to ‘moral role model’.
• Michael Tooley and Eleanor Stump question whether the magnitude of suffering really necessary for soul making e.g. the Holocaust/Stephen Fry and Darwin cite eye-burrowing worms - the ends do not justify the means!
• D.Z. Phillips argued that the continuation of evil and suffering is not a demonstration of love from an omni-benevolent God. He also says there is no justifiable reason to cause suffering.
• Some people suffer considerably more than others, why has God singled them out? Is he bias?
• Would a loving God use evil? Surely there are more humane ways about allowing people to develop in the likeness of God?
• No explanation as to why God didn’t create humans morally perfect.
• Suffering leads some people to lose faith which appears counterproductive to Irenaeus’ claimed purpose for it’s existence. Similarly, when people endure hardship, often it causes them to toughen or desensitize rather than become more compassionate (eg. prison rehabilitation rates are low where prison conditions are worse).
• Some people are unable to benefit from suffering (babies/disabled people) and so they do not learn a lesson or develop.
• If a child dies having suffered but never having had the opportunity to develop moral goodness then what happens?
• The view of creation presented by Irenaeus is radically at odds with the Biblical account in which man is created perfectly. It is certainly not to be considered wholly ‘orthodox’.
• Heaven for all means there is little/no incentive to do good in this life.
• Evil often seems to occur randomly and inflict upon the already vulnerable.

Question 10

How did Augustine define evil?

Answer 10

Saint Augustine of Hippo rejected the idea that evil exists in itself, claiming it to be merely an absence (or privation) of good, a ‘privatio boni’.

Question 11

Outline the Augustinian theodicy

Answer 11

• He believed the world was created good as documented by the Bible (“and god saw that his creation was good”) and man was created in a state of perfection as part of the hierarchy of being. However, man was also created free.
• This led to Adam and Eve’s Original Sin and ‘the Fall’, which corrupted the will of human beings. Augustine maintained that God is blameless and good, and not himself responsible for evil.
• Augustine believed those that turn back to God will proceed to heaven; those that do not will suffer eternal torment (soul-deciding).
• Accepting that even those who will be saved continue to sin, Augustine proposed that those who choose God’s grace will still go to Hell for a time to purge them of their sin, before going to Heaven.
• He argued that “since there is happiness for those that do not sin, the world is perfect”.
• Augustine claimed that natural evil is a result of ‘satan and his cohorts’ turning away from their role in creation and placing their pride over good.
• He also also advocated the aesthetic argument, which claims the universe is like a canvas and overall it is good but from our limited human perspective, it might seem evil.

Question 12

What are the strengths of the Augustinian theodicy?

Answer 12

• The idea that evil can arise when people exercise free will fits in with what we see in the world around us
• Aquinas - supports Augustine and adds that natural evil is only from evil from our perspective (for example like a cat eating a mouse)
• Seems logical that God gave us free will and us disobeying it created evil which does not make us question the nature of God
• Swinburne agrees to the extent of saying death is a greater good as without it you’d never achieve anything as you’d have eternity to do things on earth

Question 13

Weaknesses of the Augustinian theodicy?

Answer 13

• The concept of evil being a privation yet not part of God’s creation seems illogical
• Presents a pessimistic and non-convincing view of humanity
• If the world began perfect then where could Adam and Eve find out about evil? Did the understanding of evil stem from God?
• Goes against the theory of evolution in saying that humans began perfect. Darwinism disputes the story of creation.
• Where did hell and satan come from? surely God made them too
• Evil seems to be more definite than a privation of good! [child cruelty?]
• If God was omniscient he would already have known Adam and Eve would do the wrong thing so why did he tempt them?
• Flew and Mackie argued that God could have created humans with free will who only chose good
• Omnipotence is questioned = why did he give some angels too little grace

Question 14

What is Gottfried Leibniz’s “The Best of All Worlds” theodicy?

Answer 14

• Leibniz argued that God is all-powerful, but still could not create an absurd, logically contradictory world (a world without natural laws, etc.)
• Given that there are these reasonable limitations, God created “the best of all possible worlds”. The world needs things like an atmosphere, even though this causes problems such as hurricanes. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best world that could be made.
• The theory explains evil not by denying it or even rationalizing it—but simply by declaring it to be part of the optimum combination of elements that comprise the best possible Godly choice. Leibniz thus does not claim that the world is overall very good, but that because of the necessary interconnections of goods and evils, God, though omnipotent, could not improve it in one way without making it worse in some other way

Question 15

Describe the 6 main objections to Leibniz’s

Answer 15

• The very definition of omnipotence would substantiate that God could control natural laws and would not have to comply with anything.
• How do we know that this world is the best possible? There might be a better one out there somewhere.
• This thought isn’t very comforting for those experiencing pain. As Voltaire ironically remarked: “all’s for the best in the best of all possible worlds”.
• While Leibniz argued that suffering is good because it incites human will, critics argue that the degree of suffering is too severe to justify belief that God has created the “best of all possible worlds”.
• Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga criticized Leibniz’s theodicy by arguing that there probably is not such a thing as the best of all possible worlds, since one can always conceive a better world, such as a world with one more morally righteous person.
• Bertrand Russell argues that moral and physical evil must result from metaphysical evil (imperfection). But imperfection is merely finitude or limitation; if existence is good, as Leibniz maintains, then the mere existence of evil requires that evil also be good. In addition, libertarian Christian theology defines sin as not necessary but contingent, the result of free will. Russell maintains that Leibniz failed to logically show that metaphysical necessity (divine will) and human free will are not incompatible or contradictory.

Question 16

Outline David Hume’s views on the problem of evil and suffering (3 main points)

Answer 16

• “[God’s] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness…In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?”
• Hume takes the view that there is no real evil and it is plainly contrary to human experience. The reality of the distinction between good and evil — whether physical or moral — depends on “the natural sentiments of the human mind”. These distinctions, based on feeling, cannot be altered or amended “by any philosophical theory or speculation whatsoever”.
• He concluded that because the qualities of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and evil cannot exist simultaneously but evil does exist, then the God of classical theism cannot exist.

Question 17

Describe Whitehead/Hartshorne/Griffin’s Process Theodicy

Answer 17

• Process theology argues that the reality of God is not fixed and that God himself is still developing.
• God creates order out of pre-existing chaos; he is therefore not a creator “ex nihilo”.
• God is “dipolar” - that is, has two “poles”, one mental and one physical. The physical pole is the material world itself, which acts almost as God’s “body”.
• Because of this relationship, God is partly distinct and partly immersed in the world - just as we are in our bodies. Rather than creating the world and leaving it to its own devices, God is continually part of the unfolding process of creation.
• When the process is harmonious, it produces good; when it produces discord, it produces evil.
• Creation itself is seen as a cooperation between God and all other beings. Whether this cooperation actually takes place is thus up to humanity - in other words, God cannot force humans to do His will, but using “persuasion and lure” (John Hick) can influence us to maximise good. He does not possess total control over us
• Due to his involvement in the Earth, any suffering in creation is also undergone by God. Rather than remaining transcendent and omnipotent, he is, as Whitehead argued, the “fellow sufferer who understands”.
• Unlike for both Augustine and Irenaeus, God is NOT omnipotent
• God remains responsible for good and evil, however this is justified by Hick thus: God has “produced a sufficient quality and quantity of good to outweigh all the evil”.

Question 18

What are the 4 main objections to Process theodicy?

Answer 18

• Contrary to most accounts of God being omnipotent.
• Is he really worthy of worship?
• Since God is no longer an all-powerful judge, is there any point in being good?
• There is little/no evidence for God persuading humanity to do good. In fact, in some religious texts he is said to encourage violence and vengeance.

Question 19

What is Mackie’s criticism of divinely given free will?

Answer 19

• Mackie argued that in addition to a world of robots without free will, and a world of free will but evil, God had a third option – a world where people always freely choose good over evil. His argument goes as follows;
  
  • It is logically possible for me to choose to do good on any one occasion.
  • It is logically possible for me to choose to do good on every occasion.
  • It is logically possible for any individual to choose to do good throughout their life.
  • God is omnipotent and can create any logically possible world.
  • Therefore God could have created a world in which we were all genuinely free, yet we all chose to do good.
  • God did not create such a world.
  • Therefore either God is not omnipotent, or he is not wholly good.

Question 20

Outline Hick’s development of the Irenaean theodicy using these key phrases:

• physical pain, mental suffering and moral wickedness
• soul making
• epistemic distance
• eschatological verification

Answer 20

• Hick defined evil as “physical pain, mental suffering and moral wickedness”
• He took the argument further, in emphasising that the Irenaean theodicy revolves around human development, dubbed by him as “soul making”. He put value on free will and genuine love for God.
• John Hick rejected the notion of Hell as it is counterproductive to human development. He claimed it exists as a mythological concept and as a warning of the importance of this life
• Hick argues, there exists what he terms an ‘epistemic distance’ between human beings and God, so that we are not born knowing of his existence, and it is not something which it is easy to gain certain knowledge of.
• Hick uses the term ‘eschatological verification’ to explain how the purpose of suffering and evil will become apparent in the afterlife.

Question 21

What is the greatest strength of Hick’s version of the Irenaean theodicy?

Answer 21

Irenaeus’/Hick’s concept of the universe as the vale of soul-making is the “best possible universe”: a world without free will would lack value / a world without error would not be one in which man possesses free will

Question 22

5 main criticisms of Hick’s contribution to the debate around the problem of evil and suffering?

Answer 22

1. If the end result of man reaching God by weakening the epistemic distance is already assured, how can philosophers maintain that humanity possesses free-will.
2. Suffering is still a problem for Hick but it can be said that it’s purpose will become apparent in the afterlife.
3. Eschatological justification requires a belief in life after death.
4. Hell is referenced in religious texts.
5. French theologian Henri Blocher criticised the universalism of John Hick’s theory. Blocher argued that universalism contradicts free will, which is vital to the Irenaean theodicy, because, if everyone will receive salvation, humans cannot choose to reject God.

Question 23

3 main ideas within Alvin Platinga’s Free Will Defence?

Answer 23

• A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more evil than good actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.
• Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore. He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.
• As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

Question 24

Main strength of the free will defence?

Answer 24

As opposed to a theodicy (a justification for God’s actions), Plantinga puts forth a defense, offering a new proposition that is intended to demonstrate that it is logically possible for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God to create a world that contains moral evil. Significantly, Plantinga does not need to assert that his new proposition is true, merely that it is logically valid.

Question 25

Main weakness of the free will defence?

Answer 25

In Two Cheers for Secularism (1998), John Mortimer warned against the danger of seeing freewill as simply a choice: ‘The standard explanation is that we are given freewill which enables us to choose between good and evil. This may be very satisfactory for the concentration camp guards and assassins who can choose whether or not to commit their crimes; but the innocent men, women and children whom they march into the gas ovens, or whose throats they slit, have no freewill to exercise the matter.’

Question 26

Which analogy does Vardy use to explain the Irenaean Theodicy?

Answer 26

• Highest human good is a loving relationship with God, a love that is freely chosen; God gives free will hoping they elect to love him. Genuine free will means humans can commit evil, so God created evil in order to achieve the greater good; humans to freely have a loving relationship with Him eg.

Parable of the Rich King and the Peasant Girl:

• King could have simply demanded her love, and girl could feign or manufacture feelings for the King.
• However, the King could not force her to give genuine, unrequited love in this way.
• Instead, he disguised himself as a peasant so her love would be freely given.
• God as the omnipotent King opts not to force us, the peasant girls, into a relationship because it would not be genuine. We freely come to God vis-à-vis free will.

Question 27

Try and describe other philosophical/religious perspectives on the problem of evil

(Monism, Dualism, Buddhism)

Answer 27

• Monism: Denies the existence of evil, claiming is is an illusion or a privation of good.
• Dualism (Manichaeism): Good and Evil are forces acting in the world and they have equal strength. (They aren’t the product of God/Satan)
• Buddhism: Buddhists do not believe that human beings are evil, but they generally accept that humans create suffering through their greed, anger and ignorance. These three things stop Buddhists from reaching enlightenment. Metaphysical evil is regarded as a fact of life.
• Hinduism: The law of karma says that every action has consequences. Pain, suffering and any kind of misfortune have not been imposed on people by God. Nor are these things due to the actions of anyone else. It is the same for good things that happen. Things happen because of the law of karma.