Problem of evil Flashcards
Epicurean Paradox
- if God can’t stop evil, he’s omnipotent
- fi God can prevent evil and doesn’t, he’s not good
- if God was good and powerful there wouldn’t be evil
Epicurus quote
“is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”
inconsistent triad
John Mackie 1. God is omnipotent 2. God is omnibenevolent 3. Evil exists cannot logically be true at the same time
2 problems of evil
- logical - priori and deductive (Epicurus, Mackie)
2. evidential - posteriori and inductive (Rowe)
logical problem of evil
God’s existence is logically incompatible with evil
evidential problem of evil
existence of evil makes God’s existence unlikely
William Rowe’s argument
P1 - there exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could prevent
P2 - an omniscient, wholly good being would prevent any intense suffering if it could
C - therefore there doesn’t exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being
moral evil
caused by moral agents through choice
natural evil
caused naturally, like suffering caused by earthquake
2 types of evil
natural and moral
free will defence
it’s better to have freewill with the probability of evil then no choice, so humans created evil with their freewill
Mackie’s argument
P1 - evil and suffering exist
P2 - God is all powerful and loving
P3 - an all loving and all powerful God, if he existed would remove evil and suffering
criticisms of Mackie’s argument
P1 - evil is just the absence of good and doesn’t exist
P2 - deism is the belief in an impersonal God
P3 - you can’t have good without evil
Augustine
- God is perfect and created a perfect world with no evil
- the sin of Adam and Eve destroyed the perfection of the world (doctrine of the fall of man/original sin)
- God is just and fair which he demonstrates by not intervening as we suffer cause of our own sin
criticisms of Augustine
- could a perfect world go wrong?
- how could perfect beings choose to do wrong?
- is it reasonable to say suffering isn’t real?
- if God knew about the fall he’s not all loving
- what caused natural evil?
epistemic distance
we are separated from God so evil is only from a human perspective
St Irenaeus
- soul making theodicy
- humans were created imperfectly but with potential to become like him
- we were given freewill to help us develop goodness
Garden of Eden
- it’s a metaphor for childhood
- Adam and Eve did wrong as they haven’t developed the wisdom to do right
natural evil argument
provides the possibility for human beings to gain spiritual maturity, so it has divine purpose
recapitulation
humans are brought to their essence/relationship with God
criticisms of Irenaeus
- eschatology requires a belief in life after death
- some people suffer more than others
- there are nicer ways than evil to help people develop
- why didn’t God create humans morally perfect
- some people don’t benefit from suffering (babies)
eschatology
after death humans will come to physical likeness of God
St Irenaeus analogy
a mother can’t give her child sustainable nourishment, only milk, as they’re immature, in the same way that man isn’t given complete goodness because he’s spiritually immature
recapitulation
humans are bought to their essence or relationship with God
