Problem of Evil and Suffering Flashcards
1
Q
Epicurus
A
- Greek Philosopher
- inconsistent triad
- God is either not omnibenevolent/omnipotent or God does not exist
- logical aspect
2
Q
why does Mackie say the inconsistent triad is a logical problem
A
- theists have to show their beliefs make sense yet how is one to logically show suffering is consistent with this perfect God
3
Q
what is the evidential aspect
A
- the sheer quantity of evil that can be seen in the world appears to challenge the goodness of creation
- both moral and natural
4
Q
what is moral evil
A
evil created by humans through exercise of their free will and rational human thought
5
Q
what is natural evil
A
- events with evil consequences when experienced by human beings
- caused by the way the natural world works
- most people today don’t blame it on an evil spirit
6
Q
what is a theodicy
A
a theological theory that attempts to vindicate God’s existence in response to the problem of evil
7
Q
what are the two keys ways in which evil can be solved or accounted for
A
- creatures using their free will
- necessary to develop valuable moral qualities like compassion
8
Q
what’s the difference between absence and lack in terms of moral and natural evil
A
- if you cannot walk you lack the healthy you should have
- if you are mean you the lack the quality of charity
- both privations for Augustine
- but the first example is a privation for which you are not to blame - natural evil
- the second concerns a privation you are responsible for because of how you choose to behave - moral evil
9
Q
building blocks of Augustine
A
- all things created good as God is good and Genesis - but hierarchy of goodness in beings
- evil is privatio boni
- free will causes a turn away from goodness
- fallen angels cause natural evil
- evil only evil from our perspective
- evil in itself doesn’t exist
10
Q
what are the criticisms of Augustine
A
- plausibility in the light of science - he interpreted Genesis literally, no evidence angels exist - Hick says its implausible nowadays
- science - if you accept evolution our corrupt behaviour could be evidence of our animalistic nature that seeks survival at all costs not original sin
- science also explains natural evil
- human beings were scientifically not seminally present in Adam and so God is unjust to punish us
- how can a creature created good turn away from God - implausible
- if God is responsible for everything this doesn’t fit with our understanding.
- pre-destination
11
Q
what are the criticisms of Augustine in their most basic form
A
- plausibility
- science
- original sin
- hell
- God’s responsibility for natural evils
- how could a perfect world go wrong
12
Q
what are the building blocks of Hicks additions to the Irenean theodicy
A
- rejected belief humans are made perfect
- through their struggle, humans develop from image to likeness
- the only meaning of the fall is to describe how far apart God is from humanity
- epistemic distance is part of God’s plan to allow free will
- Vardy - king tries to win peasant girls love because love that is not freely given is not true love
- soul making - suffering helps us develop - mistake to see God’s love would be best displayed through a cosy world - parents and children
- moral evil is evidence of our immature animal nature
- natural evil is the stimulating challenging environment to aid development from image to likeness
- development incomplete during life - eschatological aspect - leads to support of universal salvation - doesn’t believe in hell but purgatory where soul making can continue
13
Q
what are the criticisms of the Iranian theodicy in their most basic form
A
- injustice
- the existence of suffering
- dysteleological suffering
- do the ends justify the means
- the epistemic distance
14
Q
what are the criticisms of Hick’s Irenean theodicy
A
- humans are responsible for their actions and God will judge them thus universal salvation seems unjust - you can do wrong in this life but it wont matter - implausible
- Hick - God responsible for creating world with natural disasters - clash with loving god
- dysteleological suffering does not seem just - if soul making means ours lives will be easier in the next life why do we have to experience it now - unsatisfactory that heaven can compensate for it - doesn’t seem to have a proper understanding of how hard suffering is
- developing into the likeness of God may not be seen as a big enough reward for suffering
- Many Christians reject that a loving God creates a world where evil happens so they can develop into likeness
- if God was more clearly visible then perhaps people would not do evil things - but then there goodness would not be real as it would be motivated by selfish means perhaps
15
Q
Augustine’s view of the origins of moral and natural evil IS enough to spare God from blame for the evil in the world
A
- never suggests God tolerates or wants evil
- Christian Scientists and Eddy try to suggest evil is an illusion but its hard to deny that pain exists - illusion is real enough to have symptoms like death of the ill- cannot be satisfactorily ignored
- perhaps God cannot see into the future - exists sempiternal way like Swinburne suggests and so could not see that the angels would turn away from him
16
Q
Augustine’s view of the origins of moral and natural evil IS NOT enough to spare God from blame for the evil in the world
A
- evil appears to be more serious than a privatio boni
- deliberate cruelty seems more than just a lack of goodness
- Christian Scientists and Eddy say evil is an illusion
- gives us not explanation of why God gave some of the angels too little grace that they fell
- even if we accept variety is good no need to give such variety that some angels fell
- Augustine does not always align with the Bible
- suggests God did not think ahead
- doesn’t say why God allowed lack of perfection
- Schleiermacher - impossible to find cause for angels to sin other than been created imperfectly
- evil would have had to come out of nowhere (it wasn’t nowhere it was satan CA)
- questions about omniscience - created us knowing what would happen
17
Q
the need to create a vale of soul making can justify the existence/extent of evil
A
- Irenaeus’ theodicy has been v influential among Christians
- God knows what he is doing - good will come even if difficult at the time
- Hick takes consequentialist view - end justifies the mean but Kant thought humans shouldnt be used as a means for an end - but if Hick is right then God allows suffering as a means for soul making
18
Q
the need to create a vale of soul making does not justify the existence/extent of evil
A
- some people suffer more than others - does God want some to grow into spiritual maturity more than others - unjust
- not everyone is able to benefit from suffering but still experience it
- an ill baby may not be capable of gaining insights from their experience
- animal suffering hard to explain especially if there’s no life after death for them
- people could learn from suffering of others - but some suffer alone with no one around
- suffering does not always teach - sometimes people lose their faith - CA - true Christian would never lose faith
- universal salvation undermines the whole value of Christianity - why would Christ die on cross if other ways to be saved
- too high a price to pay - Dostovesky - God shouldn’t have made the world at all - accepts God just returns his entrance ticket
- world suggests an evil God if evil planned in
19
Q
the logical aspect of the problem of evil pose the greatest challenge to belief
A
- premise 1 of omnibenevolent - Irenaeus/Hick - could be good reasons why god doesn’t eliminate suffering - necessary to give us free will/develop to relationship with God
- more loving to give us vale of soul making then bubble wrap us and have no freedom
- premise 2 - God can do everything possible - should give free will and have no evil - Swinburne says its a logical contradiction and is not an action at all- God cannot create a square circle because not a thing
- premise 3 - if evil and suffering exist in the world as part of God’s loving plan then perhaps evil should be considered good - Irenaeus
20
Q
the evidential aspect of the problem of evil poses the greatest challenge to belief
A
- their strength rests on the claim that our experience of evil makes the hypothesis of a good, loving God improbable when compared with that evil can happen by chance
- we need to know what would make it more probable
- the uniqueness of God leaves us without anything on which to base our calculations of probability
- we are finite - weak position to form a judgement
