Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Philosophy PAPER 2 > Problem of evil arguments and responses > Flashcards

Problem of evil arguments and responses Flashcards

1
Q

The Logical problem of evil (summary)

A

the existence of God is logically impossible given the existence of evil in the world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The evidential problem of evil:

A

While it is possible God exists, the amount and way in which evil is distributed in our world, is pretty strong evidence God doesn’t exist.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

2 Types of evil

A

Moral evil

Natural evil

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Moral evil

A

Committed by People

> e.g. torture, murder, genocide etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Natural evil

A

Suffering as a result of natural processes

> e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Theodicy

A

An explanation of why an omnipotent and omniscient God would permit evil

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL (MACKIE)

A

Inconsistent triad

  • These 3 statements God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and evil exists are logically inconsistent.
  • Mackie claimed, logically, a maximum of 2/3 of these statements can be true
  • Omnibenevolent = wants to stop evil
  • Omnipotent = powerful enough to stop evil
  • BUT EVIL EXISTS
  • So, either God isn’t powerful enough to stop evil, doesn’t want to stop evil, or both.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

THE INCONSISTENT TRIAD

PROBLEM 1: Good couldn’t exist without evil

A

With only red, we would have no concept of red. We need other colours (evil) to understand red (good).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

THE INCONSISTENT TRIAD

RESPONSE to: good couldn’t exist without evil

A
  • Is this true? Why can’t we have good without evil?
  • Say we lived in a world of only red
  • We may have no concept of red, but, it would still be true that everything was red.
  • God could create a world with no evil
  • We wouldn’t have a concept of good (like red)
  • But it would still be the case that everything is good. We just wouldn’t know.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

THE INCONSISTENT TRIAD:

PROBLEM 2: The world is better with some evil than none

A
  • Some evil is necessary for certain types of Good
  • e.g. you couldn’t be courageous without having to overcome fear of pain, death, etc.

FIRST ORDER GOOD: e.g. pleasure

SECOND ORDER GOOD: e.g. courage
FIRST ORDER EVIL: e.g. fear of pain

  • First order good are more valuable that second order goods
  • HOWEVER, second order goods seek to maximise first order goods.
  • SO without first order evils, second order goods couldn’t exist and we wouldn’t have first order goods.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

THE INCONSISTENT TRIAD:

RESPONSE to: The world is better with some evil than none

A

MACKIE:

  • say we accept we need first order evils for second order goods
  • why would we need second order evils?
  • Second order evilsseek to maximise first order evils such as pain e.g. cruelty
  • An omnipotent God can create any logical possible world
  • God could create a world in which everyone freely chooses to act in a way that’s good.
  • Therefore it’s logically possible to have a world with free will, without second order evils.
  • SO, why would an omnipotent and omniscient God allow them to exist?
  • Second order evils do not seem logically necessary, and yet they exist.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

ALVIN PLANTINGA argues we don’t need a plausible theodicy to defeat the logical problem of evil just simply…

A
  • Show evil isn’t logically inconsistent with an omnipotent & omnibenevolent God.
  • If we can show logical possibility, then we have defeated the logical problem of evil (even if doesn’t seem plausible)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

PLANTINGA’s Free will defence as a RESPONSE: to Mackie on second order evils.

A
  • Logically possible God would allow second order evil for a greater good
  • Morally significant action = morally good or bad
  • Significantly free being = able to do or not do morally significant actions
  • A being created by God to ONLY do morally good actions would not be significantly free
  • The only way God could eliminate evil would be to eliminate significantly free beings
  • HOWEVER, Free will = inherently good
  • SO, a world with significantly free beings > no significantly free beings
  • THEREFORE: significant free will outweighs negatives of people using, significant free will to commit second order evils.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The Logical problem of evil only addresses Moral evil but what about…

A

Natural evil?
This is still an issue for God’s existence, why would God allow naturally occurring evils like earthquakes as these don’t seem to be justifiable by human free will

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

PLANTINGA COUNTER: to the issue of natural evil

A
  • Possible natural evil is due to non-human actors e.g. Satan, fallen angels, demons
  • Making natural evil = a form of moral evil - therefore explained by free will.
  • Might not sound very plausible, but it’s at least possible.
  • To defeat the logical problem, we only have to show God = not logically inconsistent with Evil
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

RESPONSE: to Plantinga’s argument natural evil is a form of moral evil

A
  • Free will of non-human actors could show God = not logically inconsistent with Evil.
  • However, It fails to overcome the Evidential Problem of Evil
  • These beings are unperceived with little evidence of their existence and yet we’re using them to justify evil, something we have a large amount of evidence of.
  • Therefore, theres an imbalance as there’s more evidence for abundant evil than for these unperceived non-human actors.
17
Q

THE EVIDENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

A
  • The evidential problem of evil can allow that God’s existence is possible
  • BUT the amount & distribution of evil in the world = good evidence God probably doesn’t exist.
  • We can reject the logical problem of evil and accept that God would allow some evil.
  • But would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow so much evil? And to people so undeserving of it?
  • The evidential problem of evil argues that if God did exist, there would be less evil and it would be less concentrated among those undeserving of it.
18
Q

JOHN HICK’s RESPONSE: to the evidential problem of evil

A

SOUL MAKING

  • He argues Humans = unfinished Beings
  • Part of our purpose is to develop personally, ethically and spiritually (soul making)
  • Therefore we need second and first order evils to form second order virtues.
  • We can’t learn virtues (e.g. forgiveness) if people never treated us wrongly
  • Hick argues virtues are acquired through hardness and discipline = “good in a richer and more valuable sense”
  • Some virtues cannot be given (genuine authentic love of god) = otherwise wouldn’t be genuine
19
Q

3 issues for HICKS soul making?

A
  1. Why would god allow animals to suffer?
  2. Why would God allow such terrible evils?
  3. Why would God allow such pointless evils?
20
Q

HICKS SOUL MAKING PROBLEM 1:

Why would God allows animals to suffer?

A
  • They can’t develop spiritually like we can = theres not benefit of suffering for them
21
Q

HICK’s RESPONSE: to why God allowed animals to suffer

A
  • God wanted to make a world in which his existence could be doubted
  • If God just proved he existed, we wouldn’t freely be able to form a relationship with him
22
Q

HICKS RESPONSE TO PROBLEM 2: Why would God allow such terrible evils?

A
  • Terrible evils are only terrible in contrast to ordinary evils.
  • If God got rid of terrible evils, then the worst ordinary evils would become the new terrible evils.
  • If he kept doing this, then he would have to keep reducing free will and thus the development of personal and spiritual virtues (soul making)
23
Q

HICKS SOUL MAKING PROBLEM 3:

Why would God allow such pointless evils

A 
Pointless evils (e.g. dawn in forest fire) are kind of a mystery. 
No one benefits from these
24
Q

HICK’s RESPONSE: to why God allowed such pointless evils?

A
  • If every time we saw someone suffering and we knew it was for some higher purpose, then we would never be able to develop deep sympathy.
  • Soul making theodicy: without pointless evil we wouldn’t develop virtues such as hope and faith (both require uncertainty).

Philosophy PAPER 2 (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions