problem of suffering and evil Flashcards
moral evil
suffering caused by humans
e.g. murder, rape, crime
natural evil
suffering caused by naturally
e.g. hurricane
free will
christians believe that God gave them freewill which allows them to make their choice without God intervening
Freewill is a key argument for christians to argue that God does exist despite the suffering which exists in the world
theist
someone who believes that God(s) exist
agnostic
unsure if God(s) exist (50/50)
atheist
does not believe that God(s) exist
key attributes of God
- Omnipotent (all powerful)
- Omniscient (all knowing)
- Benevolent (all good/loving)
Sin
the breaking of God law, doing the wrong thing and refusing to live as God intended
‘The Fall’
when Adam and Eve picked an apple from ‘the tree of knowledge of good and evil’ despite the fact God strictly told them not to and so sin entered the world
Gods Grace
refers to Gods free and unmerited love and forgiveness shown to sinful humanity
theodicies
an argument in favour of God
the best known theodicy is the freewill defence argument
Determinism
the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs
opposite of freewill, as we’re not as free as one might of imagined when making decisions as we make them based on certain factors/consequences for previous actions
democritus and leucippus
law of cause and effect
«nothing occurs at random;but everything happens for a reason and by necessity»
compatibilism
the belief that freewill and determinism are compatible ideas and that it’s possible to believe both without being logically incorrect
devil or satan
most christians believe that as well as a lower for good(God) there’s also a power for evil(satan/devil)
some christians argue that the evil and suffering which exists in the world is caused by the devil and so isn’t Gods fault taking the blame away from him
St. Augustine
4th century christian theologian and philosopher
his theodicy rejects the notion of evil existing in itself and instead regards it as a corruption of goodness caused by humanities abuse of freewill
Gods goodness and benevolence according to the augustinian theodicy remains perfect and without responsibility for evil and suffering
«evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name evil»
alvin plantinga
philosopher from the 1970s who supports the freewill defence argument
he believes that God created being who are free to make their own decisions without him intervening and that good can’t exist without evil
J.L. Mackie
an Australian philosopher from the 1950s
he believes that God cannot exist if evil does and created his own inconsistent triad which shows that evil and a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent are not compatible
mackie believes that we can prove evil exists and therefore God doesn’t meaning he’s not the cause of evil and suffering
Epicurus
an ancient greek philosopher
supports logical problem of evil
«if a God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to then he is not omnipotent. if he is able but not willing the his is malevolent, if he is both able and willing then whence cometh evil. if he is neither able nor willing then why call him God?»
Epicurus believes that if an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God exists then evil and suffering doesn’t, but there’s a lot of suffering and evil in the world and so God doesn’t exist
Richard Swinburne
British philosopher of religion form the university of Oxford supports compatibilsm
he believes there’s a reason for evil and God has the right to allow evil due to the extreme dependence people have on him
Gods allowed people to have infinite good in the world and be with God forever and so swinburne believes that Gods provided people with a choice between food and rejection of good
responsibilities is upon the person not God
Swinburne rejects original sin and denies that God knows the future deee actions of creatures
William Rowe
atheist philosopher asks the question of why we must suffer so intensely- even if suffering was necessary to suffer at the level we’re suffering at, as a result there cannot be such thing as an omnibenevolent being.
«an omniscient, wholly, good being would prevent occurrence of any intense suffering it could… therefore there does not exist and omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being»
