Quick Mock info on The Problem of evil

Question 1

Explain the two types of Evil

Answer 1

We have to be clear on what ‘evil’ itself is in context.

Moral Evil refers to morally wrong actions or motives of human beings.

However moral evil isn’t the only type of evil. There is also ‘natural evil’ which refers to the suffering caused by natural events + processes i.e. suffering caused by earthquakes etc.

In the first instance the two types of evil are distinct as what people choose to do is not usually any cause of natural events + suffering however sometimes it can be ie a famine causes people to commit moral evils of stealing etc

Question 2

State the Logical problem of evil

Answer 2

The logical problem of evil’

The mere existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of god as the following claims cannot all be true;

God is supremely good
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God exists 
Evil exists.

Question 3

Explain the Evidential problem of evil

Answer 3

the evidential problem of evil is concerning whether evil can be logically compatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and, supremely good god?

The amount and distribution of evil that exists is good evidence that god does not exist. Eg moral luck by concerning how some people have it really good whilst others don’t thus giving ammunition to the idea that belief in god and his characteristics is not convincing.

Existence of evil does not mean that gods existence is impossible however it is also not reasonable to believe god exists given that evil exists.

Some evils are necessary for certain good eg suffering makes sympathy and benevolence possible

However there’s also unnecessarily evil e.g. natural disasters such as tsunami that kill millions + illness etc.
This evils seems incompatible with the concept of God.

Question 4

Explain what the Free will theodicy is

Answer 4

A free will Theodicy;
Free will is very valuable the implications of not possessing free will;

• Without free will we could have no meaningful relationship with god
• Without free will we could not have morally significant lives ie we sometimes freely choose to do evil

So a world without evil would be a world without free will
Therefore its arguable that evil is compatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient surely good god.

Question 5

Explain Plantings Free will defense + the implications of it

Answer 5

Plantinga’s Free will defence;

Platingas argues its better to be freely choosing to do good than being forced to do good. Evil is the fault of human beings so evil is compatible with the concept of God because its our free will which causes evil not God.

• A world containing creatures that are significantly free is better than a world containing no free creatures
• God can create significantly free creatures as to be significantly free is to be capable of both moral good + moral evil. If significantly free creatures were caused to do only what is right, they would not be free.

Therefore god cannot cause significantly free creatures to only do what is right. God can only eliminate the moral evil done by significantly free creatures by eliminating the greater good of significantly free creatures

If these conclusions are true then its possible that the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of god + the concept of god.

Question 6

State 2 Objections to Plantings Free will defense + the counters objections

Answer 6

Objection; Plantinga only considers the ‘total amount’ of evil rather than kinds + distribution of evil or specific instances.

• A better balance is possible which begs the question of wether free will so good that god would/should never interfere with it? Is a better or more limited type of free will possible?

Argument; ‘The world is better with some evil’
There are some goods that require some evil ie virtues such as source, benevolence + sympathy. As good, god will only eliminate those veils unnecessary for the greater good

Counter: Surely we can learn these virtues form other means evil being inflicted isn’t necessary.

• What about second order evils eg cruelty, cowardice, malevolence, ar these logically compatible with a good god, cant we have a cold without second order evils

Reply: NO - we can only develop virtues in the face of temptation + weakness.

Question 7

Explain Hicks Soul Making Theodicy

Answer 7

Hick: ‘Soul-Making Theodicy’

In seeking to explain why evil exists, theodicies seek to justify it in terms of some greater good than evil enables, such as free will or the development of virtue. John Hick develops the argument that existence of evil is necessary for us to become good + grow morally and spiritually + so evil is compatible with God.

• We are unfinished creations - when God made humans he made them imperfectly. Theres 2 stages of our creation:

Stage 1- The evolution of creatures capable of a relationship with God

Stage 2 - Individual development towards virtue and relationship with God.

Such virtuous developments is impossible unless there is evil to respond to and correct which applys to both natural + moral evil as they involve bringing individuals freely towards ethical + spiritual values.

Its struggles + suffering, not only with natural disasters but also with our own motives + actions of other people that we mature + develop spiritually as human beings, thus it would be impossible to undergo individual development without the presence of any evil in the world as you’re therefore unable to respond to it.

Question 8

Explain the 3 Core objections to Hicks Soul Making Theodicy

Answer 8

We can object to Hick as his argument addresses the logical problem but hasn’t offered a response to the amount, kind or disruption of evil. Therefore the theodicy only justifies all evil if evil leads to spiritual growth.

1 - What about animal suffering. Animals don’t grow spiritually so how is the natural veil that they suffer justified in any way?

Hick: Animals aren’t conscious in the same way we are, they live without fear of death or the future. To be alive means to be suede to pain (much of our suffering they don’t share ie self pity or the desire to escape mortality)

2 - Are terrible evils are really necessary for our moral and spiritual growth?

Hicks: Terrible evils are terrible in contrast to more ‘ordinary’ evils. If we removed the terrible ones, the next-terrible ones will seem exceptional and we’ll wonder why those are permitted. Basically drawing on gradients + perspective we can’t keep switching the goal posts.

3 - A great deal of evil doesn’t (appear to) contribute to spiritual growth at all. Many people suffer in terribe ways that break their spirit i.e. children who die prematurely + thus denied opportunity to grow spiritually whilst people that undergo a lot of spiritual growth do not experience suffering at all.

Hicks response to Pointless evil: Evil that appears not to contribute to soul making cannot be rationalised, this existence of ‘irrational evils’ is part of the process of soul making. For us to develop, it must look like evil is unjustified.