THE CONCEPT OF EVIL (MORAL AND NATURAL) AND THE LOGICAL PROBLEM AND EVIDENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL Flashcards
What is the definition of evil?
- The cause of suffering (short term or long term).
- Contrary to God’s will (religious).
- The absence of good.
- When something is morally wrong.
- When something does not fulfil its purpose.
How does moral and natural evil differ?
Moral Evil= an intentional human action or inaction that results in suffering e.g. war, murder, rape, neglect. As well as actions which result in psychological and mental pain. These actions are freely committed and result in suffering, sometimes on a mass scale.
Natural Evil= causes of suffering within the natural world e.g. earthquakes, volcanoes, natural death, disease. These are not a direct result of human action.
What is the logical problem of evil?
- This is the problem of how an all-powerful and all-loving God (the God of classical theism) can allow his creation to suffer without coming to its rescue and putting an end to its torment.
- The logical problem of evil makes the existence of God IMPOSSIBLE. The existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God so it is therefore logically inconsistent to accept that both exist together.
What problems does evil pose to God’s characteristics?
1) Omnipotent- has the power to stop evil and the power to create any possible world including a world without evil.
2) Omniscient- has complete knowledge of everything- would know evil would be part of the world but still created it despite knowing the extent of evil and how to stop it.
3) Omnibenevolent- he loves all his creation, his love far outweighs any love a human could feel- why would he want us to suffer?
What is the logical problem of evil?
The logical problem states that not all 3 of these statements can be true and presents an inconsistent triad…
1) Evil exists.
2) God is omnipotent.
3) God is omnibenevolent.
Therefore one of the following must be true:
1) God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and evil does not exist. (But we know evil exists so it can’t be this)
2) God is omnipotent, but not omnibenevolent and thus evil exists by God’s will.
3) God is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent and thus evil exists but it is not within God’s power to stop it.
What did J.L Mackie say about God?
“A wholly good being eliminates evil as far as it can”.
What was Hume’s POV on the effects of evil in relation to the existence of the God of classical theism?
The effects of evil are felt too widely and vividly to be dismissed. By accepting evil exists, he concluded that God must be impotent (not all powerful) or malicious. The God of classical theism can therefore not exist.
What did Aquinas believe about the goodness of God?
We are confusing God’s goodness with our understanding of human goodness and therefore assuming that what we call evil is incompatible with the goodness of God.
What did Tracie Harris say about God?
You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches and says “when you’re done I’m going to punish you”.
What is the EVIDENTIAL problem of evil?
- The evidential problem of evil argues that evil makes the existence of God improbable.
- William Rowe considered it a valid argument that a God who is able to do anything and who is wholly good would not permit evil that is avoidable and pointless.
- The evidence that evil exists is therefore taken as evidence that God does not exist.
What did William Rowe use to illustrate his evidential problem of evil?
1) He gives the example of a fawn trapped in the forest and left to die painfully after a long period of time- the Fawn’s suffering does not contribute to any greater good that would necessitate its continue of suffering.
2) The case of Sue- where a woman’s 5 year ld daughter was raped, beaten and strangled to death by her boyfriend- Rowe points out the child did not need to be raped and beaten for her death to bring about some greater good- it was completely pointless suffering.
Give Rowe’s main argument for the evidential problem of evil.
Premise 1: There exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Premise 2: An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse.
Conclusion: Because instances of intense suffering do occur, despite the fact that God was able and had motive to prevent them. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
