The Problem of Evil Flashcards
Moral Evil
Morally wrong actions of humans beings.
Out of Intention or choice.
Make use of free will.
Human is responsible.
Natural Evil
Refers to suffering caused by natural events.
Human is not responsible.
Evidential Problem of Evil
Doesn’t claim that existence of evil isn’t consistent with existence of God.
Claims amount, kind and distribution of evil are good evidence for thinking God does not exist.
There is no God is a more reasonable hypothesis to follow, given the nature of evil.
Logical Problem of Evil
Claims it is logically impossible for evil and God to exist.
The believer must hold that God is omnipotent, wholly good and that evil exists but at the same time cannot because there is an contradiction.
Mackie’s Logical Problem of Evil
1) God is supremely good, he has a desire to eliminate evil.
3) God is omnipotent, so is able to eliminate evil.
3) God is omniscient, he know evil exists and how to eliminate it.
4) Therefore, if God exists then evil does not exist.
5) Evil exists.
6) Therefore, God doesn’t exist (under those terms).
Theodicy
An attempt to explain how and why a God would allow the presence of evil in the world.
Logical Problem of Evil - Response 1
R - Good can’t exist without Evil.
If it is logically impossible for good to exist without evil, then God can’t create a world in which good can exist without evil.
There must be evil to provide a contrast or good would lose it value and become meaningless.
Red world analogy.
Logical Problem of Evil - Response 1 - Mackie’s Objection
R - Good can’t exist without Evil.
No reason why we would need a contrast.
We wouldn’t notice if everything was red, just ‘how things are’.
Doesn’t mean God cannot create a world in which there is good and no evil.
Logical Problem of Evil - Response 1 - Evaluation
R - Good can’t exist without Evil.
To remove the contrast would have significant impact on the definition and nature of good. It will lose its value if we are unable to act otherwise, making it unpraiseworthy and ultimately ‘not good’.
The existence of evil is necessary for good to exist.
Logical Problem of Evil - Response 2
R - World is better with some evil in it.
Argues that some evil exists for the greater good.
Virtues require suffering to exist, courage requires danger.
A universe without either suffering or virtue would be worse than one in which there is both suffering and virtue.
Logical Problem of Evil - Response 2 - Mackie’s Objection
R - World is better with some evil in it.
Can justify first order evil (suffering) as it lead to development of much more valuable types of good, such as courage.
Not a sufficient explanation as it doesn’t explain why second order evil exists (out of free will). World would a better place without this kind of evil, God would have made such a world if he was all-loving.
Logical Problem of Evil - Response 2 - Evaluation
R - World is better with some evil in it.
Second order evils are the result of free will. Being morally imperfect we will not always use our free will for good.
Compatible with the existence of God because being free is such a significant good it outweighs the evil what we bring about.
So, the universe is better with free will and second order evils than it would be without either.
Free Will Defence - Plantinga
Offers a defence as to why the existence of God is consistent with evil.
No need to show the explanations are true, just consistent.
1) A world containing significantly free creatures is better than a world containing no free creatures.
2) God can create significantly free creatures.
3) If significantly free creatures were caused to do only what is right, they would not be free.
4)Therefore, God cannot cause significantly free creatures to do only what is right.
5)Therefore, God can only eliminate the moral evil by eliminating the greater good of significantly free creatures.
So, preventing evil would remove our capacity for free will. Therefore, existence of evil is compatible with the existence of God.
Significantly Free Creature
A creature than can do or refrain from doing morally significant actions is significantly free.
Free Will Defense - Response 1
R - What about natural evil?
Plantinga fails to explain the existence of natural evil in the face of God.
Evidential Problem of Evil Examples
Gratuitous and pointless evils are evidence that a theistic God does not exist at all. Illustrates examples of evil that a omniscient, wholly good and omnipotent would eliminate.
Imagine a suffering deer, trapped and horribly burned in a forest fire, it lies in agony for several days before dying. The agony endured by the deer seems pointless and preventable by God.
While, I accept that this example does not prove that God does not exist. I maintain that such gratuitous evil makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of a wholly good God.
Hick’s soul-making theodicy
Hick argued that God created us imperfect and unfinished. God hasn’t finished creating us.
We are made in the image of God, but we must grow into the likeness of God.
This virtuous development is impossible unless there is evil to respond to and correct. We can’t be courageous unless there is danger, we can’t learn forgiveness unless people treat us wrongly.
Defenders of the problem of evil often assume that God would seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Such an environment may be suitable for perfected creatures, but no good for helping unperfected creatures like us develop.
Hick’s soul-making theodicy - first stage of our creation
First stage of our creation is being brought into existence.
Hick’s soul-making theodicy - second stage of our creation
Second stage of our creation in individual. It involves bringing each person towards personal, ethical and spiritual virtues and relationship with God.
Hick’s soul-making theodicy - quick evaluation
Can explain why God created us imperfect. The virtues we achieve from challenges, discipline and overcoming temptation are good in a richer and more valuable sense than virtues given to someone upon creation.
Setting up human nature in a way that virtues and attitudes are given, not earned, is inauthentic and could be considered a form of manipulation.
Essay Paragraph 1
Logical vs free will vs mackie evaluation, plantinga end
Essay Paragraph 2
Logical vs FWD vs natural evil - evidential end
Essay Paragraph 3
Evidential vs soul-making vs evaluation
Final Conclusion
Evil is necessary, to provide value to good, development of virtues and give us a capacity for free will.
A world with virtues, freedom and suffering is better than a world without any.
However, it seems reasonable to maintain that the type, amount and distribution of evil is unnecessary and pointless.
A all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful wouldn’t make the world with evil of this nature.
Soul-Making - pointless and animal evils counter
Only creature that suffers, would mean we would be too set apart from nature, God may be proved, interfere with our free will.
Allows us to question God’s existence and help maintain an epistemic distance with him. Giving us the capacity for genuine free will.
