The Problem of Evil Flashcards
two forms of the problem of evil
logical and evidential prob
what is the logical problem of evil
a deductive argument that says the existence of God is logically impossible given the existence of evil in the world
what is the evidential problem of evil
an inductive argument which says that, while it is logically possible that God exists, the amount of evil and unfair ways it is distributed in our world is pretty strong evidence that God doesn’t exist
what are the two types of evil
moral and natural
what is moral evil
evil committed by people e.g. torture, murder
what is natural evil
Suffering as a result of natural processes
e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc.
what is a theodicy
an explanation of why an omnipotent and omniscient God would permit evil.
who’s arg is the logical probs of evil
- mackie: inconsistent triad
what is the inconsistent triad
Mackie’s argument is that, logically, a maximum of 2 of these 3 statements can be true but not all 3 – 1. god is omnipotent, 2. god is omnibenevolent, 3. evil exist
He argues that if God is omnibenevolent then he wants to stop evil. And if God is omnipotent, then he’s powerful enough to prevent evil.
But evil does exist in the world. People steal, get murdered, and so on. So either God isn’t powerful enough to stop evil, doesn’t want to stop evil, or both.
In the concept of God, God is defined as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. If such a being existed, argues Mackie, then evil would not exist. But evil does exist. Therefore, there is no omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Therefore, God does not exist.
criticisms to logical problem of evil
- good couldnt exist without evil
- the world is better with some evil than none at all
- we need evil for free will
good couldnt exist without evil
criticism to logical problem of evil
People often make claims like “you can’t appreciate the good times without experiencing some bad times”.
This is basically what this reply says: without evil, good couldn’t exist.
mackie’s response to good couldn’t exist without evil
od could have created a world in which there was no evil. Like the red example, we wouldn’t have the concept of evil. But it would still be the case that everything is good – we just wouldn’t be aware of it.
the world is better with some evil than none at all
crit of logical prob of evil
some evil is necessary for certain types of good
We can define first and second order goods:
First order good: e.g. pleasure
Second order good: e.g. courage
The argument is that second order goods seek to maximise first order goods. And second order goods are more valuable than first order goods. But without first order evils, second order goods couldn’t exist.
mackie’s response to the world is better with some evil than none at all
Let’s say we accept that first order evil is necessary for second order good to exist. How do you explain second order evil?
Second order evils seek to maximise first order evils such as pain. So, for example, malevolence or cruelty are examples of second order evils.
But we could still have a world in which people were courageous (second order good) in overcoming pain (first order evil) without these second order evils. So why would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow the existence of second order evils if there is no greater good in doing so?
we need evil for free will
crit of logical prob of evil
argue that second order evil is necessary for free will. And free will is inherently such a good and valuable thing that it outweighs the bad that results from people abusing free will to do evil things.
So, while allowing free will brings some suffering, the net good of having free will is greater than if we didn’t. Therefore, it’s logically possible that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil (both first order and second order) for the greater good of free will.
mackie’s response to we need evil for free will
- an omnipotent God can create any logically possible world
- if it’s logically possible to freely choose to act in a way that’s good on one occasion, then it’s logically possible to freely choose to act in a way that’s good on every occasion
- So, an omnipotent God could create a world in which everyone freely chooses to act in a way that’s good
you would have second order goods, plus the good of free will, but without second order evils. This is a logically possible world – the logically possible world with the most good.
what is plantinga’s response to mackie
the free will defence
argues that we don’t need a plausible theodicy to defeat the logical problem of evil. All we need to show is that the existence of evil is not logically inconsistent with an omnipotent and omnibelevolent God.
what is the free will defence
- A morally significant action is one that is either morally good or morally bad
- A being that is significantly free is one that is 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
- So, the only way God could eliminate evil (including second order evil) would be to eliminate significantly free beings
- But a world that contains significantly free beings is more good than a world that does not contain significantly free beings
how does the free will defence explain natural evil
it’s possible natural evil is the result of non-human actors such as Satan, fallen angels, demons, etc. This would make natural evil another form of moral evil, the existence of which would be explained by free will.
Even if this doesn’t sound very plausible, it’s at least possible. And remember, Plantinga’s argument is that we only need to show evil is not logically inconsistent with God’s existence to defeat the logical problem of evil.
difference between logical and evidential prob of evil
Unlike the logical problem of evil, the evidential problem of evil can allow that God’s existence is possible.
However, it argues the amount and distribution of evil in the world provides good evidence that 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?
free will as a problem for the evidential prob of evil
Sure, God could have made a world with less evil. But this would mean less free will. And on balance, having free will creates more good than the evil it also creates.
However, this response only explains moral evil, not natural evil. And while the natural evil as moral evil argument may work against the logical problem of evil, it’s less plausible against the evidential problem of evil.
The free will response explains natural evil as a form of moral evil – caused by Satan or other non-human entities. And** while it’s logically possible such entities exist, what physical evidence is there?** Without strong evidence, the proponent of the evidential problem of evil can stick to their claim that the amount and distribution of natural evil is strong evidence that God doesn’t exist.
what is hick’s response to evidential prob
soul making theodicy
what is the soul making theodicy
Hick argues that humans are unfinished beings. Part of our purpose in life is to develop personally, ethically and spiritually – he calls this ‘soul making’.
e.g , we couldn’t learn virtues such as forgiveness if people never treated us wrongly.
of course, God could just have given us these virtues right off the bat. But, Hick says, virtues acquired through hard work and discipline are “good in a richer and more valuable sense”. Plus, there are some virtues, such as a genuine and authentic love of God, that cannot simply be given (otherwise they wouldn’t be genuine).
probs for soul making theodicy
- why do animals suffer
- terrible evils
- pointless evils
animal suffering
crit of soul making theodicy
animals supposdeky dont have a soul nor a conscience so why does god let them suffer
hicks response to animal sufferinh
God wanted to create epistemic distance between himself and humanity – i.e. a world in which his existence could be doubted. If God just proved he existed, we wouldn’t be free to develop a relationship with him.
terrible evils
crit of soul making theodicy
why did god make such terrible evils, he could have made a world with evil but just lesser evils
hick’s response to terrible evils
The reason for this is that terrible evils are only terrible in contrast to ordinary evils. So, if God did get rid of terrible evils, then the worst ordinary evils would become the new terrible evils. If God kept getting rid of terrible evils then he would have to keep reducing free will and thus the development of personal and spiritual virtues (soul making).
hick’s response to pointless evils
if every time we saw someone suffering we knew it was for some higher purpose (i.e. it wasn’t pointless), then we would never be able to develop deep sympathy.
Again, this goes back to the soul making theodicy: without seemingly unfair and pointless evil, we would never be able to develop virtues such as hope and faith – both of which require a degree of uncertainty.
