the problem of evil

Question 1

define evil

Answer 1

something in the world which causes suffering (moral — human, natural — natural processes)

Question 2

define suffering

Answer 2

negative feeling caused in certain beings as a result of evils

Question 3

what is the inconsistent triad?

Answer 3

Mackie: evil, God’s omnibenevolence, and God’s omnipotence (and omniscience) cannot consistently and coherently co-exist

Question 4

what is the logical problem of evil?

Answer 4

1. Omniscient God knows evil exists
2. Omnipotent God has the power to stop evil
3. Omnibenevolent God wants to stop evil
4. If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, evil cannot exist
5. Evil does exist
6. God cannot exist
   (Mackie)

Question 5

what is the evidential problem of evil?

Answer 5

1. there exists instances of pointless, intense, gratuitous suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented
2. an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being would prevent the occurence of any pointless, intense suffering it could
3. therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being

(William Rowe)

Question 6

differences between the logical and evidential problems of evil?

Answer 6

1. Logical is deductive, evidential is inductive
2. Logical only needs a defence, evidential needs a justifying theodicy
3. Logical doesn’t distinguish between types and intensities of evil, evidential does

Question 7

what is Plantinga’s free will defence?

Answer 7

1. a world with significantly free creatures is better than one with none
2. God can create significantly free creatures
3. To be significantly free is to be capable of both moral good and moral evil
4. If significantly free creatures were caused to do only what is right, they would not be significantly free
5. so, God cannot cause significantly free creatures to only do what is right
6. so, God can only eliminate the moral evil done by significantly free creatures by eliminating the greater good of significantly free creatures which he would not do as he is omnibenevolent and wants this greater good

Question 8

3 problems for plantinga’s free will defence?

Answer 8

1. Doesn’t account for natural evil
   (RESPONSE: natural evils result from moral evil; the fall was caused by Adam and Eve)
2. determinists argue that free will doesn’t exist
   (RESPONSE: substance dualism proves that the physical world can’t determine our non-physical mind so we do have free will)
3. doesn’t solve the evidential problem as it is not a theodicy

Question 9

what is Hick’s theodicy? + responses

Answer 9

evil and suffering are necessary as they cause our spirital growth resulting in ‘soul-making’ as we become more and more similar to God via developing our souls in the vale of soul-making

this is done by using free will to choose to rise above our basic instincts in situations of evil and suffering

we require epistemic distance to do this as awareness of divine authority would restrict our free will

Question 10

3 problems with Hick’s theodicy? + responses

Answer 10

1. ANIMAL EVILS: why have beings that don’t have souls to grow from evil and suffering?
   (RESPONSE: animals demonstrate evolution and maintain epistemic distance as if we didn’t see other beings suffering it would be obvious that God created us. They don’t suffer as we do)
2. TERRIBLE EVILS: evils so bad exist that they have no soul-making benefit.
   (RESPONSE: they only seem terrible because we compare them to lesser evils. As long as there is some form of evil in the world, comparatively ‘terrible’ evils will exist)
3. POINTLESS EVILS: some evils have no soul-making benefit
   (RESPONSE: if pointless evils didn’t exist then it would be obvious all evil has a soul-making benefit and we’d no longer be empathetic or sympathetic)

Question 11

25 marker on the problem of evil

Answer 11

Plantinga solves the logical problem by defending the existence of evil but fails to solve the evidential problem by justifying gratuitous evils. Hick attempts to justify them somewhat convincingly, but ultimately fails as this explanation cannot consistently justify all evils.

1. Mackie’s logical problem
2. Plantinga’s free will defense
3. Doesn’t account for natural evils (Adam and Eve)
4. Doesn’t solve evidential problem
5. Rowe’s evidential problem
6. Hick’s soul making theodicy: accounts for natural evils, addresses evidential problem
7. Doesn’t explain animal suffering (animals don’t suffer as we do WRONG, but necessary for epistemic distance RIGHT)
8. doesn’t explain evils with no soul-making benefit (epistemic distance causes empathy)