the problem of evil Flashcards
what is the problem of evil
wether god’s attributes can be reconciled with the existence of evil.
The problem of evil uses the existence of evil to argue that God does not exist as his traits are incompatible with evil.
- a theodicy is a solution which reconciles the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and supremely good being with the existence of evil
what is the nature of moral evil and natural evil
moral evil is:
- physical pain and mental suffering brought about by the deliberate actions of human beings
- evil acts committed by people
- e.g. torture, murder, genocide
natural evil is:
- pain and suffering that are not brought about by any human beings
- suffering as a result of natural processes
- e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions
what is the logical form of the problem of evil
- The logical problem of evil is deductive (if the premises are true the conclusion must also be true)
- and a priori (based on thought alone)
- Based on the incompatibility of the existence of evil and the attributes of God
- If correct, proves that God does not exist
- The argument claims that believers are committed to holding an inconsistent set of beliefs
- it is called the inconsistent triad made by Mackie
- If god is omnipotent then he has the power to eliminate evil completely
- If god is omniscient then he knows that evil exists
- If god is omnibenevolent, then he would want to eliminate evil completely
- Mackie says that logically 2 of the 3 of these statements can be true but not all 3
- but believers believe in all 3
- So if god exists, why wouldn’t he eliminate all evil completely?
- He can’t exist as evil is still present.
- Believers must give up their belief in God or admit that they have a ‘positively irrational’ and inconsistent belief in God
what is the evidential problem of evil
- the evidential problem of evil is an inductive argument (makes a broader generalisation, uses premises to show that there is a likelihood that conclusion is true)
- and a posteriori (experience)
- based on the observations of the intensity of suffering in the world
- if correct, shows it is reasonable to believe that god does not exist
- the amount and intensity of evil in the world counts against the existence of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent god
- there is lots of pointless suffering in the world, e.g. babies born with diseases, people living in slavery and poverty, the millions of innocent killed in history for no reason
- maybe god would allow some evil, but would he allow so much of it? and people so undeserving of it?
- there is intense suffering in the world which could have been prevented by god
- an omnipotent, omniscient, and supremely good being will prevent pointless, intense suffering
- therefore an omnipotent, omniscient, supremely good being probably does not exist
- if god did exist, there would be less evil and it would be less concentrated among those undeserving of it
- not deductive proof of atheism, but concludes that it is reasonable to accept that god does not exist
explain a response to the logical problem of evil
- without evil, good couldn’t exist. how would we define good? what would we compare to? ‘good’ things wouldn’t have any meaning if there was nothing bad in the world
- some evil is necessary for good
- we need evil to develop our virtues
e.g. we couldn’t be courageous without having to overcome fear of pain, death etc (evils)
explain a response (Plantinga) to the problem of evil of the free will defence
- free will is the capacity to choose an action or refrain from taking an action
- god created a perfect world and humans brought evil into it through their actions
- a morally significant action is one that is either morally good or morally bad
- a significantly free being is one that is able to do morally significant actions
- a being created by god to do only morally good actions would not be significantly free
- the only way god could eliminate 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
- free will is a greater good, inherently good
- Plantinga concludes that he has shown how the existence of evil is compatible with a supremely good, omnipotent being
explain the response to the problem of evil of soul-making (John Hick)
- Hick says that humans are unfinished beings and part of our purpose in life is to develop personally, ethically and spiritually
- e.g. we couldn’t learn the virtue of forgiveness if people never treated us wrong
- It is the experience of pain and suffering that allows us to develop virtues
- in response to threat and suffering, we can develop virtues such as courage, generosity and kindness
- e.g. by there being people in poverty we can develop the virtue of kindness by donating to charity
- hick says that virtues developed off hard work and discipline are good in a richer and more valuable sense
- moral evil is the result of free will and allows us to develop virtues
- also accounts for natural evils: it is a greater good that there are consistent physical laws which we can discover than that God is constantly intervening to prevent natural evils
hick also addresses specific problems of evil
1) Q: why would god let animals suffer when they can’t develop spiritually like we can?
A: God wanted to create epistemic distance between us and him so we can be free to create a relationship with him. (a world where his existence can be doubted)
2) we can’t get rid of terrible evils. terrible evils are only terrible in contrast to ordinary evils. if we got rid of terrible evils then ordinary evils would become terrible evils and so on.
3) pointless evils are a mystery. but if every time we saw someone suffering we knew it was for a greater good/higher purpose then we could not develop the virtue of sympathy.
