The problem of evil? Flashcards
Types of evil?
There are two types of evil and suffering.
Moral evil - caused by humans
Natural evil - natural events beyond human control
About Epicurus?
Greek philophser Epicurus argued that if an all-powerful and all-loving God exists, He should be able and willing to eliminate evil and suffering. Since suffering does exist, it suggests that God is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent.
Epicurus Quote?
“Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can but does not want to. If he wants to but cannot, he is impotent ( no power). If he can but does not want to, he is wicked.”
Mackie and the inconsistent triad?
Mackie expanded on Epicurus’s problem using a triangle to illustrate the incompatibility of evil with the concepts of an all-powerful and all-loving God. He posed the paradox of omnipotence: can an omnipotent being create things it cannot control, or can it make rules that bind itself? This reinterpretation offers a potential resolution to the inconsistency, but it challenges the beliefs of religious adherents regarding God’s nature.
William Rowe?
His argument centers on the existence of intense suffering that God could alleviate without affecting the greater good, yet does not. This unnecessary suffering challenges the notions of God’s benevolence and power, particularly in cases like the suffering of children, where free will is irrelevant. Gregory S. Paul uses statistics to illustrate the widespread nature of human suffering caused by natural evil, citing that approximately 350 billion early deaths, especially among infants, raise questions about God’s reasons for allowing such pain. He argues that these infants are denied free will and seem to serve as instruments for a divine purpose that remains unknowable, despite God’s capacity to choose a different approach.
Mackie Quote?
“The paradox of omnipotence has shown that God’s omnipotence must in any case be restricted in one way or another.”
Rowe?
“Intense human or animal suffering is in itself bad and evil, even though it may sometimes be justified by virtue of being a part of or leading to some good that is unattainable without it.”
Paul?
“ it is said that God is in the details and that the nature of creation reveals the nature of the creator. This is a valid point; the implications are not necessarily what Christians wish them to be
Augustian-type theodicies ( defence)?
Theodicy defends God’s traditional characteristics in light of evil and suffering. The Augustinian theodicy offers various perspectives, asserting that God’s creation was perfect and that evil, which arises from human sin, is not a substance but a lack of good (privatio boni). Humans, endowed with free will, chose to sin, leading to death and their expulsion from Eden, with all inheriting original sin. This explains natural evil as a consequence of the Fall. Salvation through Christ is viewed as the ultimate remedy, transforming evil into a meaningful opportunity for redemption (felix culpa). Augustinian theodicy is often called soul-deciding, emphasizing free will’s role in seeking God and perfection. Challenges arise regarding the compatibility of free will with an omnipotent deity.
Challenges?
The Augustinian theodicy has several strengths: it argues that moral evil, resulting from human free will, is greater than natural evil, which stems from the punishment for original sin. Augustine effectively addresses both types of evil while preserving God’s essential character and aligning with biblical teachings.
Interpretations of genesis?
Augustine treats Genesis as revealed truth, assuming its events occurred exactly as described. However, if Genesis is seen as analogical or symbolic, the arguments regarding the Fall and original sin’s responsibility for evil and suffering become less persuasive.
Scientific error?
Augustine’s claims about humanity’s descent from Adam are rejected by modern science. It is biologically implausible for all humans to be seminally present in a single pair or to inherit sin genetically or through sexual acts. This undermines the concept of original sin, challenging the justification for natural evil and reviving Mackie’s inconsistent triad issues.
Moral contradictions?
Augustine allows for behaviors from God that would be considered immoral in humans, such as predestining some for damnation while saving others. If God foresaw the Fall, allowing humanity to descend into evil without intervention raises moral concerns, especially as innocent people often suffer. Additionally, the condemnation of unbaptized infants for original sin challenges the idea of justice. These inconsistencies suggest that the Augustinian theodicy is built on weak foundations.
Perfect order becoming chaos
The theodicy contains scientific and logical flaws, as evolutionary theory and geological evidence suggest that the world began chaotically, not perfectly. Theologian F.D.E. Schleiermacher argued that a perfect creation should be unchanging and incapable of deterioration. For Adam to have disobeyed God, the possibility of evil must exist, implying that God is responsible. This suggests that Adam and Eve were not created perfect, placing the blame on God as their creator.
Irenaean type theodicy?
Irenaean theodicy, developed by Saint Irenaeus, asserts that God creates evil and suffering for a legitimate purpose. Rather than absolving God of responsibility, Irenaeus argues that God is justified in allowing evil to exist, emphasizing the meaningful role it plays in human development.
Vale of soul-making
Irenaeus views the world as a place for soul-making, positing that humans were created imperfect with the potential for perfection, rather than falling from grace. Genuine perfection is achieved through free will, with suffering serving to help us grow. In this analogy, God is like a craftsman shaping creation. John Hick further develops this idea, arguing that if the earth were merely a place for happiness, it would be inadequate; instead, suffering is essential for our development, making this world a “vale of soul-making” that helps us become more like God.
Human imperfection
Irenaeus took his inspiration from an interpretation of scripture
Genesis 1:26 “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.”
Irenaeus believed that God created humans in His image, endowing us with capacities like intelligence, morality, and free will. While we are not yet fully like God, we are meant to grow into that likeness. John Hick concurs, asserting that humans were not created perfect but with the potential for perfection, which means God bears responsibility for our capacity for evil.
The epistemic distance?
Hick argues that if God were overtly evident, we would be compelled to believe and follow Him, similar to how a police car behind you limits your freedom to speed. By maintaining an epistemic distance, God allows us the genuine freedom to choose and develop into His likeness.
Second order goods?
Second-Order Goods
God allows natural evil as an opportunity for spiritual growth. Without suffering, virtues like charity, altruism, and compassion would be unnecessary. These are second-order goods, which depend on the existence of evil to develop.
The counterfactual hypothesis suggests that if the world were perfect, there would be no motivation for self-improvement. Evil ensures a full range of both good and bad experiences, fostering moral and personal growth.
Eschatological ( what happens when you die) explanation justification
Eschatological Justification
Irenaeus and Hick argue that salvation depends on our choices and moral growth rather than just Christ’s sacrifice. Moral perfection may not be achieved in this lifetime, but purgatory allows for continued development.
The innocent who suffer will be rewarded in heaven, while those who cause harm must attain moral perfection before entering. However, eventually, all can achieve salvation.
Strengths of Irenaeun theodicies?
The theory aligns with the scientific principle that simplicity leads to complexity. It justifies God’s allowance of evil by linking it to a long-term goal. It acknowledges human struggle while respecting real-life experiences. Eternal life depends on personal choices and effort, making individuals responsible for their salvation.
Universal salvation is unjust?
The idea of everyone being saved conflicts with God’s justice. Figures like Hitler and Stalin, who caused immense suffering, could eventually attain heaven, which may trivialize the victims’ pain. Furthermore, it reduces the incentive to live morally, as all are promised eventual salvation.
Challenge to omnibenevolence?
Challenge to Omnibenevolence
The notion of a loving God using suffering to achieve a higher goal contradicts the idea of omnibenevolence. A truly loving and merciful God would find alternative ways to reach His objectives without causing pain. The intensity and extent of suffering in the world may be unjustifiable, as a good parent or teacher wouldn’t deliberately inflict suffering for a lesson.
Inequality
While all are created in God’s image, the disparity between luxury and poverty, as well as the reward of evil with power and wealth, raises concerns. Innocent people suffer while evildoers thrive, and God’s actions may appear unjust. A good parent allows sadness and corrects bad behavior, but punishing an innocent child is seen as abuse. The Irenaean theodicy defends God’s actions, but argues that God could achieve His goals with less or fairer suffering.
Defences for Irenaeus?
Defences for Irenaeus
Swinburne argues that extreme suffering is necessary for free will, as it allows for meaningful choices between good and evil. Without the possibility of suffering, the world would be like a toy world where actions lack true significance. Hick compares it to a gun where the bullet bounces off harmlessly—if suffering were limited, evil would be impossible, making true moral choices and good decisions impossible as well.
