The Problem Of Evil Flashcards
What is the idea of the problem of evil?
The problem of evil uses the existence of evil in the world to argue that God (as defined in the concept of God) does not exist.
What is the logical problem of evil?
The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument that says the existence of God is logically impossible given the existence of evil in the world, due to God being omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
What is the evidential problem of evil?
The evidential problem of evil is 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 is the difference between Moral evil and Natural Evil?
Moral evil — Evil acts committed by people e.g. torture, murder, genocide, etc.
Natural Evil — Suffering as a result of natural processes e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc.
What is the inconsistent triad problem by Mackie? — logical problem
- God is omnipotent
- God is omnibenevolent
- Evil exists
Mackie’s argument is that, logically, a maximum of 2 of these 3 statements can be true but not all 3. This is sometimes referred to as the inconsistent triad.
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.
1st objection to Mackie and his response (good couldn’t exist without 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:
Mackie questions whether this statement is true at all. Why can’t we have good without evil?
Imagine if we lived in a world where everything was red. Presumably, we wouldn’t have created a word for ‘red’, nor would we know what it meant if someone tried to explain it to us. But it would still be the case that everything is red, we just wouldn’t know.
God 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.
3rd objection to Mackie and his response (we need evil for free will)
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:
- 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
Thus, this would be the best of both worlds and maximise good most effectively: second order goods + free will + no second order evil. This is a logically possible world – the logically possible world with the most good.
2nd objection to Mackie and his response (the world is better with some evil that’s none at all)
Some evil is necessary for certain types of good e.g you couldn’t be courageous (good) without having to overcome fear of pain, death, etc. (evil).
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:
How do we explain second order evil? They seek to maximize first order evils (pain) into smth like cruelty, hatred etc. We could still be in a world in which people would be courageous (second order good in overcoming first order evil) without second order evils. So why would omnipotent and omnibenevolent Godallow the existence of second order evils if there is no greater good in doing so? (Unlike with first order evils).
What is the overall issue for the logical problem of evil? (Alvin Plantinga: God, Freedom and Evil)
Plantinga says: We don’t need to prove exactly why God allows evil. We just need to show that it’s possible that God has a good reason for allowing it. As long as it’s logically possible, then the idea of God and evil existing together is not a logical contradiction.
What is the 1st issue for the logical problem of evil? (Free will defense)
P1. A morally significant action is one that is either morally good or morally bad
P2. A being that is significantly free is one that is able to do or not do morally significant actions
P3. A being created by God to only do morally good actions would not be significantly free
C1. Therefore, the only way God could eliminate evil (including second order evil) would be to eliminate significantly free beings
P4. But a world that contains significantly free beings is more good than a world that does not contain significantly free beings
C2. Therefore, God has a good reason to allow evil (for the free will)
This argument shows it’s logically possible that God allows second-order evil for the greater good of significant freedom.
A world where everyone only chooses good (as Mackie suggests) wouldn’t be truly free. Free will is a great good, and its value could outweigh the evil that comes from people misusing it.
What is the 2nd issue for the logical problem of evil? (Natural evil as a form of moral evil)§
When innocent people are killed in natural disasters, it doesn’t seem this is the result of free will. So, even if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow moral evil, why does this kind of evil exist as well?
Plantinga says that natural evil (like earthquakes or diseases) might be caused by non-human beings like Satan or demons. If that’s true, then natural evil is really just another kind of moral evil.
Even if this idea sounds unlikely, it’s still possible. And that’s enough — because Plantinga only needs to show that evil and God’s existence are not a logical contradiction
What is the 3rd issue for the logical problem of evil? (Soul-making defense) — John Hick
Hick argues that “humans are unfinished beings”. Part of our purpose in life is ti develop personally and spiritually — Soul-Making.
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).
God allows evil and suffering so that we can grow and develop as people (e.g. become brave, kind, patient).
• If life was perfect, we wouldn’t learn these virtues — we’d just be like robots.
• So, suffering has a purpose: it helps “make our soul” into something better
What are the examples of the evidential problem of evil?
- Innocent babies born with painful diseases
- The sheer number of people living in slavery and poverty
- Millions of people killed through out history for no good reason
The evidential problem of evil argues that if God did exist, there would be less evil in the world.
What are 2 issues for the evidential problem of evil? (The same as for logical problem of evil)
- Free will
Response — Why didn’t God create a world with little less evil (with the same amount of free will, but with 1% less cancer). The evidential problem of evil could insist that the amount of evil – or unfair ways it is distributed – could easily be reduced without sacrificing some greater good, and so it seems unlikely that God exists, in this world, given this particular distribution of evil.
There’s just too much evil and suffering — more than seems necessary. So, it’s not a contradiction (not like in the logical problem) — but it’s strong evidence against God’s existence.
- John Hick: Soul-Making
What is the criticism of Soul-making defense?
There are some evils that don’t seem necessary for soul-making, such as:
— Animal suffering
— Terrible evils
— Pointless evils
What is Hick’s response to Animal suffering?
God wants to create epistemic distance — a world where people can doubt His existence. That way, we’re truly free to choose a relationship with Him or to do good for the right reasons — not just to get rewards.
If humans were clearly different from animals, or if animals didn’t suffer, it might be too obvious that God exists and made us special.
But because we look similar to animals — and even suffer like them — we can believe we came from natural causes (like evolution). This creates space for faith, and that’s part of God’s plan
What is Hick’s response to Why God allows such terrible evils?
If God got rid of terrible evils (e.g torturing a baby), then the worst ordinary evils would become the new terrible evils since we would have a new standard for the terrible evils.
If God kept stopping every really bad thing (like murder, torture, etc.), then:
• He would have to interfere with people’s free choices.
• That means we wouldn’t be truly free to choose between good and evil
Less evil = less freedom = less moral and spiritual growth.
What is Hick’s response to Why God allows such pointless evils?
Why would God allow horrible, pointless suffering — like a child getting cancer?”
Hick says:
Yes, it feels pointless. And maybe we’ll never fully understand it.
But that mystery actually helps us grow.
Why?
Because if we knew every bad thing had a higher purpose, we might not feel real sympathy or compassion — we’d just think, “Oh, it’s part of God’s plan.”
But when suffering seems pointless, we feel real pain, sadness, and care deeply — and that helps us develop deep moral virtues
