The Problem Of Evil

Question 1

What is moral evil?

Answer 1

Evil caused by human action

Question 2

What is physical evil

Answer 2

Evil caused by nature

Question 3

What is mackie’s logical problem?

Answer 3

1 god is omnipotent
2 God is omnibenevolent
3 evil exists
4 a good being eliminates evil as far as it can
5 an all powerful being has no limits to what it can do
6 therefore the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being is impossible

Mackie’s inconsistent triad states god cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent as then there would be no evil. This is because if god had the ability to eliminate it and would want to because he is wholly good, evil would not exist

Question 4

What does Platinga add to the logical problem ?

Answer 4

He added that for the problem to work, the idea of God being omniscient must be added as otherwise it could be said that God may not know about the evil / suffering in the world

Consequently, he amends premise 4 to
- every good thing always eliminates every evil that it knows about and can eliminate

Question 5

What are the two types of suffering put forward in the evidential problem ?

Answer 5

Pointless suffering

Extreme suffering

Question 6

What is an example of pointless suffering in the evidential problem ?

Answer 6

Rowe’s farm
A fawn dying in agony in a forest fire with nobody to see it an learn from it.

This is pointless and unnecessarily evil.
No good or learning comes out of this. No souls are enriched or developed as it is not seen.

Pointless suffering would surely therefore not be allowed under an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god

Question 7

What is an example of extreme suffering in the evidential problem?

Answer 7

Some suffering is just so unnecessarily extreme that it does not make sense that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God would allow it.

For example , 1 billion children live in absolute poverty. The extent of this is too great to justify it being “learned from”. Suffering does not have to be so unnecessary and cruel in order for us to learn from it

Question 8

What did St Augustine say about free will?

Answer 8

A world that consists of stones and robots not able to sin is less perfect than a world with free human beings and evil and suffering

He said that humanity is responsible for moral and physical evil as the free human action of humans causes evil and Adam and Eve caused natural evil by failing to resist temptation

Question 9

What is Platinga’s free will defence?

Answer 9

A world where humans are significantly free is more valuable than A world with no free creatures

Evil and the existence of an omnipotent omnibenevolent and omniscient god is not logically incompatible as god created free creatures that cause the evil.

Although there is suffering and evil, this world is more valuable and there is no logical incompatibility with God’s attributes and evil.

Question 10

Which 3 criticisms could you give to Platinga’s free will defence ?

Answer 10

Evidential problem

Mackie’s challenge

Existence of physical evil

Question 11

How would the evidential problem be used to criticise Platinga’s free will defence?

Answer 11

Platinga’s argument would only explain why there is some evil in the world, not the extent of evil in the world.

God could have created a less evil world without ending human freedom

Pointless suffering and extreme suffering show that the extent of evil in the world is unnecessary.
This unnecessary evil cannot be explained by free will.

Question 12

What is Mackie’s challenge ?

Answer 12

1 god can do anything that is possible and consistent with his nature
2 it is possible for human beings freely never to do evil
3 there is no inconsistency between God’s nature and creating human beings that never do evil
4 therefore god can create human beings who never do evil
5 it is better to create human beings who never do evil than to create human beings that sometimes do evil
6 therefore God would have created humans who never do evil rather than those that sometimes dl evil
7 human beings do evil
8 god does not exist

Free will is therefore compatible with God determining us to be moral.

Question 13

How can the existence of physical evil criticise Platinga’s free will defence

Answer 13

Free human action causing evil and suffering does not account for physical evil
Without reference to the bible

Question 14

Who was Hick influenced by in his soul making argument ?

Answer 14

Irenaeus

Question 15

What did Irenaeus say to influence hick?

Answer 15

Evil is there so we develop using our free will

God does not intervene in human affairs to prevent evil as that would be to interfere with free will

Question 16

What are the 3 main things Hick mentions?

Answer 16

Vale of soul making
Epistemically distance
God and children analogy

Question 17

Outline Hick’s 3 arguments for soul making

Answer 17

Hick introduced a “vale of soul making” theodicy.
He argues that moral and natural evil are essential to soul making and therefore have a good purpose

God is at an epistemic distance (gap of knowledge) from us so that we can develop spiritually. We are not born knowing God. As our souls develop we find religious faith in God. So god keeps us at a distance to allow us to grow

God treats us like children rather than pets. Pets are made to lead an easy life. But God allows us to suffer as a parent would a child to enable us to grow. This is why he keeps a distance form us

Question 18

What 2 criticisms are there of Hick’s soul making ?

Answer 18

Evidential problem - not everyone learns from suffering

There is no evidence to suggest hick is correct even if the theory is coherent

Question 19

How does the evidential problem criticise Hick’s soul making?

Answer 19

Not everyone learns from suffering

Pointless suffering
Rowe’s farm
Fawn dying in agony in a forest with nobody there to see or learn from it. Unnecessary cruelty that nobody sees cannot be learn from.

Extreme suffering
1 billion children live in absolute poverty.
God could surely develop our souls in a way that is not so extreme and unnecessarily devastating.
The amount of suffering is inconsistent.