The problem of evil Flashcards
Explain the introduction to the problem of evil using Augustine, Irenaeus and John Hick
The problem of evil presents a huge challenge to monotheistic belief in a God of power and love. If God loves us than why is there suffering in the world? People have adopted many arguments in order to address the issue:
o Augustine argued that evil came into a world, which God created as perfect, because of some angels made wrong choices, rebelled against God and fell from Heaven. They then corrupted humanity and caused Adam and Eve to sin, which was such a significant event that it corrupted the whole world and threw it into sin.
o Irenaeus argued that God wants us to learn and to grow in spiritual maturity, and therefore gave us challenges and hardships to face out of love for us, so that we could become people who freely choose to have a relationship with him.
o John Hick followed Irenaen line of thought with his ‘soul making theodicy’. He argued that challenges we face in this world are meant to help us reach a free relationship with God, and he also believe that this relationship with God is available and inevitable for everyone, regardless of their religious faith.
Explain the problem of evil as a logical problem
- -J. L. Mackie (1917-81) wrote the problem of evil ‘… is a problem only for someone who believe that there is a God who is both omnipotent and wholly good… it is not a scientific problem that might be solved by further observations, or a practical problem that might be solved by a decision or an action’ (Evil and Omnipotence, 1955).
- -If there is a God who is all powerful then why did he make a world of pain? Some people argue that He isn’t all-loving, all-powerful as there is evil in the world, on the grounds of logic alone. They argue that, unless it’s false that there is evil in the world, it presents a picture of a self-contradictory God whose attributes are mutually exclusive and therefore such a God can’t exist, in the same way that a square-circle can’t exist.
- -As a logical problem, this argument against the existence of God is a priori. It argues, on the basis of logic alone without the need for experience or evidence, that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil.
What is the inconsistent triad?
The problem of evil sometimes makes reference to the ‘inconsistent triad’. There are 3 proposals that we’re asked to accept:
- That God is perfectly good.
- That God is all-powerful.
- That evil and suffering exist.
- -This ‘triad’ of 3 ideas is ‘inconsistent’ as, its alleged, we can’t believe all of them at the same time without contradiction, and that is where the logical issue lies
Explain the problem of evil as a evidential problem
o John Stuart Mill argues that the natural world is full of evidence of evil, and he gives powerful examples of the many ways in which people and other animals suffer.
o He argues against those who use a posteriori arguments in support of the existence of a good God, saying that in fact, the evidence doesn’t point to an omnibenevolent creator but (if it points to a creator at all) one who’s sadistic and who behaves in all the ways that we condemn when we see them in human criminals.
o He argues against supporters of a teleological arguments, such as William Paley, who claimed that we only need to look at the world around us to conclude that it must have been made by all-loving and powerful God.
o He uses his argument to support the view that, if there’s a God, he doesn’t seem to be omni-benevolent. We can’t look to him as a guide for our own moral behaviour, and we can’t worship Him for His goodness.
Explain one way you would respond to the problem of evil
o Theodicy is an attempt to justify God, and to show that God can still have the character which is claimed by believers despite the evidence of evil and suffering.
Explain natural and moral evil
- -It could be argued that all suffering is the result of moral evil, especially if the view is taken that the Fall of Adam and Eve corrupted the whole natural order.
- -However, it could also be argued that all suffering is natural evil, as we’re made in such a way that we can feel mental and physical pain, and if we have been made differently then perhaps we wouldn’t have had the capacity for suffering.
- -For those who reject the idea of God, the problem of evil and the distinction between natural and moral evil isn‘t an issue as for them- they just believe life has its ups and its downs.
Explain Augustine’s theodicy
o Based on the quote from the Bible, “God saw all that he made and it was very good”, Augustine argued that evil is a privation (absence) of goodness. Evil isn’t a quality of thing in its own right.
o He believed that variety is a good thing and that there was a lot of variety in the natural world, for example different plants and animals, people and angels. Evil first came into the world through the ‘fall’ of the angels, God created the angels perfect, but some of them he created with less grace than others (as part of the overall variety of the world). This means that some angels had less help from God to try and be holy. The angels misused their free will and fell away from God.
o In the Garden of Eden this is repeated in the world followed on from here- Adam and Eve’s act of disobedience was so serious it upset the balance of the world and caused earthquakes and so on. Everything can be traced back to the failure of the angels to worship God.
What are the strengths to Augustine’s theodicy?
- -It doesn’t suggest that God accepts evil, or even tolerates it. Augustine never suggests that God wants to have anything at all to do with evil.
- -It’s based on the teachings of Genesis, which appeals to Christians.
- -It allows for an explanation of free will and doesn’t see humans as robots.
- -It identifies the issue of evil in the inconsistent triad because by framing this as an absence of goodness, Augustine attempts to defend God’s characteristics of classical theism.
What are the weaknesses to Augustine’s theodicy?
- -Evil in the world often seems to be more serious than just an absence of goodness (‘Privatio boni’). E.g. rape. Is this really just a lack of good?
- -Augustine doesn’t explain why God gave some angels less grace than others so they became disobedient. Why would God make angels with so little goodness that they rebel against him? Isn’t God omniscient?
- -Augustine’s ideas don’t always fit with Genesis 2 and 3. E.g. Augustine argues that Satan was the Angel that made Adam and Eve eat the fruit, but the Bible story doesn’t say that the serpent was Satan in disguise, just says it was a serpent. Angels aren’t mentioned in the Bible, except after Adam and Eve have left the Garden of Eden, Angels are described as guarding the tree.
- -Schleiermacher argues that God can’t be Omniscient/potent. The angels wouldn’t have a motive to sin if they weren’t created imperfect. Evil must have been made by someone or something, perhaps God made it.
- -If God is omniscient, then why did he create us with free will, when he knew that we would misuse it and sin?
Explain Irenaeus’ theodicy
o Irenaeus (130-202) based his work on Genesis, specifically on the teaching “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness”. o He believes we’re born with the image of God and would grow into God’s likeness. This meant that he believed they would grow spiritually and morally to be more like God. o God made us with free will so that we could make mistakes and learn from them. Irenaeus believed that this process continued after death and that Jesus was a truly God-like person.
What are the strengths to Irenaeus’ theodicy?
- -Irenaeus is offering an explanation for suffering and why it’s important that we do experience suffering so we can develop as humans. This explains why there is natural and moral evil.
- -He argues that the end does justify the means. Countercriticism: some people might question how much suffering you do need to learn a lesson.
- -The idea of humans developing and progressing slowly fits with the idea of evolution.
- -It helps people to make sense of evil and suffering in their own lives. Many people say “God knows what’s best” and “good will come out of this in the end”!
What are the weaknesses to Irenaeus’ theodicy?
- -Why has God chosen some people to suffer and not others? E.g. children in war-torn countries live through terrible situations and lose loved ones, while children of the same age in other countries face no problems as serious as this. Is this fair?
- -Does all suffering allow someone to grow? E.g. what about children with learning disabilities? How will they learn and grow from their experience? Countercriticism: can others learn from their suffering? And on the other hand… is it fair to allow one person to suffer so someone else learn from it?
- -Some people seem to be made worse by their suffering, rather than better and stronger. Sometimes it can make them lose their faith or become bitter, or even drive them to mental illness. Not everyone learns or becomes better people from their past experiences. 30-40% of children who are abused go on to abuse others in their lifetime.
- -Irenaeus doesn’t address how God is omnibenevolent but allows human suffering. Counter-criticism: one could argue that God doesn’t cause suffering but instead people do as we are given free will.
- -Why couldn’t we be made perfectly? Counter-criticism: if we were made perfectly, according to Irenaeus theodicy, we would learn nothing
Explain John Hick’s theodicy
o Hick (1922-2012) took a similar approach to Irenaeus, arguing that if we never experience any difficulties we wouldn’t be able to grow as people, we wouldn’t learn anything morally.
o “A world which is to be a person-making environment cannot be a pain-free paradise but must contain challenges and dangers, with real possibilities of many kinds of accident and disaster, and the pain and suffering which they bring”. (John Hick, Evil and the God of Love)
o He took the idea of ‘soul-making’ and developed Irenaeus theodicy so it could fit with modern scientific views, as most people accepted Darwin’s theodicy of evolution through natural selection.
o He argues that God gave us a world in which we would have the best circumstances under which to choose a free and loving relationship with Him. This includes an ‘epistemic distance’.
o He believes God deliberately choses to remain hidden from us and doesn’t make his existence easily obvious. Instead he gives us a world which is ambiguous, so that we can make genuinely free choices about whether we want to believe in him or not. If He were to present himself than there could be no doubt about his existence, then faith in God wouldn’t be a choice. Hicks argues God wants us to have that choice so that if we do turn to him, it’s because we choose to and not because we are forced to.
o His approach depends on a belief in a life after death. Our hardships can only be justified if there is the promise of better things to come after death. He believes everyone, no matter how bad they were in this world will be sent to a universal paradise once we die, where people of all faiths are welcome because God is Omni-benevolent.
Is Augustine’s view of the origin of moral and natural evil enough to spare God from blame for the evil in the world?
- -Critics argue evils appears to be more serious than a ‘privatio boni’. Child abuse, for example, seems to be much more powerful and harmful than just a lack of goodness on the part of the tormentor.
- -A religious group called the Christian scientists (founded by Mary Baker Eddy) take up this idea of the non-reality of evil. They try to explain evil as some kind of illusion, however it’s hard to deny that pain, cruelty and sickness really exist. Even if they’re ultimately illusions, the illusion is real enough and has real symptoms (such as the death of the very ill) which cannot be ignored.
- -Augustine’s view gives us no explanations of why God gave some of the Angels too little grace, so that they fell into disobedience. The theodicy seems to suggest that God didn’t think ahead. Also, Augustine’s version of events at the creation of the world doesn’t always align with the story in the Bible.
- -Friedrich Schleiermacher believed evil must’ve come from somewhere, therefore God could’ve made it. But if God didn’t make evil, then it raises questions on God’s power and omniscience.
- -Augustine’s theodicy raises important questions about the nature of God’s omniscience; if God knows everything in the sense that he can see into the future and know what we will do, then why did he create the world knowing that we would use our free will and freely choose to sin?
- -Perhaps God didn’t know what angels or people would do and cannot tell the future. But can God be all-wise if he never guessed that giving his creation the ability to sin would lead to disaster.
Can the need to create a ‘value of soul-making’ justify the existence or the extent of evils?
- -Irenaeus’ theodicy has been influential amongst Christians; when faced with suffering, they will often respond by saying that God knows what he’s doing and that good will come out of the situation even though it’s very difficult to bear at the time.
- -Critics of Irenaeus argue why some people suffer a lot more than others; does this mean that God wants some people to grow to spiritual maturity, but doesn’t care whatever those who lead peaceful and contented lives learn very much? For example, someone with severe learning difficulties might find it difficult to gain new insights from their experiences.
- -John Hick’s view of salvation is controversial- Is it fair everyone goes to Heaven? Because it implies no matter how bad we are, we will automatically go to Heaven and our actions in this world mean nothing.
- -His belief that everyone (regardless of their religious backgrounds) will go to a universal paradise undermines Christianity. Why would Christ have died on the cross to save humanity from sin; if there were other ways to reach God and if everyone gets to God in the end anyway?
- -Hick explains we have the free will to choose to believe in God, but if in the end we all arrive at the same destination, perhaps our choice of different paths is only a deceptive choice and not a real free one. Hick thinks that human freedom is so important that we can accept the price of natural and moral evil. Is this true though? Dostoevsky argued this in his novel ‘The Brothers Karamazov’; where he presents the argument that the price we are expected to pay for our freedom of choice is just too high. In this story an atheist is debating with his brother (who is a monk) whether God exists and whether He’s omnibenevolent? The atheist points out to the monk examples of the innocent suffering, and says that it’s not God that he doesn’t accept, it’s just that he ‘returns his entrance ticket’; he wants no part in a world where the price is so high. He asks his brother if he would’ve created a world which was perfect except that it demanded, for its existence, the suffering of others, and the monk admits that he wouldn’t have created a world on those terms.
- -Hick takes a consequentialist view when presenting his theodicy. He suggests that the ends do justify the means. Thinkers like Kant say that humans shouldn’t be used as a means to an end. He seems to be arguing that suffering is a means to soul-making.
- -D.Z. Philips is a 20th century philosopher, who argued it’s not right to say that God actually planned for suffering to happen and worked it into his design for the world. This is more than just saying that God allows suffering and evil to exist. If God has planned for evil and suffering then this makes God evil.
- -It could be that if the only possible option for making a world was that it had to have both suffering and freedom. What was the need for God to create a world at all? If this sort of world with evil and suffering as well as human freedom was the only option then God shouldn’t have created it at all.
