The problem of evil and suffering Flashcards
Epicurus, Mackie, Hebblethwaite, Rowe, Paul
Types of evil
Moral evil- Evil results from human wickedness; murder, rape, terrorism or bullying.
Natural evil- Suffering and harm which comes from the natural world and the way things are made.
“The Puzzle of Evil” set out different areas of this, including animal suffering, natural disaster suffering, pain from disease, or from poor design of the human body, psychological illness.
Possibilities for believers
Empirical evidence of natural evil leaves believers two possibilities to maintain God is omnipotent and all loving.
1) Natural evil is the fault of humanity or the devil, and not of God.
2) God created natural evil, and had a good reason for doing so. ( PREFERRED)
Theist’s argument for moral evil
Moral evil is clearly our fault, not God’s. God lovingly gave us free will, and we choose to do the wrong thing.
Epicurus’ classical argument
Challenges the existence of the God of classical theism.
- A God who is omnibenevolent will have a motive to get rid of evil.
- A God who is omnipotent will have the ability to get rid of evil.
- Evil exists in the world.
- Therefore, either God does not exist or he does not have these qualities.
Mackie’s inconsistent triad
Trio of premises (Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, evil + suffering) is inconsistent as we cannot hold all three to be true simultaneously without contradicting ourselves.
If the world was created perfect and has since ‘gone wrong’, why has He not used His omnipotence to make it right again?
God must have known what world would be like when He made it (omniscient). If world intended this way, or he hasn’t changed it, he cannot be omnibenevolent.
Epicurean formulation
Classic formulation
Epicurus: 341-270 BCE
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is her both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
What attitude to gods did Epicureanism have?
Afforded a role to the gods but they were not thought to be involved in the universe in any way- contrast to Christian idea of personal creator God.
Mackie’s formulation
1917-1981
Sometimes referred to as reformulation.
Stated the problem of evil is only a problem for someone who believes there is a God who is omnipotent and wholly good.
Presents ‘simple’ form of the argument:
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is wholly good
3. Evil exists
Mackie’s formulation quote
“The paradox of omnipotence: can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control? … Can an omnipotent being make rules which bind himself?”
Main responses to evil
1) Evil is caused by free will: God loves us and wants the best for us, so allows us free will. If we make bad decisions we learn from these and grow as people- free will as loving gift.
2) Evil is necessary for people to develop morals and compassion.
3) Evil helps develop a different understanding about God.
Hebblethwaite quote
“it is the nature of the psychical world and the structure of conscious and sentient beings such as ourselves that render the consequences of evil actions so terrible”
“the structure of our bodies, nerves and brains being what it is, physical and mental torture can take such horrific forms”
Hebblethwaite’s argument
- Free will only partly explains suffering.
- Does not explain how acutely we feel the impact of evil actions.
- God created all the humans who live in the physical world, God has made humans endure evil and suffering through his creation eg disease, susceptibility to torture.
- God has created humans with the capacity to do such evil to one another.
William Rowe’s intense suffering argument
- Evidential argument- shows presence of evil inductively supports claim God doesn’t exist.
- Focuses on intrinsic evil of human and animal suffering.
1) Exists instances of intense suffering which an omniscient, omnipotent being could’ve prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2) An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurence of intense suffering, unless it could not do so without LGG or PEEBOW.
3) Therefore, does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
Rowe’s case studies (E1/E2)
E1- Case of Bambi (natural suffering)
“In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. A fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for days before death relieves its suffering”
E2- Case of Sue (moral suffering)
Actual event- Five year old girl in Michigan was severely beaten, raped and then strangled to death early on New Year’s Day in 1986.
What did Rowe conclude from his case studies?
Even if we discovered that God could not have eliminated E1 and E2 without losing some good or permitting greater evil, we cannot believe this of all cases of horrendous evil.
