The Problem of Evil and Suffering Flashcards
What would Aquinas and Augustine argue of evil?
That evil is not something that postively exists, nor is it an actual entity or object. That it is rather an ontological negative, or absence, specifically of goodness. This is important in their justifications of God in the context of the existence of evil. For God is not seen as introducing this privation; this disorder and destruction of form and disruption of function is seen as arising after the creation because of finite, imperfect beings such as ourselves.
What is Mackie’s inconsistent triad?
- God is omnipotent,
- God is wholly good,
- And evil exists,
According to Mackie, if any two of these are true, then the other cannot be true. However, according to Mackie, the believer must believe all three.
What two further conditions does Mackie add to the inconsistent triad?
- A good being eliminates all evil as far as it can,
- And there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.
What amendment does Plantinga make to Mackie’s argument?
Amends (4) to:
(4a) Every good thing always eliminates every evil that it knows about and can eliminate.
What does Plantinga argue in opposition to Mackie’s argument?
That a believer doesn’t need to hold (4). Plantinga thinks that the relationship of a good being to evil in the world, and therefore God’s relation to it, is in fact more subtle. Notably, many might argue, that evil can in fact be good or contribute indirectly to the good. They might further argue that the total elimination of evil may if fact incur a greater evil in that it might obstruct a greater good that is God’s purpose for this world.
These final points aren’t amazing, however. Surely the total elimination of evil would eliminate any potential evils that would be caused by its elimination, if evil doesn’t and can’t exist how does evil happen? These definitions of evil and good are intrinsically human as well, we are not to determine what these are (in some perspectives).
What is the afterlife defence?
God does exist, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and evil exists, but this evil is outweighed by a greater good. For example, there is an afterlife where the good and innocent go after death.
The afterlife provides infinite happiness, joy, and fulfilment after earthly death, outweighing infinitely the finite, if immense, suffering in life. Those deserving and those who have sinned will receive their recompense in the afterlife.
Free-Will defence?
God exists, is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; evil exists; but this evil is a consequence of an even greater good. Namely, free will.
This defence os put forward by Plantinga and Augustine. Metaphysical free will is commonly understood to mean the capacity of being able to make choices. It might be argued that no matter how much our set of choices is reduced due to factors beyond our contral, there always remain certain choices available to us.
What is compatibilism?
It is the idea that free will and determinism are in fact compatible. Hume maintains that to imagine human actions could be completely undetermined was incoherent. For Hume, free will was the ability to act on desires and preferences free from coercion and restraint.
What is Augustine’s perspective on free will?
God has provided human beings with free will, and that evil is a consequence of this free will, yet outweighed by the greater good that arises due to this free will.
The existence of free will and evil, is better than a world in which we had no free will at all.
What is a criticism of the free-will defence?
It only applies to moral evil.
What is Leibniz’s Possible Worlds defence?
That God as the creator is able to conceive of all possible worlds, and, from the nature of his characteristics, has the capacity to choose one to create. Further, God in his omnibenevolence would select the best possible world. Leibniz, therefore, thinks that this is the best possible world.
Promotes the idea that God is only capable of creating worlds from these abstract ideas. Would this not imply that there is a limitation on the creative power of God? Surely, if God is as he is described he is not just capable of imagining all possible worlds he is the source of all possible worlds; all possible worlds is numerically infinite.
What is Mackie’s counter to the possible worlds defence?
- On any one occasion on which I could will something, I can will good,
- It is possible for me to will the good on any occasion,
- It is possible for me to will good throughout the entirety of my life,
- God is omnipotent and can therefore create the best possible world,
- Therefore, God could have created a world in which we all had free will, and in which we would all will the good,
- God did not create such a world,
- Therefore, God is not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent.
How can Platinga’s free-will defence be summarised?
- A world with creatures (beings created by God) which are free is more valuable than one in which they are not,
- God can create free creatures, but he cannot cause them to do good without removing their freedom,
- Therefore, God created a world with creatures who have free will and can therefore choose what is morally right and what is morally evil.
What is the soul-making defence, or the Irenaean theodicy?
- Emphasises a division of human development into two stages,
- We begin life as intelligent animals who are imperfect and immature, but with the potential for spiritual and moral development and maturity,
- We then use our free will to develop, and actualise our potential for spiritual and moral maturity, to become ‘Children of God’.
What is an issue with the Irenaean theodicy?
- We could aks why God went to the trouble of leaving us to develop moral and spiritual goodness,
- Could there not be a better possible world in which he could have created us with moral and spiritual maturity but without the evil that accompanies or defines our development, or lack thereof.
What does Hick present as the solution to this issue with the Irenaean theodicy?
- That goodness that we acquire through development can only be acquired through this development, and is better than that we might have without it,
- This recognises that a key aspect of the relationship of human beings to God depends on the fact that this is a relationship which has arisen in that human beings have come to know and understand God,
- This is the purpose of their development.
