The Problem Of Evil (God) Flashcards
Moral vs Natural evil (+ issue of defining them)
Moral -> Physical pain and mental suffering brought about by human action or neglect. (Eg murder)
Natural -> Pain and suffering which was not brought about by humans. Either physical natural evil (ie tsunamis) or biological natural evil (ie cancer).
ISSUE:
1) Difficult to differentiate
-> some natural evil is caused by moral evil. For example, climate change is as a result of human agency.
-> some moral evil is caused by natural evil. For example psychopathy can be caused by the brain’s biochemistry.
Libertarian free will and Hard determinism def
Libertarian free will -> The ability to do or refrain from doing any given action.
Hard determinism -> No action ever occurs with the ability to do or refrain from doing any given action as they are already causally determined.
What does hard determinism lead to?
Fatalism: the view that human action is useless, no matter what one does the outcome will be the same (aka fate determines our life).
- This is an issue as our responsibility is shifted onto nature and the laws that govern it.
Compatibilism (aka soft determinism)
= A view that uses both libertarian free will and hard determinism. It argues having genuine choice is possible this is constrained by causal factors. Compatibilism redefines free will and determinism to show that the two distinct views are in fact compatible…
Free will -> how we respond to regularities in time (this is not random/is rational).
Determinism -> regularities in time
THEREFORE, while we cannot change the natural forces, we can choose how to respond to them.
Midgley’s def of evil (compatibilism view)
+ issue and response
“Failure to live as we are capable of living”
= She argues that evil is to be ‘anti-life’ and this can manifest in numerous ways (ie failure to develop virtue, to stand up for those in need or to make the most out of your life)
Therefore, we are all capable of evil, but one is not born evil.
ISSUE:
- This definition undermines malicious, ‘evil’ things. For example, defining the Holocaust as evil because it was a ‘failure’ seems dismissive. It removes the malicious intent of the action.
Response:
- ‘Failure’ does not take away the malice. It is because we have the potential to be good that evil becomes a failure to be good (aka lack of goodness). This does not trivialise evil in the same way that cold being defined as the ‘absence of heat’ does not make it any less powerful.
The logical problem of evil (Mackie)
P1: God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
P2: An omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being would have the ability, desire and knowledge to destroy evil.
P3: If evil still exists, then God cannot (as defined)
P4: Evil exists
C: Therefore, God (as defined) does not exist.
= a deductive argument that aims to PROVE the existence of God (as defined) is incompatible with the existence of evil using reasoning (a priori).
The Evidential Problem of Evil (Rowe)
P1: There are instances of suffering which an omnipotent/benevolent,scient big could have prevented without losing some greater good or leading to greater evil.
P2: An omnipotent/benevolent/scient being would prevent these instances of suffering if it could, unless it could not do so without losing some greater good or leading go greater evil.
P3: These instances of evil are not prevented.
C1: Therefore, it is unlikely that an omni (3) being exists.
= an inductive argument that aims to suggest the likelihood that God (with his three attributes) does not exist by the probable evidence (a posteriori) that evil exists.
Dystelological evil/suffering
Suffering that is without purpose (ie a forest fire burns a baby deer, who lies in terrible agony, slowly dying).
The free will defence (plantinga)
= aims to demonstrate that the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible.
P1: God (who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) can create significantly free creatures, but he cannot cause them to do what is morally right.
P2: The world with significantly free creatures contains a greater good than a world containing none.
C1: Therefore, God created a world in which there exists significantly free creatures capable of doing both what is morally right and morally evil.
C2: Therefore, the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God is compatible with the existence of evil.
SFC: a creature that can choose to do morally wrong or morally right actions
- as a response to the logical problem of evil
Mackies issue with Free will defence (and response)
P1: It is logically possible for an omnipotent god to have created a universe where we still have FW, but always choose to do good.
P2: This alternative universe would be much better than ours (as we have pain and suffering).
P3: This alternative universe does not exist.
C1: Therefore, either god is not omnipotent or God is not supremely good.
= Mackie claimed there was third possibility for the existence of evil.
The FWD gives two options.
A) no sig free creatures
B) sig free creatures capable of doing what is morally right or wrong)
However, Mackie argued there was a third;
C) God Could have made everyone freely, choose to do good. (Therefore no evil and we have fw).
Issues w/mackie:
- forced to always choose right is not free will
- what does ‘choosing good’ even mean? Can we know ‘goodness’ w/out evil?
Epistemic distance (in relation to Hick’s ‘divine purpose’)
- Epistemic distance is a necessary condition for genuine faith and free will.
a) Without epistemic distance, (that is, if God had made himself known in some manifest way), faith would not be genuine faith as people would have to believe in him.
b) For humans to enter into a loving relationship with God, there must be distance : If God’s existence were immediately known, we would not have the free will to chose to believe in him.
-So God must set Man, at a distance from himself, from which he can voluntarily come to God.
-This cannot, given gods omnipresence, be a spatiotemporal distance (God existing at the same time as us), but rather epistemic.
WOULD EXPLAIN WHY EVIL EXISTS -> to allow for free will, and faith.
Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy
=Explains why a perfectly good, almighty and all-knowing God would permit evil (Gods existence is plausible).
P1: God (who is omni x3) aims to create a world that enables free agents to fully develop and grow morally + spiritually.
P2: A world in which free agents are imperfect but grow morally and spiritually is a greater good that a world which is a safe, pleasurable paradise.
C1: Responding to pain and suffering enables free agents to grow spiritually + morally.
C2: Therefore, it is a greater good for God to create a world with pain and suffering ( to enable free agents to grow)
= God created evil for character development and a test of faith
-Mackie fails to consider gods ‘divine purpose’
- Humans must possess a choice to enter into a personal relationship with God
- Without this, the relationship would be like a hypnotist with a patient (coercive)
- Therefore, the best universe must involve humans, having the freedom to choose to love God or to not.
- as a response to evidential poe
Issues with the soul making theodicy (hick) + responses
1) animal suffering -> Animal suffering Is not free and is difficult to see how this might benefit us/for character building
R -> Treats us about compassion and teachers others not to do the same
2) Terrible evils -> eg Holocaust/ 911 It is difficult to see how horrendous evil and suffering could serve any teleological purpose. What grand plan could be responsible for this!?
3) Pointless evil -> Dysteleological suffering (ie the fawn) .
This kind of suffering seems to bring the apparent goodness; what purpose could it solve? EG God could remove children getting cancer and dieing without humans losing maturity
RESPONSE : Evil, which seems pointless is part of the process of soul making. If we believed all evil was for a persons benefit, it would be difficult for us to really develop the deep, meaningful sympathy that we feel for those who suffer pointlessly.
ISSUE W/RESPONSE : Perhaps this works for dysteleological suffering, but it is difficult to see how it squares with animal suffering and horrendous evils.
