Theme 4: Problem Of Evil Flashcards
1
Q
Defenition for Theodicy
A
Defence justifiying God allowing evil to exist
2
Q
Definition for Omnibenevolence
A
All loving being
3
Q
Definition for Onmipotent
A
All powerfull being
4
Q
Definition for Omniscient
A
All knowing being
5
Q
Problem of Evil: Moral Evil
A
Caused by free-will agents
~ suffering brought about by anyone with free-will
~ choices of how to act
~ eg: Holocaust, terrorists, genocide
~ plantinga stated “God cannot be blamed for evil caused by humans exercising free-will”
6
Q
Problem of Evil: Natural Evil
A
Caused by nature
~ outside control of humans
~ eg: earthquakes, tusanmies, wildfires
~ J.S Mill “ nearly all things men are imprisoned for doing nature does everyday”
7
Q
Classical Version (Epicurus)
A
- belief system suggests universe was created diliberalty
~ God is everything, not possible for it to go wrong - if God is so great why can’t he get rid of evil
- to solve you take away an attribute - not the theistic God we talk about
8
Q
J.S Mackie’s Modern Development (1917-1981)
A
- inconsistent triad - tangeable (evil exists)
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omnibenevolent/omniscience
3. Evil exists - logically inconsistent for these statements to exists simultaneously - omnipotent he would have power to remove evil
- God could have created a world with no evil
- omnibenevolent his loving kidneys towards creation
~ imego dei
~ remove evil so they wouldn’t suffer - doesn’t make sense to rip God apart
9
Q
What happens when removing Omnipotence?
A
- understand why evil exists
- loves us but cannot remove evil
- whiteness stated God started evolutionary process
- “fellow sufferer who understands”
10
Q
What happens when removing Omnibenevolence?
A
- having power to remove it or he doesn’t want to
- not all loving = no care for creation
- malicious may enjoy suffering
11
Q
What happens when removing Evil Exists?
A
- Paradox of Omnipotence - makes things we cannot control - rules binding God
- God makes things he cannot control
- “by putting God outside time”
- God allows his creation to suffer - evil is definite
~ why would he necessary want to remove evil immediately from universe
12
Q
What were Aquinas Workings?
A
- what we understand as goodness might not be the same as God understanding of goodness
- E.g: treating poor badly, New Zealand Abortion 2020 - decriminalising it
- We are limited by time - God is not subject to change as we are - understands good and evil
13
Q
William Rowe: Evidential Problem of Evil
A
- varieties of atteism 1979 - argues it seems reasonable for God to allow some limited suffering to enable humans to grow and develop - not accepting God allowing intense suffering - a animal suffering is pointless
~ example of fawn caught in forest fire no need for animal suffering
~ all loving being would prevent evil, God doesn’t exist - referred as evidential problem of evil involves a consideration of whether and what to existence of evil can be used as evidence to argue Gods existence
- God allowed innocent humans to suffer but not explaining animal suffering
~ ‘suffering improves the soul’
14
Q
Gregory S. Paul: Statistiucal Probelm of Evil
A
- death of many children challenge God existence
- 50 billion children have died naturally before reaching the age of mature consent
- Holocaust of Children - children suffering from natural and moral evil, too young to make choices about God, no being would permit this suffering
- “modern Christian consensus followed by billions is so firmly overturned by human circumstances that is very probably is not possible Christian pacific creator”
15
Q
What are Theodicies?
A
- a defence which justifies God is allowing evil and suffering to exist in the world
~ God gave humans free-will - Swinburne response is that if each world existed be a toy world - no compassion without suffering
- life is a test - moral decisions decide were we go, we have to suffer en route - God of classical theism
16
Q
What is the Augustinian Type Theodicy?
A
- soul-deciding = making a free will choice or decision
- Augustine (354-430) based it on understanding creation in Genesis “God saw all that he made, and it was very good” - before human and angel disobedience - world was created good without evil
- God called all things into existence ‘ex nihilo’, humans and angels are susceptible to change but not God
- “taken singly all things are good, but taken together they are very good” - Augustine
17
Q
Evil as a Privation
A
- “goodness have the potential to be corrupt”
- evil was not a substance - God must have created it as he created all - but he is omnibenevolent?
- turning away was evil, evil Privatio Boni - privation of good - lack of good more evil
- “for what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?” - Aristotle
18
Q
Fall of Humans and Creation
A
- we deserved from Adam (seminally present) we all share Adam’s guilt and sin - we face same punishment
- human born ‘massa peccati’ - lump of skin
- ‘absence of good’ caused creation by ‘turning away’ from God and therefore bringing corruption - world out of sync
- ‘God judged it to be better to bring good out of evil, that to not permit any evil to exists’
19
Q
The cross overcomes evil, soul-deciding
A
- ‘bring good out of evil’ - ‘happy mistake’ or felix culpa
- fall of Adam and Eve, god would never have needed to send Jesus
- “God so loved the world he gave his only son” - Book of John
- massa damnata - condemned crowed
- those who accepted Jesus are redeemed (second Adam)
- “the lord is my rock, my fortress, my saviour” - Pslam
20
Q
Challenges to Augustinian Theodicy: Genesis
A
- theodicy relies heavily on the accounts of creation and fall
- literalists say its plausible and rooted in the revelation of divine script - “genesis quote”
- non-literalists and mythological then history related to creation and fall are suspect
- Hick would argue the theodicy is flawed “it is fatally lacking in plausibility”
- bible story is more a myth then history
21
Q
Challenges to Augustinian Theodicy: Scientific Error
A
- biologically impossibility of human descent from a single pair therefore invalidating the inheritance of the original sin
- idea all humans deserve punishment because of Adam and Eve - can’t work due to genetics
- massa peccati - human born but being transferred to all of humanity is not possible
- Dawkins idea that behavioural traits or memes are inherited is how we hold original sin
22
Q
Challenges to Augustinian Theodicy: Contradiction of Perfect Order
A
- chaotic as the perfect world becoming imperfect contradictions all geological scientific records and biological evidence
- earthquake theory - development of humans as a result of natural selection, mutation and evolution from earlier life forms is well evidenced
~ doesn’t always mean progress as science cannot value judgment for evolution and humans begin to regress a simple step to evolutionary process
23
Q
Challenges to Augustinian Theodicy: Omnibenevolent of God and hell
A
- if perfect world had been created then how is it possible for it to go wrong?
- implies evil is already existing and therefore this is a responsibility of God
- Schliermacher (1768-1834) said that it was a logical contradiction to say that perfectly creating the world had gone wrong - no perfect to start with or God made it to go wrong
- hell is part of the created order - knowing angels and humans would rebel - placing punishment for them
- Augustines view that God chose to create the world despite knowing the fall would happen makes god responsible for evil
24
Q
Challenges to Augustinian Theodicy: Logical Contradictions of Perfect Creation being susceptible to change
A
- perfection is immutable/cannot change
- how can a creation be less than perfect? Angel’s rebelled against God
- if humans began perfect then even though they are free to sin they need not do so but if they do then they were not flawless to start with and so God must share responsibility for fall
- God is omniscient he must have known in advance that angels would rebel and humans would fall - he bares responsibility for the existence of evil due to the lack of good in creation
25
What is Irenaean Type Theodicy?
* God has power to create a perfect world but chose not to
* wanted creation to develop qualities to make us spiritually perfect (opposite to Augustine)
* “let us make man in our image, in our likeness”
26
Irenaean Type Theodicy: Value of Soul-making
* humans developing potential and grow from the image of God into the likeness of God through hardships
* every free choice develops spiritually maturity
* second order goods such as courage, forgiveness and compassion are developed through suffering
* natural and moral evil help you learn and grow
* humans created the partial maturity - potential to develop Adam and Eve didn’t experience moral evil = immature
27
Irenaean Type Theodicy: Evil is a necessary part of Life
* never appreciated good health if you have never been ill
* virtues can’t be developed without tests
* ‘and the harder we strive, so much is it so much the more should we esteem it’
* analogy of God as a craftsmen to mould us into perfect objects by acting in faith
* God’s mercy into next life after suffering - those rejecting God have opportunity to earn forgiveness and develop spiritual perfection
* eschatological justification (after life justification) to remain just in face of suffering
28
Irenaean Type Theodicy: John Hick Argument
* book ‘evil and god of love’
* soul-making - providing ground for humans who earned their salvation - not belief in a saviour figure, but working through trials of everyday
* epistanic distance from God knowledge difference from God - we freely chose
* God couldn’t create those who are spiritually perfect so goodness could develop through freewill and not through fear of knowing they are being watched
* spiritual perfection in this life or next
* “we should never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a paradise” - Swinburne
29
Irenaean Type Theodicy: Recapitulation
Bring something back to beginning or head we can be brought back to God (cooperation with humans)
30
Irenaean Type Theodicy: Role of Natural Evil
Lean opportunities to develop virtues eg: Jonah and the Whale
31
Challenges to Irenaean Type Theodicy: concept of universal salvation
* all humans will achieve perfection, not matter what they have done in the past, how does this encourage moral behaviour
* if universal salvation there do we have free will to refuse it? This free will is limited undermines humans beings to develop spiritual maturity
32
Challenges to Irenaean Type Theodicy: evil and suffering should not be used as a tool by an omnibenevolent God
* suffering should never be part of a loving god, natural environment has to be created over a period, why couldn’t an omnipotent god do it ‘twinkle often eye”
* going through another life to reach maturity, they why didn’t god make our life span longer - to reach celestial on earth
* parable - thiest and an atheist are both walking down the same road, thiest believers there is a destination - atheist doesn’t
* suffering is not evenly spread - implies inconsistency with Gods mechanism of perfection
~ holocaust and Auchwitz
~ soul - breaking not making
