There’s No Satisfactory Answer To The Problem Of Evil Flashcards
1
Q
Introduction
A
- problem has two parts: evidential (moral and natural evils), logical problem ( if god were all powerful he’d abolish evil….)
- answer to these depends on which theodicy (attempt to justify good god in the face of evil) you believe
- I think hicks answer is most satisfactory
2
Q
1st paragraph
A
- first Augustinian theodicy says in his confessions he subscribed to Manichaeism perversion of platonism Plato regarded material inferior to spiritual but good as participated in realm of forms this was simplified to material bad soul good
- after conversion to Christianity he thought everything made good genesis 1:31 ‘god saw everything he had made and indeed it was very good’
- everything made good but not good like god if god creates something that’s not god it’s good in its own way
- e.g. stone maybe good in a way a stone can it cannot be good as a cat can be and humans are good in their own way
- if god makes things different but good there’s a scale of good as things have different capabilities
- if god made everything good evil must be going wrong of something itself good Enchiridion 10-12 ‘would never permit the existence of evil among what he has made’
- evil is a privation of good careful as not saying evil doesn’t exist just it is where good lacks
- father Herbert McCabe said nothing in the wrong place is just as bad as something in the wrong place
- someone evil is a human gone badly wrong hitler was good as he was human but evil came when he became less than what a good human could become
- Augustine argue even a sinful person is more good than an inanimate as he has human gifts but a good human has his gifts working well for right reasons but even if doesn’t use them it’s more valuable than not having them
3
Q
2nd paragraph
A
- to explain evil in a world made good Augustine cite two events fall of angels and fall od man
- fall of angels brought evil into world (disobeying god) and this translated onto Adam and Eve in garden when defied and ate fruits
- Augustine theodicy soul deciding (evil as a test of goodness and faithfulness to god) and so our choice to objet god
- believes punishment continues through generations as we all present in loins of Adam
- god loves us though and offers redemption in Christ
-Plato lacked word for will Augustine thought we can know good and still not do it as we have will (voluntas) - important as through this free choice we can be good and why theodicy is soul deciding as we have a choice in face of evil
- example fo young man and woman where man threatened by dad so love not sincere
- love to mean anything needs to be given freely so genuine love of god must be freely given so freedom of will and free choice is important
- Augustine thinks world with evils that follow from free will is better than one without it and says ‘creature that sins by free will is more excellent than one that doesn’t only because it has no free will’
4
Q
Criticism to 2nd paragraph
A
- in evil and omnipotence J.L Mackie argues some have free will but always choose to act righteously because of character
- this is why some are reliable or virtuous because from their character they will act in a way
- mackie argues omnipotent god could give people free will but give them character so they never choose to sin and this isn’t logically impossible he could do this
- I find this convincing but Augustine respond how free is someone who will only always choose to do one thing rather than another (is this freedom)
- problem of definition however still find Mackie more convincing
- Augustine science also flawed as in his time concept of homunculi where little people in man’s loins and then planted in woman but this is now seen false as we don’t pre exist conception
5
Q
3rd paragraph
A
- irenaeus theodicy which hick evolved, described soul making places emphasis on idea that evil provides opportunities for people to develop in goodness and character
- genesis 1:26 ‘let us make man in our image and likeness’ meaning we are made imago dei (gods image) but need to grow throughout history into likeness (mature)
- for him evil stems from original sin of Adam and Eve but treats them as children because moral immaturity and like children disobeyed simple rule
- doesn’t see this as catastrophe as part of growing plus god wanted humans to mature over lengthy time not one lifetime but through history so sent Christ to help
- recognise evil serves purpose and that’s to help us learn right way through experience like Jonah learnt repentance in belly of whale
- without evils like death we wouldn’t learn need for goodness and repentance and if everything required no effort there’s no virtue as things of value gained with difficulty so we can appreciate it
- must be patient to give god time to make world as he chooses image of potter moulding his clay in Against Heresies ‘your moist clay hidden by god’s workmanship’
- suggests continuation of soul making to next life but those who reject god damned to hell in eternal suffering
6
Q
Criticism to 3rd paragraph
A
- find this convincing one criticism is what ireneaeus is essentially arguing is flawed way to perceive world because no consolidation for victim but doesn’t encapsulate problem properly
- although this true that an ideal observer is able to observe painting noting contrasts and appreciate black from white evil isn’t experience as such as it’s real harm to real people and to say to Jews who died horribly in WW2 it’s because an external observer could appreciate says nothing to their suffering
- however you could say point of theodicy is not to console victims of tragedies such but to make aware causes and consequences of evil and how and why to prevent them
- could argue holocaust was awful but humanity on the whole learnt from it
7
Q
4th paragraph
A
- hick in his Evil and the God of Love he took soul making and spelled out its implications
- central to his theory is genuine freedom and accepts free will defence as god wants genuine relationship and only relation worth is a free one so need free choice
- if we are to have free choices then free consequences are necessary
-e.g. if impossible for you to hurt I’m not free in any way to choose to hurt you but flipped if your life perfect I cannot choose to harm you but I cannot do you good because your life is perfect - if one can only improve as a person by good acts then good (or bad) must be real and feel real because if I can’t do you god i can’t improve but you won’t learn (tolerance forgiveness etc)
- hick says god creates epistemically distance between us and him (gap in knowledge between us and him which allows us to come to rational conclusions)
- counter factual thesis about natural evil asking what world would be like if weren’t like ours without pain
- such a world is meaningless empty haze where we drift aimlessly not suffering but not thinking r caring
- ordinary activities become impossible (cite cricket example) as such life is dull and we never learn anything
- what would be the point of that life if god intervenes nothing self chosen so can’t grow into gods image
- underlying idea of hick is somethings goodness depends on its purpose as world without pain might be good world itself but not a good world for making us better or for soul making
- if god made this world one where we could develop then this creation suits it well
- he argues world is instrumentally good (good for its purpose) such a good knife is good at carving and obtains goodness from how suited it is so hick says world is ‘vale of soul making’
- if god had to intervene at every point there’s no regularities as knife be soft and hard so science can’t exist as based on regularities so when trying to explain world only answer is god so we have to believe in him
8
Q
Criticism of 4th paragraph
A
-D.Z Phillips approach has deep awareness of inability of human mind to understand divine and he protests against moral assumptions as found in utilitarianism or kantianism
- he goes against theodicy trying to justify god in usefulness of evil as is instrumental use of evil
- says I’m his The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God ‘it would make it possible for the Good Samaritan to say on coming across the victim thank you god for another opportunity to be responsible’
- don’t find this convincing and hick responded saying he pays little attention to his own admission of dystelelogical evil by pointing out he would never claim justification of holocaust
- I’d argue hicks view isn’t entirely instrumental view of evil because an instrumental view implies its good for a purpose I don’t think hick arguing evil is good for something but necessary as for us to be free evil is necessary (not necessarily good)
