A LEVEL RS AQA Evil and Suffering

What are the two types of evil?

Moral and natural

What is moral evil?

Suffering caused by humans, a misuse of free will

What is natural evil?

Things which cause suffering but have nothing to do with humans

Give an example of moral evil

Kidnapping, torture and murder of Junko Furuta in the 1980s

Give an example of natural evil

Tsunami in Indonesia, Boxing Day 2004, killed 227,000

Why may something be characterised as evil? Give 3 examples

Physical/psychological harm to a sentiment creature, the privation of good, doing something that is morally wrong

Define the logical problem of evil

Evil isn't compatible with the existence of God

Why does the logical problem of evil argue this?

God is omnibenevolent so shouldn't create evil, He is omnipotent so bad the power to abolish evil, He is omniscient so should know when evil is about to happen and can stop it.

Which idea supports the logical problem of evil?

Mackie's inconsistent triad

Define Mackie's inconsistent triad

The four claims: God is omnibenevolent/omnipotent/omniscient and evil exists cannot all be true - one must be false.

How does Mackie's inconsistent triad show that God isn't onmibenevolent/omnipotent/onmiscient?

We can't deny that evil exists because there is evidence so one of God's natures must be false.

Who created the evidential problem of evil?

William Rowe

In what cases does Rowe say evil can be tolerated?

To bring a greater good or to stop a greater evil

Give an example of evil being used to bring a greater good

A volcano erupting but the soil becomes very fertile after

Give an example of evil being used to stop a greater evil

Killing Hitler to stop the death of millions of Jewish people

What is the problem with this thinking?

Some evils don't fit into those categories and are known as pointless evils

Explain Rowe's argument in terms of premises

Premise 1: there are instances of pointless evil

Premise 2: an omni-God would not allow these pointless evils to exist

Premise 3: therefore an omni-God doesn't exist

Define the analogy that Rowe uses to back his argument

Loving parents wouldn't go on holiday when their child is in hospital yet people face evils without any show of concern from God

How would a theist argue against this analogy?

God shouldn't be anthropomorphised, the goodness of God doesn't equal the goodness of humans - it is greater

What does Rowe say in return to this?

In order to reject premise 1 a theist must argue that there have been no cases of pointless suffering in the history of sentience

Who argues against Rowe by reversing his argument?

G.E. Moore

Define the G.E Moore shift in terms of premises

Premise 1: there is an omni-God

Premise 2: if there was an omni-God then there would be no cases of pointless suffering

Premise 3: therefore the are no cases of pointless suffering

What does Rowe say in response to Moore?

Rowe's premise 1 is more reasonable that Moore's premise 3.

Who else argues against Rowe?

Wykstra

What does Wykstra propose?

If you look in a room and see no elephants then you can conclude that there are no elephants in the room but you cannot conclude the same for microbes.

What is Wykstra's conclusion?

We shouldn't infer that something isn't there just because we cannot perceive it - we aren't capable of perceiving God, doesn't mean he doesn't exist

Define the Free Will Defence

God gives humans free will because he is all loving, free will is important enough to be worth the risk of evil, the good gained from free will outweighs the evil

Why could free will be important?

Gives humans chance to develop morals, gives meaning to our relationship with God because we choose to have it

How does the Free Will Defence explain natural evil?

Human ignorance leads to natural evil (main cause of pointless suffering), natural evil helps humans develop second order goods like compassion

Explain why intervention from God when we use free will badly would be wrong?

It's not really free will if God intervenes, God's intervention would give existence that God exists - leads to good conduct out of fear not genuinely moral conduct

What is Mackie's argument against the free will defence?

An omnipotent God would be able to have a world where humans are free but always pick good.

Define the 3 possible worlds

PW1: humans are free, evil and suffering exists (current world)

PW2: humans are determined, evil and suffering don't exist

PW3: humans are free, evil and suffering don't exist

What is Plantinga's response to this?

Eliminating suffering would eliminate the greater goods that could be a results + natural evil entered the Earth and punishment for Adam & Eve

What are the strengths of Plantinga's argument?

Free will can lead to development of second order goods - without it happiness wouldn't be real + it's logical enough to refute Mackie's claim

What are the weaknesses of Plantinga's argument

Unscientific + relies on mythological narrative

Why does Hick's soul making theodicy reject traditional Augustinian theodicy?

it is "scientifically, morally and logically flawed"

How is traditional Augustinian theodicy flawed scientifically?

It is reliant on the bible which isn't based on scientific reasoning

How is traditional Augustinian theodicy flawed morally?

Immoral for God to send people to hell if he is omnibenevolent

How is traditional Augustinian theodicy flawed logically?

If God created Adam & Eve and put them in a perfect place then how was it possible for them to sin - suggests that God must have a faulty design that enables humans to sin and therefore God is responsible for sin

How does Hick's soul making theodicy explain moral evil?

We are working towards perfection instead of having fallen from it, to do this we must make our own choices because if God interferes doesn't keep epistemic distance then we will only do things for reward or to avoid punishment. By making our own choices and being genuinely challenged we develop genuine morals and second order goods which help us to be more like God and strengthen our relationship with him

What is the quote used by Hick to explain why God must keep epistemic distance?

"sounds cannot be perfected by divine fiat but only through uncompelled responses and willing co-operation of humans in their actions"

How does Hick's soul making theodicy explain natural evil?

Hazardous environments encourage moral/intellectual development, God can't stop this because he must keep epistemic distance.

How does Hick's soul making theodicy explain pointless suffering?

If there was no pointless suffering then it would be clear that there is God

How does Hick's soul making theodicy justify God's omnibenevolence?

He has given us free will to believe in hun which is loving and Hick believe that there is no hell - everyone will eventually get to heaven.

What is the term used by Hick to describe that everyone will eventually make it to heaven?

Universal salvation

How does Hick's soul making theodicy justify God's omnipotence?

God has the power to make the perfect world for the soul making of humans

How does Hick's soul making theodicy justify God's omniscience?

He knows that if he created morally perfect humans then his relationship with them wouldn't have value or be through free will

How does Hick's soul making theodicy justify the severity/quantity/distribution of evil?

God must keep epistemic distance so we don't do things for reward or in fear of punishment, then we can develop real moral values and have a real relationship with God

List the arguments against Hick's soul making theodicy

There is no evidence that humans are truly free (Libet experiment shows that your brain decides that your arm is going to move before you consciously do it)

Marilyn McCord Adams says that horrors (really powerful evils) slow down soul making and can even prevent it from happening (soul breaking) which mean soul making only happens for people who suffer less which isn't fair.

Pointless evils full no purpose

Give two other terms used for pointless evils

Dysteleological evils

Preventable evils

How does process theodicy define the difference between momentary events and enduring substances?

Momentary events are random creative traces of energy that don't have a form and are eternal

Enduring substances are the building blocks for matter caused by God's persuasive power acting in momentary events, they have a form and greater self-determination.

Define the two-fold power that momentary events and enduring substances have

They can be affres by things and can choose to affect other things

How does process theodicy describe the beginning of our universe?

God made the world from "no thing" AKA momentary events, used his persuasive power to give them form (to become things) and then created evolution so that these things could develop greater self-determination/freedom/ability to feel/cause pleasure or pain

How does this differ from the traditional Christian understanding of how the universe began?

Christians believe that God created the universe from nothing, God created momentary events - they weren't already there, everything was rigidly determined

How does process theodicy explain God's power?

God's power is limited, he has the most out of everyone but not all of it, he can only persuade what is available to him (dependent), he can't create things from scratch and control them.

How does this differ from the traditional Christian understanding of God's power?

God has absolute power, he has the most and all of it, his power is independent so he can create anything he wants, his power is controlling NOT persuasive

How does process theodicy describe free will?

Free will is built on and widened through evolution (not a fixed amount), God gave us the chance to increase our levels of free will through his persuasive power as a gift, he can't take it away because it wasn't bestowed to us

How does this differ from the traditional Christian understanding of free will?

God bestowed a fixed amount of free will to us at creation, can be taken away but God doesn't because he is omnibenevolent

List the weaknesses of process theodicy

It is not a theodicy, it rethinks God's omnipotence rather than using the traditional definition

God doesn't possess controlling omnipotence and he will can be frustrated which suggests he isn't worth of worship

Doesn't guarantee wrongs will be righted and good will triumph because God can't persuade us into his likeness

No mention of reward or universal salvation so fails to justify innocent suffering - may lead us to act less morally because there is no incentive

List the strengths of process theodicy

It is a coherent and logical response to the problem of evil/inconsistent triad - God isn't omnipotent he just has the most power so may not have the ability to get rid of evil

Retains God's omnivenevolence as he gave us the gift of evolution which allows us to gain more freedom/ability to feel pleasure and value, maximises good in the universe

Suggest genuine freedom (self-determination) and avoids determinism criticisms