Evil and suffering

Logical problem of evil

• based on inconsistent triad

• god is omnipotent

• god is omnibenevolent

• evil exitst

• all cannot be true

Epicurus quote for logical problem of evil

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then hence evil?"

Evidential problem of evil

2 known facts about evil that are evidence against the existence of God:

1. evil is overwhelming in quanity and quality

2. evil is pointless because it shares no useful purpose

• if God is omnsicient, he must’ve known the extent of evil and suffering prior to creating the universe, so why would he bother to create the universe in the 1st place

evil is overwhelming in quanity and quality

• Natural evil: , around 200 million years ago, ‘The great dying’ happened- 90% of marine species and 79% of land species disappeared through a series of natural disasters and a massive asteroid strike.

• Moral evil: Ivan (in The Brother’s Karmavoz) gives the example of a five year old girl who is severely abused by her parents. Ivan questions how such brutal knowledge is needed and argues that no understanding of good and evil is worth the suffering of even one innocent child.

evil is pointless because it shares no useful purpose

 In a forest a lightning strike causes a fire. A fawn is trapped in the fire, burned and in agony for days before dying. No-one sees this or learns sympathy/compassion from it.

Free will defence:

• God gave humans free will to bring about the greater good.

• Moral evil exists because God does not control human actions; free will means people can choose to do wrong.

• free will is a greater good because pain and suffering allows for personal growth + developing virtues

• it has to prove two things:

  1. Free will leads to moral evil- it is not possible to have free will but not moral evil

  2. That the results of having free will are worth the price of suffering

Mackie’s free will defence (strawman argument)

he argues-

• there exist first order goods (experience of pleasure/happiness) and evil (experience of misery/pain)

• 2nd order good: responding to suffering with compassion/live

• 2nd order evil: repsonding with cruelty

• 3rd order good: The existence of free will that lets us choose between first- and second-order goods/evils.

• 4th order good: god gave us free will, allowing us to be morally reponsible

Mackie’s rejection of the free will defence

• It is logically possible for a person to make free, good choices, all of the time.

  Therefore:

  • Either God lacks the power to do so is not omnipotent)

  • OR God is no loving enough to do so (is not omnibenevolent)

  • Either way: Defence fails and God doesn’t exist

Quote for Mackie’s rejection

“why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?"

Plantinga’s free will defence (libertarianist)

•  no possible world that God could have created in which humans would always make free good choices- if you’re made to do something, you are  not free.

• God allows evil to exist so we can have free will

• free will is for the greater good because it allows us to freely choose to do good deeds, love on another and have a relationship with god

• without free will our actions would be meaningless

• consider 3 possible worlds

• God creates people with free will, they can choose so there is evil and suffering.  (This is our world)

• God doesn’t create people with free will, God causally determined people to choose what is right, so there is no evil and suffering.  (People are moral robots)

• God creates people with free will. He causally determined people to choose what is right and there is no evil and suffering.  This world is logically impossible. If people are free, they must be able to do morally bad things. statements= logically incompatible.

Plantinga’s explanation of natural evil

• God allows natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve’s punishment for their sin in the Garden of Eden

• their disobedience brought about disharmony in nature

Strengths of Free will defence

1. Free Will Defence is logically possible, Mackie’s suggestion is not

2. The Free Will Defence addresses the issue of natural evil as nature has to be free to follow its laws of operation and the evils that result from this enable the development of second-order goods.

3. A world with genuine free will has more value than one without it, where humans are in effect robots

4. consistent with CJS

Weaknesses of the Free will defence

1. But this does not mean that it is true

2. Based whether or not libertarianism provides the right interpretation of human experience (on assumption we have to free will)The fact is: we can neither prove nor disprove it.

3. Does being free justify- the sheer amount and quality of evil and the existence of pointless evil (evidential problem of evil)

4. Depends on a literal interpretation of genesis

5. is it just to make the whole of humanity pay for adam and eve’s sins

Iraneous’ soul-making idea

• rejects soul-deciding: evil entered the world as a result of the fall and it is used to test our faith to decide whether we deserve heaven or hell

• Humans did not fall from perfection

• we were intentionally created imperfectly

• we grow into perfection through our experiences in this world, making us worthy of heaven

• The world is a ‘vale of soulmaking’

Hick’s soulmaking theodicy

• Hick’s is eschatological- evil needed so everybody can reach into God’s Kingdom.

• God is our father- parents must develop their children’s character by teaching them how to live responsibly + help their character development.

• we need first and second order evils - our sufferings make us virtuous. So the existence of evil is compatible with the existence of an omnipotent and good God.

• Hick argues humans have to exist at an ’epistemic distance’ from God - this is a distance of knowledge - if humans knew for a fact that God existed, then freedom would be lost.

• this epistemic distance means we cannot know why there is pointless evil

• in repsonse to the extent of evil, there are degrees of evil- removing one would make the next one seem like the worst

Strengths of Hick

• The idea of epistemic distance -Hick can use this to justify any form of evil.

• Evil is necessary for soul-making

• Rejects concept of damnation in hell that seems to go against  the love of God

• consistent with evolution

Weaknesses of Hick

• it is not consistent with scripture

• If everyone is saved doesnt this make Jesus’ sacrifce pointless

Process theodicy

• God is not omnipotent- didnt create universe ex nihilio

• over billlions of years persuaded pre-existing matter into ever increasing complexity and order

• gives increased capacity for enjoyment but also increased capcity for suffering

• God is not transcendent- has panatheistc relationship with universe

• like the mind cant control way body works, God cant control universe

• God is responsible for process that brought suffering but not culpable

• if he didn’t start off this process, world would have no value

Strength of process theology

• resolution to logical problem of evil- shows why a loving God allowa suffering

Weaknesses

1. Cannot be sure about the translation of Genesis 1.1

2. Such a God is unworthy of worship “Griffin’s God is too small?”

3. Why did God start a process he could not control