OCR A Level Religious Studies Philosophy - The problem of evil

omnipotent

all powerful

omniscient

all knowing

inconsistent triad

the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God, and the existence of evil in the world, are said to be mutually incompatible

theodicy

an attempt to justify God in the face of evil in the world

natural evil

evil and suffering caused by non-human agencies e.g. natural disasters, diesease

moral evil

the evil done and suffering caused by deliberate misuse of human free will

privatio boni

a phrase used by Augustine to mean an absence of goodness

free will

the ability to make independent choices between real options

epistemic distance

A distance in knowledge and understanding

the logical problem of evil

seeks to establish a contraction between the attributes of God as defined in classical theism and the presence of evil in the world

the logical problem of evil - Ganssie

"square circle" objection - believing that God exists, and that evil exists is believing in square circles, as these are contradictory

the logical problem of evil - Epicurus

- God willing but not able to prevent evil: not omnipotent

- God can prevent evil but not willing: not omnibenevolent

- if God is able and willing, why why do we suffer?

- due to existence of evil, God not omnipotent, omnibenevolent or exists

the logical problem of evil - Mackie

- argument in 3 premises:

- God omnipotent

- God wholly good

- evil exists

- prima facie contraction: if any 2 were true, the 3rd is false: logically impossible to have omnipotent and wholly good God with evil

the logical problem of evil - Mackie

- an omnibenevolent God would seek to destroy evil

- an omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate evil

- evil exists

the logical problem of evil - Mackie: The inconstant triad

the logical problem of evil: strengths

- if evil provides strong evidence against the existence of God there is still stronger evidence that God does exist; still beauty and love and good in the world

- we shouldn't expect to understand God or the things he does

the evidential problem of evil

- a priori

- God's existence unlikely, as too much evil

- evil always suffered and experienced by someone: if a million die, a million suffer and a million people who live them will suffer too

- moral and non-moral evil

rational theism

belief on God based on evidence

arational theism

believing in God without evidence (only based on faith)

irrational theism

belief in God despite evidence from atheism (evidence against the existence of God)

the evidential problem of evil - Rowe

- existence of suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have created prevented evil

- evil in the world, so God doesn't exist

- more evidence of evil than God

- a posteriori

Mill: the evidential problem of evil

- the natural world full of evil

- cannot used a posteriori in evidence of God; doesn't point to an omnibenevolent creator, but one who behaves in a way we wouldn't condemn in a criminal

- cannot look to God as a guide for moral behaviour, and cannot worship him for goodness

- against teleological arguments: the natural world doesn't suggest a God

Hick: soul making theodicy

- if we don't have challenges, we wouldn't be able to grow our personalities, or learn anything morally

- developed Irenaeus' theodicy to appeal to 20thc

- around this time, people accepted Darwinism and neglected Augustinian

Hick: soul making theodicy - Keats

- influenced Hick

- 'vale of soul making'

- wrote in 19thc; cholera, smallpox e.g.

- saw word as a dark place in which pain and suffering had to be ensured to develop soul to make it fit to meet God after death

Hick: soul making theodicy

- many of his supporters lived through ww1 and 2, and wanted to find a way God allowed this to happen if they were to retain their belief

Hick: soul making theodicy

- rejected Augustine, as incompatible with science and created more problems than it solved

Hick: soul making theodicy

- evil not an accident God failed to anticipate, or problems he wished he was able to resolve

- God deliberately gave us world where we would have best circumstances where we choose a free and loving relationship with him through suffering

Hick: soul making theodicy

- epistemic distance:

- God chose to remain partially hidden from humanity, and gives us world that is ambiguous, so we can make free choices if we believe in him or not

- if God presented himself to us, faith not a choice

Hick: soul making theodicy

- depends on belief in afterlife

- present hardships only justified if promise of better things to come after death through soul making

- e.g. baby killed in accident cannot be seen as good, unless world out for the best; so has to be longterm end beyond death

Hick: soul making theodicy

- in afterlife people continue growth and relationship with God

- in the end, salvation for all, despite beliefs

- in 1960s worked and lived with multi-faith population in Birmingham, who seeked God through own traditions, couldn't accept all-loving God would condemn them for eternity

Hick: strengths

- influential among Christians who are faced with suffering; God has a plan and it will result in something good

Hick: weaknesses

- some suffer more than others and unable to benefit from suffering

- animals can't learn from suffering and there's no life after death for them, despite being part of Gods creation

- some made worse by suffering doesn't always teach people valuable lessons e.g. become cruel

- his view of salvation for all undermines Jesus' sacrifice

Hick: weaknesses

- KANT: humans shouldn't be used as a means to an end for soul making (2nd formal categorical imperative)

- Phillips: not right to suggest that God not only allows suffering and pain but actually planned for it to happen

Irenaeus' theodicy

- evil in the world for opportunities for us to choose and do good to develop goodness and character

- we must reach towards divine likeness

- "let us make man in our image"

- we are made in image of god, with mixture of good and evil, but must grow into his likeness

- we need to become like god in maturity and control

Irenaeus' theodicy

- we would not know the need for goodness if we only knew good

- free will and God required for salvation

- adam and eve were immature like children and disobeyed god; but part of growing up

- he sent christ to help us learn

- those who reject God are damned

- Story of Job: God made a bet that Job would stay loyal no matter what the devil did to him; cruel as using his followers just to test faith

Ireaneus: strengths

- Kant: we can only act morally if we have freedom of choice, so cannot be blamed for doing wrong if it is in the world and we were forced to do it

- Vardy: analogy; King falls in love with peasant girl- easier to force her to marry him, but better if she marries him out of love

Ireaneus: weaknesses

- divine love cant be expressed through suffering

- doesn't explain why people turn away from God

- if God is omnipotent, why didn't he just make people who were fully free but didn't want to turn from God

Augustine's theodicy

- everything created perfectly by God

- evil not a real quality

- evil a "privation boni"; privation of good

- evil not a existence separate from good

- variety part of good and perfection of the world

- all God's creation was good in its own right

- when something limited, is not evil but part of varied and good creation

Augustine's theodicy

- evil came into the world through the fall

- angels involved in the fall created perfect, but some received less grace than others (variety)

- angels fell away from God as misuse of free will

- same thing for Adam and Eve

- all evil followed from here

- 'evil' in world traced back to failure of angels and Adam and Eve to do their duty in worshipping God

Augustine's theodicy

"Free will is the cause of our doing will...they just judgement is the cause of our having to suffer the consequences"

Augustine: strengths

- doesn't suggests God tolerates evil or wants a world with evil in it

- explains natural and moral law

- uses the bible for support

- Davies: not valid to blame God for creating evil as if he was to try not to create it he would have had to create more of something but how could he know how much more to make?- lacks precision

Augustine: weaknesses

- evil more serious than a 'privatio boni'

e.g. deliberate cruelty to an animals

- thinks evil an illusion

- no explanation for why the God gave some of the angels too little grace; no need for variety between angles

- his version of the creation of the world doesn't align with Bible story

- why God allowed the lack of perfection (if we accept this is evil)

- perfect world gone wrong illogical as evil will have had to make itself out of nothing

Augustine: weaknesses

-Schleiermacher: impossible to find a cause for angels to sin unless they were created imperfectly

- if God knows everything, why did he create the world knowing in advance what would happen;

or if he know what would happen, he isn't omniscient

- God wants us to have freedom to choose right or wrong but was angry when Adam and Eve chose wrong

- contradicts evolution if Adam and Eve caused evil

- hell already part of the design of the universe; God must humans would go wrong

Swinburne

- although free will important, depends acts available to individual

- if possible actions open vary in moral worth, libertarian free will is very valuable

- if variation in moral status of what one can do limited, then libertarian free will adds much less to the world: one has 'toy world'; have little responsibility for well-being of others