AQA A-Level Religious Studies - Evil and Suffering

Define moral evil and give an example

Any action where the moral agent uses their will to bring about morally bad consequences. For example, murder. Also refers to the 'inaction' by the moral agent- letting someone drown when the agent could have saved them.

How are humans regarded as moral 'agents'?

They are capable of acting in accordance with what is right and wrong.

Define natural evil and give an example

Refers to things such as disease and natural disasters which are out of human control.

Define suffering

Mental/physical pain or distress brought about by both natural and moral evil.

Describe the Fall in Genesis 3: specify what the sin was and why it was sinful. List the curses that are received after the Fall.

Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden—the serpent (known as Satan, the Devil). The serpent tempted Eve to eat from the Forbidden Tree of Knowledge and Eve gave in to the temptation. Adam followed Eve and also ate the fruit. As a result, God banished the pair from the Garden and into the world. They became mortal and could experience pain and suffering. Death was introduced as a punishment for man. Childbirth would be painful and man would have to work tirelessly.

Adam and Eve's actions were also punished by the Flood- a form of natural evil to wipe the human race and start again.

Where do Christians believe evil came from?

a). Satan himself
b). God is the author of evil as well as good
c). However, some believe the Genesis stories are only myths and do not take them so literally. Most of the stories were copied from the Babylonian myths 1,000 years earlier.

Give a detailed example of a natural evil

The 2008 Sichuan earthquake killed around 70,000 and left around 5 million homeless.

Give a detailed example of a moral evil

The Holocaust. 1941-5 genocide brought about by Nazi Germany exterminated around 6 million, namely Jews. 80% of people brought to the camps were killed within hours and the remaining 20% were worked until death.

Why do many Christians find it hard to grasp natural evil?

Moral evils can often be put down to human free will, however, natural evil, in most cases, cannot be blamed on humans so the next obvious blame is God. As all-powerful, God should have no trouble controlling the forces of nature so many ask why he does not. In the Bible, there have been several accounts where God uses natural evils to punish people, for example, the Flood. In the New Testament, Jesus has controlled/ reversed many natural evils, for example, curing leprosy. Why cannot God control the natural forces now?

Who set up the Logical Problem of Evil and give his quote.

Epicurus.

Epicurus' inconsistency Triad. 'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and not willing? Then whence evil?'

What is the Inconsistency Triad?

1). God is omnipotent
2). God is omnibenevolent
3). Evil exists

All statements cannot be simultaneously true. The existence of evil is not logically compatible with God.

What type of argument is the LPoE?

Deductive. If the premises are true the conclusion must be true.

Give and explain three solutions to the LPoE.

1). One can deny God's omnipotence- an impotent God cannot control evil and therefore cannot be blamed for its existence. This is the view of Process Theologians. However, an issue with this is that an impotent God may not be worthy of worship or even be considered a 'God'.
2). Denying God's omnibenevolence- this is unthinkable for most Christians and the 'hope' for an all-loving God is neither proof nor disproof. Sigmund Freud points to the 'hope' of an all-loving God being 'wish-fulfilment'.
3). Denying that evil exists- proposed by Augustine of Hippo, who argued that evil is 'privatio boni'- a privation of good. Evil does not exist in its own right, it is just an absence of good. For example, darkness is an absence of light. However successful this claim may be, it does not bring comfort or justice to those who have experienced great evils.

Mackie furthers the argument and proposes two other claims. One can accept one or the other, not both. What are they?

a). God can do the logically impossible and make evil good- 'there are no limits to what an impotent being can do'
B). 'a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can'- God should be able to rid evil and he does not.

= therefore, these statements are incompatible.

What is the Evidential Problem of Evil?

There are known facts about evil which can be used as evidence against God's existence. Evidence can be seen in the quantity, quality and purposelessness of evil in the world. These pieces of evidence are made worse by God's omniscience. Observable evidence.

Give an example to support the quantity of evil in the world.

The Permian- Triassic extinction.

• mass extinction around 250 mil years ago
• 90% of all marine species were extinct
• 79% of all land animals were extinct
• series of natural disasters
• NASA describes it as 'perfect crime'
• why did God not control the laws of nature to be less destructive?

Give an example to support the quality of evil in the world.

Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov:

• a novel which deals with the problem of evil
• one of the characters states that evil is too great a price for entrance to heaven- 'only I most respectfully return him my ticket.'
• two brothers are conversing, one is a rationalist, one a monk
• the rationalist recalls a story to the monk about a little girl who was beaten, abused and left alone and challenges the monk's faith in the goodness of God
• 'The child's whole body was covered in bruises.'
• 'Subjected their five-year-old to all kinds of torture.'
• the rationalist said if the price of entrance to heaven is suffering in some way, he returns his 'entrance ticket'- he does not accept the terms and challenges God's omnibenevolence. It is beyond our means to pay so much.

Give an example of the purposelessness of evil.

Rowe's example:

• a theoretical situation in which a forest fire caused by a lightning strike causes a fawn to be trapped
• the fawn dies an unimaginable death- its suffering is completely pointless and no good comes from it

Why is God's omniscience problematic when evil exists?

An omniscient being would have known from the start of creation all the evils which would take place. Questions arise why did God create such a universe? Why did God not prevent such evils?

Give two responses to the problem of evil.

1). the Free Will Defence
2). Hick's soul-making theodicy

Summarise the free will defence in 3 points.

• God has given up control over human actions in order to bring about a greater good
• humans have free will and are able to make own decisions and be responsible for their own actions
• as a result, humans will develop valuable qualities

Why do humans experience pain according to the free will defence?

• to be faced with situations where humans can choose to act in certain ways - to develop their character
• pain is stimulus for development

What two things does the free will defence need to prove?

1). it is not possible to have free will without moral evil
2). free will is worth the cost of suffering

Who sets up the free will defence?

Mackie.

Define first-order good.

A good at the basic level of human experience.

What is a first-order good? - give an example.

happiness/pleasure, e.g., eating a delicious meal.

What is a first-order evil? - give an example.

unhappiness/pain, e.g., breaking a leg.

If we come across someone in a state of first-order good, how could we react and what result does this have?

1). react in a positive way and increase their happiness/pleasure
2). react in a negative way and decrease their happiness/pleasure

If we come across someone in a state of first-order evil, how could we react and what result does this have?

1). be sympathetic, compassionate and loving - this would decrease unhappiness/misery
2). react in a spiteful, selfish/greedy way and increase/intensify their unhappiness/misery

What can we call these reactions?

Second (higher)-order goods/evils.

What is the purpose of second-order goods?

To maximise first-order goods and minimise first order evils.

What is the purpose of second-order evils?

To maximise first-order evils and minimise first-order goods.

Explain the third-order good.

Freedom.

• we have a free choice to maximise/minimise first-order goods or evils in the world
• pain and suffering are needed to help us develop the capacity for sympathy, compassion etc. but this comes at a price as some choose to be hateful/selfish

Why is God, therefore, justified in allowing evil in the universe?

To allow humans to choose or reject good ---> humans are taught to be morally responsible.

What is God?

Fourth-order good. God creates us with freedom.

Outline Mackie's refute of the free will defence.

1). it is logically possible for a person to make free, good choices, all of the time
2). God could have created humans so that they would only make free, good choices.
3). God did not do so.

therefore, God is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent and the FWD fails = God does not exist

Explain Plantinga's defence of the FWD.

• there is no possible world that God could have created in which humans always made free good choices
  --> you would not be able to lie/think evil thoughts - you would not be free at all
• 'free to choose' implies a choice between 2 things
• and if we are 'made' to choose - this is not a free choice

plus, God can do everything that is logically possible and it is logically impossible to make people always 'freely' choose good. So Mackie's refute of own argument is inadequate.

Add cards to further Plantinga's defence!!

!!!!

How does the FWD account for the existence of natural evil?

Nature has to be free to follow its laws of operation and natural evil gives humans the opportunity to develop 2nd order goods (e.g., compassion).

What could occur if God intervened and prevented natural evils?

Humans may come to realise that someone is in control of the universe. Humans could assume this to be God and they would know he exists. Humans would never be free as they would constantly want to please God.

Outline three strengths of the FWD.

1). Plantinga's defence of the FWD is plausible.
2). the FWD adresses both moral and natural evils.
3). a world with genuine free will is much more valuable than a world without.

Outline two weaknesses of the FWD.

1). the FWD does not sufficiently address the evidential problem of evil
2). Planting may not be correct

What theodicy does Hick reject and why?

He rejects Augustine's soul-deciding theodicy.

• the soul-deciding theodicy states that evil and suffering originates from the Fall of Adam and Eve
  Hick rejects as:
• Genesis is a mythological account
• morally, punishing the whole succeeding race for the sins of its parents is unjust

Whose/what ideas are a better stating point for Hick?

Ideas of St Irenaeus - humans did not 'fall' from perfection but were made imperfect who had the capacity to become 'children of God'.

Explain Hick's view that humans are made for a love relationship with God.

• humans are the 'children of God'
• in Christianity, God is described as the Father
• Hick extends the metaphor:

No human parents force their children to love them, instead, children learn to love their parents through a free response to their parents' care. Parents created their children through love and develop their children's character by teaching them to act responsibly and not shielding them from the harsh realities of the world.

Explain how Hick extends the metaphor to God's creation and development of the human race.

• Genesis: humans are created 'imago dei' & in God's likeness
• 'Bios' = image & biological life of human beings
• 'Zoe' = likeness & perfect personal life seen in Jesus

So, God creates humans through biology and allows it to develop until humans become Christ-like.

What does Hick believe will eventually happen?

Just as children mature and can respond to their parents in freedom and love, the human race will mature and will respond to its Creator in a similar way.

What is the key difference between how children respond to their parents and how the human race responds to God?

Whereas some children will never learn to respond to their parents, eventually the human race as a whole will respond freely to God --> all will be saved + enter heaven.

Does Hick believe those who reject Christ will go to hell?

No. God's salvation is for all of humanity (universal). Hell would be unloving of God if one rejected Christ.

How does free-will fit with Hick's theodicy?

This personal relationship with God can only be achieved if each individual is free to choose between good and evil --> so eventually, humans freely come to love God.

Explain Hick's 'epistemic distance'.

There must exist a 'distance of knowledge' between humans and God. If humans knew God existed, their freedom would be lost because they would do whatever they thought God wanted.

Why does Hick believe the world should contain moral/natural evils?

Humans can develop second-order goods like compassion/sympathy and become 'children of God'.

Why does Hick also reject Mackie's view that God could have made us always freely choose good?

Our response to God would not be authentic, it would be compelled. Love cannot be forced.

State three objections (weaknesses) to Hick's theodicy and provide Hick's response.

1). Soul-making does not justify animal suffering.
H = animals have no fear of death, pain warns them of danger, Hick says if animals did not suffer, the epistemic distance would be lost.
2). There remain pointless evils in the world.
H = such evils must remain a mystery as if there were no irrational evils, the epistemic distance would be lost
3). the theodicy does not justify the extent of evils in the world.
H = the more moral evil is removed, the less moral freedom we have.

Outline three strengths of Hick's theodicy.

1). epistemic distance may justify all kinds of evils as the final goal of heaven justifies the means.
2). the argument that evil is necessary for soul-making and character development is strong.
3). the argument that hell cannot exist if God is omnipotent is a strong argument.

Outline three weaknesses of Hick's theodicy.

1). Hick's argument to justify animal suffering is not sound. Humans and animals are not so different in terms of evolution - what makes humans so different? How can the quantity of animal suffering be justified?
2). evidential problem of evil: is the promise of heaven enough to make up for the sheer amount of suffering in the world?
3). if we are all ultimately saved, God is overriding freedom.