problem of evil

define the problem of evil

the existence of evil eihter logically rules out or is evidence against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, or supremly good being

outline the logical problem of evil [5marks]

p1) if God is sumpremly good, then he has the desire to eliminate evil

p2) if God is omnipotnent, then he is able to elimiate evil

p3) if God is omnisceint, then he knows how to eliminate evil

c1) therefore if God exists, and is supremly good, omnipotent, omniscient, then God will eliminate evil

c2) therefore if a supremly good, omnipotent, omniscient God exists, evil won’t exist

p4) evil does exist

c3) therefore, a supremly good, omnipotent, omniscient God doesn’t exist

outline the inconsistent triad

the concepts; God is omnipotent, God is omnibenvolent and evil exists cannot all work.

For example;

1. is God willing but unable to prevent evil → then he is not omnipotent

2. is God able to prevent evil but not willing → then he is not omnibenevolent

3. is God able to prevent evil and willing to? → then why does evil still exist

[either god is not all powerfull, or not all loving, or evil doesn’t exist]

what does the logical problem of evil claim?

that the mere existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God

how is the logical problem of evil a deductive argument?

1. God is supremely good

2. God is omnipotent

3. God is omniscience

4. God exists

5. evil exists

[any 4 claims can be true but the 5th cannot]

what does the evidential problem of evil claim?

the amount and distribution of evil that exists is good evidence that God doesn’t exist.

how is the evidential problem of evil and inductive argument?

to solve this we need to replace ‘evil’ with something like ‘unnecessary evil’

what are the 2 types of evil?

moral and natural

define moral evil

morally wrong actions or motives of human beings e.g Hitler

define natural evil

reffers to something suffering caused by natural events e.g hurricanes

what is the difference between a defence and a theodicy?

a theodict would attempt to prove why god allows evil within the world; whilst a defence would look to show how it is logically possible for a god to still exist in the light of their being so much evil in the world

what theory claims; the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, supremely good God is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil.

the logical problem of evil

why does God allow evil, according to responses to the logical problem of evil

because of free will

explain the response to the logical problem of evil of FREE WILL

(counterclaim)

the reason God allows evil is free will. Free will is a great good, and w/o it our lives would be morally insignificant bc we couldn’t choose to do what is morally good or evil and are unable to have a meaningful relationship with God bc the relationship would not be freely entered.

Also being morally imperfect, we can use our free will to bring on evil not good. So evil is just the price we pay for free will. w/o evil the world would be morally meaningless

how does the logical problem of evil respond

(rebuild the claim)

why doesn’t God just make us choose what is good? why not create a world with free will, but without evil?

how does the free will response, criticise the rebuild?

this isn’t logically possible. To be free is to not have determined choices. If God made us choose good, then we would not have free will

what does Plantinga’s free will defence claim?

to solve the problem of evil, all we need to do is show the existence of God is consistent with evil

outline Plantinga’s free will defence [5 marks]

p1) a world with creatures that are mostly free is better than a world with no free creatures

p2) God can create mostly free creatures

p3) to be mostly free is to be capable of both morally good and moral evil

p4) if mostly free creatures were caused to do only what is right, they will not be free

c1) Therefore, God cannot cause mostly free creatures to do only what is right

c2) therefore, God cannot create a world containing creatures w/ free will but no evil

c3) therefore, God can only eliminate moral evil done by mostly free creatures by eliminating greater goods of these creatures.

explain the c3, how it proves God is consistent with evil

c3 assumes a good God would not eliminate free will to eliminate evil, then existence of evil is logically consistent with existent of God

so the logical problem of evil doesn not prove that God doesn’t exist.

define natural evil

reffers to something suffering caused by natural events e.g hurricanes

what is the claim of natual evil

in terms of the free will defence, natural evil doesn’t seem to have much to do with free will. So the existence of natural evil is consistent with the existence of God?

what does Plantinga respond to for natural evil?

natural evil is the result of free will of satan and demons. He uses the story that the devil was an angel created by God and had free will. But he rebelled against God and brought evil into the world.

therefore natural evil is a form of moral evil as a result of satans choices. so the free will defence can be used on natural evil.

what does the logical problem of evil respond to for natural evil?

the logical problem of evil assumes God has a desire to eliminate all evil, but this isn’t true if some evil is ‘necessary’ for a ‘greater good’.

A universe w/o suffering would not have virutes such as sympthay or benvolence, courage - all these require suffering to exist.

e.g w/o danger courage wouldnt be developed

the evil of suffering makes the good of virtues possible

what does ‘human nature’ respond to doe natural evil?

human nature disposes us to evil. We only develop virtues in the fact of temptation and weakness. If we have no fear, when in danger we wouldn’t develop courage as we know it.

Also if we were not tempted by selfishness, benevolence would not be the virtue it is.

how does the natural evil response to the previous criticims?

they are not persuasive.

it is possible that what has been said is right, and that shows that natural evil is not logicall compatible with the existence of God. B/c the logical problem of evil makes such a strong claim, that this is all we need to show to defeat it.

what does the evidential problem of evil claim?

the amount of evil, types of evil are good evidence for thinking that God does not exist

belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, morally good God is unreasonable given our experince of evil

outline some of the challenges that arise of Gods existence with evil examples

wars and ethinic cleanses such as the holocaust - people were already suffering, suffered so much more for unnecessary reasons

also natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes kill vulnerable people

so who suffers and how much as a result of moral and natural evil is very unfair

response to evidential problem of evil

without evil, there couldn’t be free will or develop important virtues such as compassion

counter response for the problem of evil

the evidential problem of evil accepts that we need evil to develop virtues, but challenges it by asking are all evil necessary for free will and virtue.

as it would seem that a better world is possible which has free will but also lesser evil.

so it is good reason to believe God doesn’t exist.

what does Plantinga’s free will defence claim?

to solve the problem of evil, all we need to do is show the existence of God is consistent with evil

Plantinga’s free will defence can be applied to…

logical and evidential problem of evil

outline Plantinga’s free will defence [5 marks]

p1) a world with creatures that are mostly free is better than a world with no free creatures

p2) God can create mostly free creatures

p3) to be mostly free is to be capable of both morally good and moral evil

p4) if mostly free creatures were caused to do only what is right, they will not be free

c1) Therefore, God cannot cause mostly free creatures to do only what is right

c2) therefore, God cannot create a world containing creatures w/ free will but no evil

c3) therefore, God can only eliminate moral evil done by mostly free creatures by eliminating greater goods of these creatures.

explain how Plantinga’s free will defence can be used as a response both logical and evidential problems of evil

it is possible that moral evil that only occurs could only be eliminated by God if free will is also eliminated

furthermore natural evil is a result of moral evil due to the story of satan.

how does evidential thodicy counter Plantinga’s free will defence?

the evidential problem of evil acceots that it is possible that a world which contained less evil would also be a world that contained no free will.

But Plantinga questions do we really have the evidence against the claim that evil cannot be reduced - we do not

the amount of evil that exists neither supposes or opposes the claim a better balance of good and evil is possible

so it doesn’t make it likely that God exists

what is a counter claim to Plantinga’s free will defence?

his argument only considers evil in an abstract way (way of the universe) e

evidential problem also appeals this kind of distribution of evil. These factors are more difficult to dismiss. We can consider free will is good this it outweighs all evil that exists.

even free will is a greater good, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t interfer if we see someone atempting muder - this gives muder the power of free will.

so to eliminate some evil we need to eliminate some instances of free will and not eliminate greater good.

so God could interfer this way,

how does Plantinga rebuild his free will defence?

if God always interfered to prevent us from causing eviil, this is equivalent to this causing us to do good. In that case we do not have free will at all.

how does the evidential theodicy refine their claim?

God could interfer just on those occasions in which we would bring about terrible evil, or god could have given us free will w/o giving us power to commit terrible crimes

how does Hick rebuild the free will defence from the refined claim?

Hick claims the value of free will depends on what one can do with it. A world were we couldn’t harm eachother would be one in which we also would have very little responsiblity for eachothers wellbeings.

how does the evidential theodicy rebuild the claim after Hicks counterclaim?

free will to justify all the suffering that caused by human beings requires us to accept the story of Satan.

But this is the free will of satan so good that it outweighs all the naural evil that he has casued? A world w/o satan woulod be better, and this is something God could do.

When it comes to natural evil, free will, fails against the eviedential problem of evil

hick offers a theory called… S_ M_ theodicy

Soul Making theodicy

Hick claims humans are?

humans are unfinished beings

Hick argues what are humans purpose in life - links to Soul Making?

humans purpose in life is to develop personal, ethical and spiritual virtues with God

outline Hicks Soul Making theodicy

humans are unfinished beings, and part of our purpose if to develop personal,ethical and spiritual connections with God - this is soul making.

Hicks soul making theodicy can be used to explain…

to explain why God would allow the amounts and distrubition of evil we see

explain how virutes link to Hicks soul making theodicy

it is impossible to display virtues such as couagre w/o fear of evil such as pain

as well we couldn’t have learnt virutes such as forgivness if people never mistreated us

also if God had given us virtues at the beginning we would not have gained them through hard work and discipline which are much more valuable

outline some issues from the evidential problem?

why does god allow animals to suffer?

why does god allow such terrible evils?

why does god allow such pointless evils?

how would Hick respond to the criticisms of the evidential problem of:

why does god allow animals to suffer when their suffering had no benefit nor development of virutes to God?

hicks soul making theodicy would respond:

we shouldn’t misrepresent animals experence, they just live in the present w/o fearing future pain

if humans were only living things we would lose a sense of cognitive freedom

animals need to exists for us to understand developing relationship with them,

as for if God proved he exists we would not have the freedom to develop our relationships so animal pain is justified so we can have a choice to develop a relationship with him

how would Hick respond to the criticisms of the evidential problem of:

why does god allow such terrible evils?

Hicks soul making theodicy would respond:

it is not possible for God to remove terrible evils (e.g. child tourture) and leave only ordinary evil.

the reason for this is that terrible evils are only terrible in contrast to ordinary evils

so if god did get rid of these evils then the ordinary evils would become the terrible ones

and if god kept getting rid of terrible evils then he would be reducing our free will

thus our soul making wouldn’t be formed

how would Hick respond to the criticisms of the evidential problem of:

why does god allow pointless evils?

Hicks soul making theodicy would respond:

we cannot rationalise pointless evils, they must remain a challenge and a mystrery. we can understand the existence of such irrational evils is a part of a process of soul making

so if we saw someone suffering we knew it was for some higher purpose then we would never develop deep sympthay or hope, these are important virutes

so for our soul to grow me must look at the distribution and amount of evil that are unfair or unjustified

what is a weakness of Hicks Soul making theodicy?

the whole point of this soul making is that people die developed and perfected

but many people die underdeveloped so it seemingly doesn’t defeat the problem of evil

who is M_

Midgley

what does Midgley say about evils and free will?

previous explanations about evil are to simple, as free will claims you are evil if you chose it, or evil is something caused by upbringing

however neither take into account of human nature

Midgley claims

1. evil is not A_ as some A_ is good such as friendly competition

2. someone who commits E_ doesn’t necessaryly think they are E_, as they commit acts within i_ that they think are g_

3. evil is the result of F_ to live as we are C_

Midgley claims

1. evil is not AGGRESSION as some AGGRESSION is good such as friendly competition

2. someone who commits Evil doesn’t necessaryly think they are Evil, as they commit acts within INTENTIONS that they think are GOOD

3. evil is the result of FAILURE to live as we are CAPABLE

how is evil a ‘failure’?

the capacities for doing good also entail capacities for evil, e.g. if we have capacity for courage then we have capcity for cowardice

evil is the A_ of good

evil is the ABSENCE of good

how is human nature not contradiciting free will?

our motives do not make evil inevitable, but it is impossible to explain evil w/o reffering to them

so to argue human being have a nature that inclines them to be evill doesn’t deny them free will

what is a strength of Midgleys theory?

midgelys approach connects two types of evil - natural evil (natural disasters) and moral evil (human action)

how does Midgleys theory connect the two types of evil?

human nature is NATURAL, not chosen

and natural impluses can lead to evil cause great suffering so MORAL EVIL has a NATURAL HISTORY

what does Determinism argue?

determinism is incompatible with free will bc it is a view about causality

why is determinism incompatible with free will?

bc it is a view about causality

what is universal causation?

everything that happens or occurs has a cause

causation also includes R_

regularity

what is regularity?

the same cause will operate in the same way on diff occasions

outline an example which includes a causal explanation and regalurty

suppose there is water on the kitchen floor, the causal explanation is there mustve been a burst pipe

we would also assume in other occasions if a pipe burste the floor would be wet and this is regularity - the same cause will lead to the same effect

what does causal explanation and regualirty together create - use an exmaple

it creates a causal necessity

so if a burst pipe lead to a wet floor, as we have seen this happen before, it would have to do it again

as it is not possible for in this situation for the floor not to become wet

outline the determinism argument

p1) determinism is true

c1) t4, our choices have causes, and each choice has a particular set of causes

c2) t4, given the causes and situations, no choice is possible than what we choose

p2) if we couldnt make any other choices, then we do not have free will

c3) t4, we do not have free will

how can determinism be viewed and how should it not be viewed?

determinism should be viewed as events that are predicitable given evidence

and should not be viewed as events are forced to happen

what can determinism be mistaken as?

determinism can be mistaken as fatalism

define fatalism

belief that human action is useless - that whatever one does, the outcome will be the same

how can determinism mistakenly fall into fatalism?

is human choice and actions have no influence of how things are, then determinism is incompatible with free will, then this is mistaken as fatalism

and then we just shift responsibility onto laws of nature

how is determinism not fatalism, use exmaple and link to laws of nature

we cannot change the laws of nature but if we understand them, we can use them to our advantage

for example, a farmer who lives by the nile cannot change the regualr flooding but can use the flooding to his advantage

so then determinism is using the regularities of nature ti enable human action

Midgeles determinism vs fatalism shows….?

free will doesn’t rely on acting outside of causation

how is determinism compatible with free will?

free will is rational

how can people argue that determinism is incompatible with free will?

if determinism is true then each state of someones brain can be predicted in advance, by using neuroscience laws

and the use of predictions is not compatible with free will

how does Midgely respond to determinism being incompatible with free will?

it is more complicated than neuroscience

for example of Pythagoras and brain states

as the physical processes of the brain do not force our thoughts to occur, but that thoughts just contribute nothing, but rather our mind and brain are independent

thinking is the process of leading one thing to another

and reasoning can only understand if we move from trying to predict to joining in with it