Problem of Evil

Problem of Evil

Problem of Evil

1. The existence of evil and suffering is counter-evidence for God’s existence.

2. How can a God who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient allow evil to exist?

Natural Evil

A form of evil and suffering which are not the direct result of free acts of human beings.

Moral Evil

Evil that is caused by humanity like stealing or terrorism.

Free Will Defence

Evil exists because we have free will, and there is more benefit to giving us free will and allowing evil to exist than not.

Evidential Problem of Evil

We can see that evil exists, how can God allow that?

Inconsistent Triad - Logical Problem of Evil

1. God is omnibenevolent.

2. God is omnipotent.

3. Evil and suffering exists.

4. Does God not have the power to stop it, is he evil.

Epicurean Hypothesis

Epicurus essentially formulated the inconsistent triad.

J.L. Mackie

1. He said that the problem of evil is only a problem for someone who believes that God is both wholly omnipotent and wholly God.

2. If one was willing to concede on either of those points, then the problem of evil is formed.

“Unqualified omnipotence cannot be ascribed to any being that continues through time”

Anders Nygren

Argued that it is wrong for religious believers to attempt a theodicy because it is irreligious to imagine that fallible human minds can understand God.

John Hick

Believes Christians have to try and understand evil, because it is central to other aspects of faith, such as sin, redemption, and Christ as saviour.

Richard Swinburne

“If the theist does not have a satisfactory answer to it (evil), then his belief in God is less than rational, and there is no reason the atheist should share it.

Augustine’s Argument

“God saw that everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good” - Genesis 1:31

“Taken singly all things are good, but taken together they are very good” - Augustine Confessions

1. In the beginning the world was a perfect place, humans being created as physically and morally good, but not perfect.

2. There is no natural evil, everything is vegetarian and lives in harmony.

3. Evil is the result of mans/angels misuse of their free will resulting from eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

4. Misuse of free will causes the downfall from perfection.

5. Moral evil is a result of misuse of free will.

6. Natural evil comes as a result of this misuse, it is the corruption of the order and harmony within nature.

Augustine on What Evil Is

1. Augustine draws on Aristotle who explained darkness as an absence of light.

2. For Augustine, evil is the absence of good.

3. It is not a force in itself, but an absence - a privation.

4. Evil is privato boni - a privation of good.

Augustine on Cosmic Dualism

1. He says there are not two opposing forces in the world, good/evil, light/darkness, life/death.

2. One is just the absence of the other.

Augustine on Continuation of Evil

1. Natural evil is the loss of order following the expulsion from Eden, evil is nature corrupted.

2. Natural and Moral evil is a punishment from God, both were seminally present in Adam.

3. For Augustine, this is a justification for the fact that God does not put an end to suffering.

Salvation

1. Salvation is possible due to Christ’s sacrifice.

2. If Christians follow Christ then all this suffering will pale in comparison to the glory of heaven, or one will go to hell.

Supporting Augustine

1. God couldn’t create evil if it is just the absence of something, as it is not ‘something’.

2. It is empirically true that free will exists, so it is not unthinkable that humans, e.g. Adam, used their free will to perform an evil act.

Issues With Augustine

1. Biological Error - Augustine bases the idea that evil occurs to us due to Adam’s sin, as we were seminally in Adam. However, science has shown that we evolved from a multitude of different beings, not just two people.

2. Generational Punishment - The basis of the existence of evil comes from Adam’s sin, but is it really moral that we are punished for our ancestor’s actions, would a good God punish someone for what their grandparents did?

3. Evil Distribution - Some people suffer more evil than others, but evil exists for the same reason for everyone, so why is that just?

4. Perfect World - If the world became imperfect, then it can’t have been perfect to begin with.

5. Predestination - If God has a plan for all of us, with all moments being in that plan, then how can we truly choose anything freely, ergo we don’t have free will.

6. His premise is wrong, as not everything was perfect and vegetarian, animals fought and competed with each other in the brutal process of evolution by natural selection.

7. It is empirically untrue to say that evil is the absence of good, as we occur evil actively happening all the time e.g. stubbing toes.

Iraenean Theodicy (Irenaeus)

“in His own image and likeness…” - Genesis 1:26

1. We have the freedom of choice that enables us to be moral agents - God’s image.

2. We have to develop and mature to reach our full potential - God’s likeness.

3. Irenaeus argued that we have evil in the world in order for us to develop as individuals.

4. If everything always went our way we would never learn anything.

5. Evil is ‘soul making’, it necessarily exists to allow our souls to fully develop.

Irenaeus Quote

Irenaeus in Against Heresies - “How if we had no knowledge of the contrary, could we have instruction in that which is good”

Vardy’s Analogy

If God wanted us to love him unconditionally, would it be meaningful if He forced us to.

1. There was a king and he wants a pauper to love him, but if he forced them the love would not be genuine.

2. So he tried to win them round.

3. So too with us and God, He could force us to love Him, so he gives us the free will to learn and choose to love Him.

Irenaeus Theodicy is Convincing

1. It can be observed empirically, at least on a microlevel, e.g. if someone stubs their toe, they are less likely to do it again.

2. “A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials.” - Seneca - Supported by a range of philosophies, we require trial and error, require evil.

3. The existence of free will

Irenaeus Theodicy isn’t Convincing

1. How can God be so evil as to force us to suffer in order to achieve something greater, why can’t He limit our free will, and remove suffering.

2. Free will doesn’t exist - determinism, or originate from desires which we don’t control.

3. It is not empirically true, people often don’t learn from their mistakes.

4. Worse outcomes have occurred than if they didn’t happen, e.g. if I didn’t stub my toe it would be better than if I did stub my toe.

5. Some suffering appears to be excessive and pointless.

6. There is an unequal distribution of evil - why do good people suffer - Book of Job.

7. It requires the belief in the God of classical theism.

Four Key Points from Hick’s ‘Philosophy of Religion’

1. Obstacles do not always result in strengthening character - they can be damaging.

2. The process of soul-making must continue on after death if it is to be successful.

3. Heaven must be sufficiently good to justify the magnitude of evils suffered in this world and others.

4. All human beings must achieve their potential and become “children of God”.

Hick on Human Existence

Human existence is in two phases:

1. Humans are the culmination of the evolutionary process - a creature that has evolved with the possibility of existing in a conscious relationship with God.

2. The nature of human existence as a necessary pilgrimage from moral and spiritual immaturity into the ‘likeness of God’ via responding freely to the challenges of this world.

Hick on Free Will

1. Free will is crucial to moral development, enabling humans to become ‘children of God’.

2. Virtues formed as a result of overcoming evil are more valuable than those programmed into us from creation.

3. It is also necessary to enable the filial relationship that God wills his creation to enter into with him.

4. If we had been made robots, there could be no such thing as genuine love (free will defence).

Hick - God at an Epistemic Distance

“In order to be a person, exercising some measure of genuine freedom, the creature must be brought into existence, not in the immediate divine presence, but at some distance from God.”

1. Humans must seek God through faith - they have no innate knowledge of God.

2. If God’s presence was an overwhelming reality, humans would be much more likely to do good, knowing God was watching over their every move.

Hick on the Natural World

1. If the world was a paradise, there would be no opportunity for soul-making as there would be no distinction between good and evil.

2. Humans would therefore be unable to develop and grow to become children of God (likeness).

3. Counterfactual hypothesis shows that God’s purpose for humanity cannot be achieved in a world free from evil and suffering.

4. The natural world is a world ‘fit for the purpose of soul-making’.

Similarities Between Irenaeus and Hick

1. Humans are born without innate knowledge of God - they are at an epistemic distance from Him.

2. Evolved animals with the possibility of a freely chosen, loving relationship with God.

3. Life is a series of obstacles via which humans can grow to become ‘children of God’.

4. Evil and suffering are part of God’s design of the universe: “good” = fit for purpose of Soul Making.

Difference Between Irenaeus and Hick

Afterlife:

1. Irenaeus taught that on death of the individual is judged and sent to either Heaven, Hell or Purgatory depending on the amount of progress they have made towards the likeness of God.

2. For Hick, this is unsatisfactory. There are countless instances where people have died without having made sufficient progress, through no fault of their own. According to Hick, for anyone to end in Hell would mean the suffering they inevitably encountered in their life is unjustified. Thus, the problem in evil has not been resolved.

3. For Hick, if the evil in this world is to be justified, all must eventually go to heaven. This view is called universal salvation. Upon your death God with endlessly sustain you until you have become a ‘child of God’.

Richard Swinburne and Didactic Evil

1. People gain knowledge by instruction from present events about what will happen in the future.

2. If people are knowingly to bring about or prevent certain events, they must understand that consequences follow from their actions.

3. People only know that certain actions have bad consequences if they have previous knowledge of the consequences of those actions.

4. We can only know about these bad consequences if others have suffered before.

5. For any evil act, there must have been a first instance. The first murderer did not know the consequences of his actions from seeing someone else murdered.

6. Therefore, the first murderer must have seen or heard of this action killing people, to gain knowledge of the consequence.

7. There have been many natural evils for us to know the range of possible evils, and many instances of these to give us sufficient instructive knowledge.

Objections to Swinburne’s Philosophy

1. God of Love - Could we defend a God who allows a child to play on a railway track, maybe die, to teach him this is dangerous?

2. Justice - If the purpose of evil is to teach us lessons, where is the justice if people still have not learned and still cause great evils.

3. Human brain - The human brain has the ability to conclude from experience, but one does not need to see someone crushed to death to know that a boulder falling on them would kill them.

4. Death - Swinburne says that God shows mercy to people by giving them death when suffering becomes too much, but that does not teach a lesson to the suffering, nor does everyone who suffers dies, so there is no standard for punishment.