the problem of evil

omnipotent

omnipotent

having unlimited power

omniscient

knowing everything

omnibenevolent

possessing perfect or unlimited goodness

inconsistent triad

consists of three propositions, of which at most 2 can be true

theodicy

the vindication of divine providence in view of the existence of evil

natural evil

refers to harmful or destructive events or phenomena that occur in the natural world

moral evil

refers to actions or choices made by human beings that cause harm, suffering or injustice to others

privatio boni

latin for “privation of good” | concept that suggests evil is not a positive force, but rather the absence or lack of good

free will

the ability to make choices and decisions without being determined by external factors

epistemic distance

refers to the level of understanding/knowledge that exists between 2 individuals or groups

john stuart mill argument (natural world)

Natural world is evil, lots of suffering that humans and animals endure

john stuart mill argument 2 (omnibenevolent/sadistic)

evidence suggested for a posteriori arguments to prove God’s existence do not suggest an omnibenevolent God but one who is sadistic and believes in all ways that we condemn when we see them in criminals

john stuart mill argument 3 (anti-teleological)

argues against supporters of teleological arguments eg paley » paley had argued only evidence you need of God’s existence, power and care is obvious

john stuart mill quote

“...the order of nature, so far as unmodified by man, is such as no being whose attributes are justice and benevolence, would have made with the intention that his rational creatures should follow it as an example...”

john stuart mill strength 1 (world)

talks of the nature of the world’s inhabitants, rather than how the world was originally intended to be

john stuart mill strength 2 (nature)

Mill is able to cite specific examples that occur in nature of how both good and evil have a “predominant tendency” of producing further good and evil respectively

john stuart mill strength 3 (evil)

the existence of evil is necessary for individuals to exercise their free will and make moral choices

john stuart mill strength 4 (autonomy)

focuses on importance of individual autonomy and personal happiness: emphasis on personal freedom resonates with many, aligning with the values of self-determination and individualism

john stuart mill weakness (utilitarianism)

mill is a utilitarian - he argues that good behaviour is behaviour that brings the most pleasure in the world, and he wants to get rid of anything that acts contrary to creating pleasure. many people that oppose the problem of evil say that true happiness can only be achieved through suffering, an idea which mill would likely oppose

john stuart mill weakness 2 (nature)

for nature to be guilty of the same crimes that humans are, we have to prove that they commit crimes with the intent and knowledge that they are causing harm. we cannot prove this - natural ‘agents’ are not sentient. a person who accidentally commits crime that brings harm is not seen as evil, so if nature has no intention to cause harm then it also cannot be evil.

mill vs mackie

is augustine’s view of the origins of moral and natural evil enough to spare God from blame for the evil in the world? (yes)

• The origin of moral evil is entirely the fault of Eve, who was tempted to eat the fruit of knowledge against God's order. Therefore, it is all human's fault and we must suffer the consequences of the actions of the original humans. ​

• God is not to blame for the evil that exists in the world amongst humans it is Eve as she ate the apple even though God said no – some people may say ​

• However, people may argue against this and say even these extreme types of people still only act this way because they don’t understand the nature of god and so they live in an absence of good, but if they did understand they would be in god's light and would not commit acts of moral evil

is augustine’s view of the origins of moral and natural evil enough to spare God from blame for the evil in the world? (no)

• However, why would God create humans that are capable of misusing their free will to do evil? Why didn't Adam and Eve have the grace and wisdom not to be tempted by Satan? Why didn't God prevent Satan from turning on him in the first place – if he is omniscient he would have foreseen this and stopped him since free will was not the angels' gift.​

• Defining evil as simply the absence of good is not accurate - we can see in the world (especially in Aquinas' doctrine of double effect) that there are many things that don't fit this definition. E.g someone kicking puppies - actively going out of their way to cause harm needlessly, while being fully aware of the moral wrongness + consequences of their actions). 

• Saying natural evil is not truly evil, just variation ignores the human suffering caused by it. A truly loving God could still allow these natural happenings to occur without causing harm to humans. His argument has no evidence or information to support it – it is a statement.

can the need to create a ‘vale of soul-making’ justify the existence or the extent of evils? (yes)

• Existence of evil helps humans grow and create a spiritual connection with God​

• If Humans were perfect, could not exercise the free will that God gave us​

• Purpose of suffering and evil is apparent in the afterlife​

• Responding positively to evil (by seeking goodness) draws the soul into a personal, closer relationship with God

vs

can the need to create a ‘vale of soul-making’ justify the existence or the extent of evils? (no)

• Some people suffer a lot more than others >> spiritual maturity vs peace n contentment​

• Suffering does not benefit all eg someone with severe learning difficulties being hurt in a fire​

• Animal suffering: if there is no afterlife for them, or if there are no surrounding humans to witness it, for lessons to be learnt​

• Suffering often worsens a person's state rather than making them better and stronger, can drive them to mental illness​

• Can make people become bitter n lose their faith

which of the logical or evidential aspects of the problem of evil pose the greatest challenge to belief? (greatest)

• The inconsistent triad argument poses a logical challenge. The attributes of God are inconsistent since evil and suffering continue, so God cannot be all three​

• Evidential problem of evil – there are instances of intense suffering that an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented. For example: natural disasters and diseases​

which of the logical or evidential aspects of the problem of evil pose the greatest challenge to belief? (least)

• Using Augustine's argument, we can suggest that the Inconsistent Triad is weak as evil was not God's own creation – it was brought about by human free will + fallen nature, it is a privatio boni​

• Strengths rest on the claim that our experience of evil makes the hypothesis of an omnibenevolent God improbable, more plausible explanations e.g good and bad happen by chance.​

• If we say that our experience of evil makes the God-hypothesis impossible, then we need to know what would make it more probable: we need to know what omnipotent omnibenevolent Gods usually do (which we do not) and then compare our own experiences with that  eg. if i come home and want to know where my son is, i look for signs of his presence: shoes at the door, listen to noises etc, by knowing what he usually does, i can understand whether or not he has been doing it, to inform my judgement of the likelihood of him being home​

• we do not know what these omnibenevolent omnipotent Gods usually do​

• the uniqueness of God (which is subjective and definition of God and whether or not varies between each individual), leaves us without anything on which to base our calculations of probability. we can only guess, using assumptions based on ‘what would i do if i were God’ , + given that we are finite contingent creatures with limited capacities, this could be considered a weak position to form a judgement

is it possible to defend monotheism successfully in the face of evil? (yes)

• There is more goodness, beauty and love in this world than evil. ​

• God’s benevolence to humans after the fall shows that we have not been abandoned.

• God is fair and just choosing not to interfere with evil. Interfering with evil means limiting human free will and freedom. Swinburne said that a world in which we couldn’t harm each other would also be one in which we would have very little responsibility for each other’s wellbeing, it would be a toy world.​

• God might want us to have the choice between God and evil so we know the difference.​

• Iranaeus – soul making theodicy. God allows evil In the world so humans can develop and make moral decisions. ​​

• Just because we do not have a plausible reason for God allowing evil, that does not mean a reason does not exist.​

• We should not expect to understand God and the things He does.​

• It should be enough that there is an all-powerful, all-loving God who does not make mistakes, we do not require an explanation.​

• Theism is also about faith but in the unknown instead of God, theism is not always rules of deductive logic or the balance of probabilities.​

• Although there is an abundant amount of evil in the world this outweighs the good.

is it possible to defend monotheism successfully in the face of evil? (no)

• Mill – the world is full of evidence for evil and points to a sadistic creator. We cannot look to God as omnibenevolent.​

• Mackie – if omnibenevolence and omnipotence are essential features of god, then the existence of evil disproves the existence of God. (inconsistent triad).​

• DZ Phillips – It is never justifiable to hurt someone in order to help them. ​

• Scheiermacher– it is logically contradictory to claim that a perfectly created world went wrong. This implies that evil created itself which is illogical. Agrees with Mackie that it was logically possible for God to have created free beings who would never fall.

• God could still stop or prevent natural evil from happening even if he has no control over moral evil and free will, but chooses not to. ​

• Humans have a natural inclination and urge to sin because of the fall, it doesn’t seem fair that we can be held fully responsible for our actions when we no longer have control over our decisions fully.

logical problem

This aspect involves applying logic to question the truth of claims about God. It raises the question of whether God, if possessing qualities such as omnipotence and omnibenevolence, would allow the existence of evil. The logical problem is often presented as an a priori argument based on reasoning alone, seeking to understand the compatibility of God's attributes with the presence of evil.

evidential problem

The evidential problem focuses on the lack of sufficient evidence for the power and love of God considering the existence of evil in the world. This approach is more empirical and relies on a posteriori arguments based on observable evidence. It questions whether the state of the world aligns with what one would expect if an all-powerful and all-loving God exists.

epicurus’ logical argument

• Existence of Evil as a Challenge to God's Attributes:

  • Epicurus posited that the presence of evil in the world challenges the traditional attributes ascribed to God, particularly omnipotence (all-powerful) and omnibenevolence (all-good).

• Dilemma for God's Power and Goodness:

  • He presented a dilemma:

    • If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not truly omnipotent.

    • If God is able to prevent evil but chooses not to, then he is not wholly benevolent.

• Linking Omnipotence and Benevolence:

  • Epicurus connected the notions of omnipotence and benevolence, suggesting that if God possesses both qualities, then the existence of evil becomes contradictory.

• Conclusion Based on Human Experience:

  • Drawing on the observation of the existence of evil in human experience, Epicurus concluded that God, as traditionally conceived, must not exist.

theodicy

justification of God

augustine theodicy

• Theodicy: St. Augustine proposed what is known as the "Augustinian theodicy" or the "free will defense."

• Key Points:

  • Augustine emphasised human free will as the cause of moral evil. He argued that God created humans with free will, and the misuse of this freedom leads to evil.

    The existence of evil, according to Augustine, is a consequence of human choices rather than a direct act of God.

irenaeus’ theodicy

• Theodicy: St. Irenaeus developed what is often referred to as the "soul-making theodicy."

• Key Points:

  • Irenaeus suggested that the existence of evil serves a purpose in the development and maturation of human souls.

  • He viewed the world as a place where souls are refined and perfected through experiences, including the encounter with evil.

  • The process of overcoming challenges and moral struggles contributes to the growth of individuals' moral character.

hick theodicy

• Theodicy: John Hick expanded on the soul-making theodicy in a contemporary context.

• Key Points:

  • Hick argued that God allows evil in the world to provide individuals with opportunities for moral and spiritual development.

  • The process of facing and overcoming evil contributes to the growth and transformation of human character.

  • Hick's theodicy emphasises the importance of human responses to suffering and evil in the overall purpose of God's plan.

epistemic distance n free will

• Humans, if created perfect with awareness of God, would lack genuine free will.

• Believes being at an "epistemic distance" from God is necessary for true freedom.

• Emphasises God's interest in humans choosing to become who He desires.

• God remains distant to prevent humans from being overwhelmed by His reality.

• Asserts that the purpose of suffering and evil will be revealed in the afterlife.

mill vs mackie

mill

mackie

Mill argues from a utilitarian standpoint. Believes in the benevolence of God but questions the evidence in nature. Mill observes brutality and suffering in nature, arguing against the existence of a benevolent creator. Nature's cruelty, in his view, contradicts the concept of a loving and caring God. He relies on empirical evidence, highlighting the apparent indifference and harshness in the natural world. Belief in a caring God, according to Mill, lacks support from observed realities.

Mackie argues from a logical and evidential problem of evil. Proposes the inconsistency of the coexistence of evil with an all-powerful and benevolent God. Mackie contends that the traditional attributes of God—omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence—are logically incompatible with the existence of evil. The existence of gratuitous evil (pointless suffering) challenges the traditional concept of God. Focuses on the logical problem of evil, questioning the coherence of holding certain divine attributes alongside the presence of evil. Challenges theists to reconcile these attributes without logical contradictions.

irenaeus vs augustine

irenaeus

augustine

humans made in God's image and likeness. distinction between image and likeness. free will is essential for humans to be in God's image. evil has a purpose, helps create the soul. positive response to evil strengthens the relationship with God.

evil is the absence of good (privatio boni). evil originated from the fall of angels misusing free will. the angelic fall repeated in the garden of Eden. disruption caused by the fall impacted the created order. variation in the created world is part of its goodness and perfection. humans fell catastrophically due to Adam and Eve's disobedience. variety in creation is not evil; differences mean some creatures are more limited. the first evil entered the world through the fall of angels. human experience of evil results from the misuse of free will. evil is not a separate force but a falling away from goodness.