problem of evil

Natural evil

Things which cause suffering but have nothing to do with humans
Eg hurricane Katrina, 2005 tsunami Diseases such as AIDS, cancer etc AND
Our inbuilt capacity to suffer
Nervous systems can experience pain, if not disasters would be a mere inconvenience
Necessary part of evolution (Tennyson wrote it was "red in tooth and claw" (full of death and suffering) and Darwin was horrified by Darwinian wasp)>survival of the fittest

Moral evil

evil purposely caused by humans e.g murder

• can be justified as being because of humans having free will

Logical Problem of Evil (+responses)

-Deductive + a priori
-Contradiction between: Evil in the world, God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence
-Claims ANY amount of evil contradicts God

-Classical Problem of Evil proposed by Epicurus
-Focuses on interactions between Gods inaction (is he not able or willing?> not omnip or omnib, or not God)
-God would only create a world without evil, its existence means: he is not all-loving, all-powerful, exist

-J.L Mackie developed the logical problem of evil+inconsistent triad
-He argues its 'perfectly irrational' that both evil and god exist by introducing the principles: omnib=motivation to eliminate evil, omnipotent=do anything > how could a being exist with the power and motivation to destroy evil

-Theodicies often deny these premises (eg paradox of omnipotence- there are limits to his unlimited power)
-Some pose freewill as the explanation- creates free beings+refuses to interfere
BUT could make us do what's right always 'if there is no logical impossibility in a man's freely choosing good on one, or several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every'
(Existence of evil free creatures=not all powerful, not all good, doesn't exist)

BUT

-Only questions his trad qualities (many refuse to deny God of classical theism)
-Could deny existence of evil (retains qualities)- our perception is at fault
-Can accept all three props if we believe God has a morally sufficient reason for evil, sometimes evil is needed

Evidential Problem of Evil (+responses_

-Inductive a posteriori

-Do not see an inherent contradiction between the existence of evil and God BUT evil is evidence against God

-More evil less likely- is there a morally sufficient reason for quantity or intensity?

-Hume animal suffering (could not feel pain), extremes of nature, natural disasters (could intervene)

No evidence for God’s motivations and believes as an empiricist that we are only justified in following the evidence (evidence of imperfection)

-William Rowe claimed intense suffering=evil but a God may justify it for greater good (stopping may permit equally bad or worse evil)

Gives examples of daily suffering

eg case of Bambi fawn slow death in forest fire (happens freq)

eg case of Sue real incident in Michigan 1985, 5 year old beaten, raped, strangled by mum's bf

NO GREATER GOOD LEAD TO BY SUCH INTENSE SUFFERING

We no of no reason why an obi being would allow this>likely isn't any›evid against omni God

BUT

-Stephen Wykstra against no greater good-

Claims inference that 'so far as we can tell there is no x>there is no x' is a noseeum inference 'we no see um they aint there'

There may be reasons!! We have comparatively limited cog abilities- Epistemic distance

Statistical Problem of Evil

-Inductive

-Presented by Gregory S Paul

-Uses statistics to show the full scale of natural evil as opposed to examples Focuses on the premature deaths+sufferings of children

EG

Most conceptions fail

Noninduced preg failure= 3/4, approx 300 hundbill ever

Number of children dead at least 1/2 ever born

More children die from natural than moral evil

The death and suffering of billions of children in 10,000 generations is the Holocaust of the Children

Poses problems to trad theodicies:

1 free will- too young to truly have it

2 soul deciding- to young to acquire faith, go straight to hell

3 soul making- if they go straight to heaven discounts idea suffering is necessary prep for afterlife

4 nec evil+leads to good- scale too large to justify

"modern Christian consensus followed by billions is so firmly overturned by human circumstances that it very probably is not possible to reconcile the Christian concept of a pacific creator with the state of the universe"

Epistemic Distance

A distance in knowledge and understanding
Refers often to gap between human and divine

Classical problem of evil

(And challenges to his premises

-Epicurus
-Form of logical problem
-Problem for believers of classical theists
-Focuses on interactions between Gods inaction (is he not able or willing?) inconsistent triad (if any two are true one must be false)

-God would only create a world without evil, its existence means: he is not all-loving, all-powerful, exist

BUT
“Is he either able nor willing? Then why call him God”

>it is only problematic to the God of classical theism, not a problem for alternative conceptions of God

>Processed theologians (not omnipotence in a classical sense, all things have the power to resist God)

>Aristotles prime mover (ambivalent to human beings)

BUT This isn’t God- ontological arguments

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent”

>some evil he cannot prevent- free will defence, not an inherent contradiction between evil and omnipotence

BUT JL Mackie claims this is not the case, rejects libertarianism in favour of compatibility (which many do not consider true free will)

“Is God able but not willing? Then he is malevolent”

>Hick, morally sufficient reason to allow a loving God and evil

BUT DZ Phillips no matter the tools it is inherently evil

Challenges to the inconsistent triad

Can reject premises

-Morally sufficient reason> retains omnibenevolence

BUT

-Evidential (Rowe, if he's allloving he would do all in his power to minimise suffering and we can not note any greater good (inductive)) and statistical POE

-Some limits, eg logically impossible (eg create us free and always good)> retains omnipotence

BUT

-JL Mackie claims this is part of the paradox of omnipotence- sees no logical contradiction between always choosing right

Free will defence

Response to the logical POE > free will is a morally sufficient reason to allow some evil + God cannot control how that person behaves.

Idea is many kinds of evil are not the result of God's actions, but of the free actions of human beings.

BUT

Can God create a world where beings are morally free but always do the right thing?

How can this count as a solution to the POE, given that God created the free agents in question?

Philosophers that have put forward this often argue free will is a good thing + it is logically impossible for God to create beings that are both morally perfect and possess free will.

BUT

J.L. Mackie argued that there is no contradiction in an omnipotent being creating beings who are genuinely free+made the right moral decision (they sometimes prefer what is good anyway)

BUT

making of some wrong choices is logically necessary for freedom, 'freedom' must here mean complete randomness or indeterminacy

Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic to consider if God could create genuinely free beings that always do the right thing

Eg Two people, X and Y are stood facing each other. Y has angered X, if time was paused X could either punch Y or not punch Y. Both worlds are possible and neither of them involve a logical contradiction.

If X is genuinely free then whichever world becomes actual is up to their actions and not up to God but If God can guarantee that X does not punch Y, then X is not genuinely free but If there really is a possible world where X punches Y then God cannot create morally perfect beings who are genuinely free.

There is a possible world where a creature would go wrong with respect to a moral choice, it shows that God cannot create beings that are both free and do not wrong.

Epicurus’ problem of Evil

-Logical POE

Is God willing but not able to prevent evil? Then he isn’t omnipotent

Is God is able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he isn’t omnibenevolent

If God is both able and willing, then why is there evil?

If God is neither able or willing then why call him God?

Inconsistent Triad

Developed by JL Mackie

1. Is God willing but not able to prevent evil? Then he isn’t omnipotent

2. Is God is able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he isn’t omnibenevolent

3. If God is both able and willing, then why is there evil?

4. If God is neither able or willing then why call him God?

Hume POE

-Evidential POE

1 – Animal suffering. Why shouldn’t nature be created such that animals feel less pain, or indeed no pain at all?
2 – Creatures have limited abilities to ensure their survival and happiness
3 – Why does nature have extremes which make survival and happiness more difficult? Natural evil
4 – Why doesn’t God intervene to prevent individual natural disasters?

-No evidence for the sufficient reasoning (Augustine+Iraneaus)

-as an empiricist, insists that we are only justified in believing what the evidence suggests

P1. We are only justified in believing what the evidence suggests (empiricism).
P2. We only have evidence of imperfection (a world with both good and evil).
C1. We are only justified in believing that imperfection exists.
C2. So, belief in a perfectly good being is not justified.

William Rowe POE

-Evidential POE

claimed intense suffering=evil but a God may justify it for greater good (stopping may permit equally bad or worse evil)

Gives examples of daily suffering

eg case of Bambi fawn slow death in forest fire (happens freq)

eg case of Sue real incident in Michigan 1985, 5 year old beaten, raped, strangled by mum's bf

NO GREATER GOOD LEAD TO BY SUCH INTENSE SUFFERING

We no of no reason why an obi being would allow this>likely isn't any›evid against omni God

Theodicies

Arguments justifying why there is evil in the world if God is good
Coined by Leibniz

Augustinian Theodicy

-Was questioning why humans have a natural disposition to sin> humanity to blame

- Privatio Boni- evil is the privation (the absence of natural god given qualities) of good (eg 'wounds are nothing but the privation of health')

(not a substance/created) God is wholly good and thus created a world free of good 'god was pleased with what he saw'

Natural evil- humans may have physical defects>suffering or Moral evil- not act as they should+turn towards sin>suffering

BUT

how could creations by a perfect being's creations lack/lose goodness

WELL

world isn't perfect, only god is, world created ex nihilo (out of nothing) and is mutable 'all nature...is good, since the creator of all nature is good. But nature is not supremely and immutably good as is the creator of it'

Loss of some goodness result of choice

-Evil from fall-humans imago dei (he interprets as rational+moral) with free will (like angels) but chose to disobey (he believes devil is a fallen angel)

God's goodness requires him to act perfectly just>human race seminally present all punished> 'all evil is either a sin or a punishment for sin'> natural evil (loss of order+harmony in creations)

Expands OG sin disobedience led to change in nature>humans tend towards sin, oriented away from God, imago dei damaged

Believes OG sin is transmitted sexually (corruption+guilt»next gen)

-Greater good defence-claims God is justified in creating a world he knew would go wrong for GG

Allowed evil as a punishment›greater good (world with free will) 'as a runaway horse is better than a stone...creature is more excellent which sins by free will than that which doesn't sin because it has no free will'

-Cross overcomes evil- (soul deciding theodicy)

foresaw evil nec for more good, fall was a 'happy fault' Allowed him to show his love through JC

'for God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist'

JC died for our sins>possi

Challenges to Augustinian theodicy (Logical contradictions)

LOGICAL ERRORS FOR WORLD CREATED GOOD:

-Schleiemacher logical contradiction between a perfectly created world going wrong

Would mean evil had created itself out of nothing> impossible

May be privation but is a real feature>attributed to God

Either world wasn't perfect or god enabled wrong

Evil is not just the neutral state (Russel describes oysters ‘blank consciousness which is unlike active evil)

BUT

-Augustine never claimed the world was perfect only god is (darkness analogy)

-The world was created good ex nihilo>mutable>logically possible to deviate from goodness

-Nec for greater good

BUT

-Why did some angels stay good and other rebel- Sch claims they were not created equally good+god allowed rebellion- suggests knowledge of good and evil

FREE WILL DEFENCE:

-how in a perfect world with no knowledge of good or evil could rebellion occur>must already be knowledge of evil>came from God

-scholars claim free will in a perfect world is merely an illusion (must be opportunity, permission, and ability for evil for true free will)

THE FALL

-John Calvin developed theodicy>humans are predestined by God< not truly free or responsible for the fall

-Depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis (didn’t descend from 2 people)

(Hick 'Myth rather than as history...humanity evolved out of lower forms of life...reject...flood, disease, decay and death are consequences...prescientific world view')

-World made perfect and damaged by human contradicts evolution>uni always developing

-Unbiological to be seminally present>not guilty for og sin>cruel to suffer for someone else's

-Pelagius the punishment from the fall is unjust+the inclination towards evil could be explained as upbringing

BUT

-Inwagen claims evo+fall compatibility (god kindly let us evolve to protect ourselves from nature (paradise) but fall like event)

BUT this is a defence not a theodicy

OMNIBENEVOLENCE:

-God created a world knowing it would fall> Hick claims he is responsible, could've stopped it

-punishes some most (Ray Bradley > unfair)

-Holocaust of the children undermines soul deciding

BUT

-hell provides universal balance and justifies evil (soul making)

-can besaved through JC

Hick's vale of soul making theodicy

-Rejected Augustine embraced Iraneaus (more compatible with science)

-Iranaeus didn’t view the fall as neg but a necessary stage in the development of humans towards perfection

-2 stages of creation:

made in Gods image (potential to do good but spiritually immature)

Achieve God’s likeness (chose good+grow spiritually+morally)

Eg Jonah and Whale (disobeyed God, eaten by whale > learnt lesson) evil can motivate goodness

HICK

TWO STAGES OF CREATION

-Adopts Irenaeus' view of two-stage creation-

1 we're 'created as spiritually and morally immature creatures, at the beginning of a long process of [...] development'

2 growing into the 'divine likeness' (gaining relationship with God)

-We share in God’s ‘image’ + ‘likeness’ > ration ability to make moral decisions, we must align our actions with our divine image

WHY SUFFERING

-Agrees with Mackie, could have created a perfect being in 'morally frictionless environment' > less valuable

-Purpose to develop into his likeness = our world is not a paradise but a 'vale of soul making' > must include suffering to grow spiritually and develop nec traits

> requires both natural and moral

eg earthquakes > generosity + Nazism > courage

-Supported with counterfactual hypothesis without potential neg consequences our actions wouldn't be morally significant.

-epistemic distance > if our knowledge of God was too direct we would be overwhelmed by his goodness and power and couldnt reject him eg Princess King

MORE COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE

-Augustinian theodicy presents the fall as a historical event

-Hick's theodicy, more open to non-literal interpretations, explaining Natural evil and universal imperfection as a nec element of soul development

-evolution not seen as random or purposeless but as part of a larger plan involving the development of conscious beings capable of moral and spiritual growth

UNIVERSAL SALVATION

-Few people manage to complete the process of soul-making in the course of their earthly life > bad plan?

BUT

Christian afterlife > the process of soul-making continues after death > Eventually all people will find their way to God. Hick therefore believes in universal salvation.

Challenges to Hick's vale of soul making theodicy

EVIL NEC FOR DEVELOPMENT

-Explains necessity for evil but not the excessive amount (evidential POE)

-David Ray Griffin notes evo is a long, wasteful process to end in imago die

BUT

-Counterfactual

-Hick doesn't contradict evolution

OMNIB GOD

-Moral objection- suffering is presented as a nec pos which DZ Phillips rejects (planned suffering reveals his 'evil nature', who could claim the holocaust was nec)

-William Rowe (Evid POE) some suffering doesn't appear to contribute to a greater good

case of Sue + Animal suffering (no rational souls)

-David Benatar anti-natalist, believes creating sentient beings who suffer is wrong

-Hick doesn't explain inequality of suffering

BUT

-Wyckstra

-Trolly Problem

-Hick claims it 'defies theological rationalism' + paradox of suffering (epistemic distance), would expect this kind of evil if soul making theodicy was true

-Doesn't deny inequality, claims randomness ensures an unselfish pursuit of goodness

UNIVERSAL SALVATION

-Inconsistent with scripture (hell mentions)

-Unfair that there is no justice

-Dostoevsky's character claims he wouldn't accept it at such a price

-Undermines free will (cant reject)

BUT

-Core message

-Heaven is infinite and suffering is worth it

Genesis 1:26

Let us make man in our image after our likeness

Irenaeus 1:26

First we are made in God's image- an immature being that has yet to grow and develop- have the rational ability to make moral choices. This allows us the potential to be like God.

[M]an, being endowed with reason, and in this respect like to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself the cause to himself, that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.

By acting morally we develop the characteristics of God such as goodness, we become more like God.

In order for humans to be like God they must be perfectly good. But if humans were created without flaw then any goodness within human beings would be the result of God and not freely chosen > less valuable

Hick's criteria for persuasion

Consistent with concept of God+scripture
Consistent with our knowledge of the world
Cannot contradict itself

Free will defence

-Developed bu Plantinga for coexistence of God and evil

-Response to logical POE > free will is a morally sufficient reason to allow some evil + God cannot control how that person behaves.

-Idea is many kinds of evil are not the result of God's actions, but of the free actions of human beings.

-Moral evil product of human free will, natural evil preoccupied of demon free will or misuse of free will at fall

BUT

-Can God create a world where beings are morally free but always do the right thing?

-How can this count as a solution to the POE, given that God created the free agents in question?

-J.L. Mackie argued that there is no contradiction in an omnipotent being creating beings who are genuinely free+made the right moral decision (they sometimes prefer what is good anyway)

BUT
-making of some wrong choices is logically necessary for freedom ('freedom' means complete randomness)
-Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic to consider if God could create genuinely free beings that always do the right thing
Eg X could either punch Y or not punch Y. Both worlds are possible and neither of them involve a logical contradiction.
If God can guarantee that X does not punch Y, then X is not genuinely free
There is a possible world where a creature would go wrong with respect to a moral choice, it shows that God cannot create beings that are both free and do not wrong.

Why cant God eliminate evil summary

• Contradicting his divine justice, since we deserve evil as punishment for our freely chosen evil actions (Augustine).

• Removing our free will, since all evil results either directly (moral evil) or indirectly (natural evil) from the abuse of free will (Augustine & Plantinga).

• Removing opportunities for growth from evil through freely choosing good over evil (Irenaeus & Hick).