No . Good Reason: Exploring the Proble'm of Evil

The Nature of Theism and God

• Theism Defined: The view that there exists exactly one deity, God, who possesses specific perfect attributes:

  • Eternal: Exists outside of time, without beginning or end.

  • Omnipotent: All-powerful.

  • Omniscient: All-knowing.

  • Perfectly Good: Possessing ultimate moral goodness.

• Dominion and Creation: Theists believe this God has complete dominion over the world, and most believe God created it.

The Problem of Evil / The Problem of Suffering

• The Core Question: How can a world filled with pervasive suffering be reconciled with the existence of an all-powerful, perfectly good being who created and governs it with the well-being of creatures in mind?

• Definition: Considerations about suffering constitute what is known as "the problem of evil" or "the problem of suffering." The author prefers "the problem of suffering" because "evil" often implies deliberate malicious acts, whereas much suffering is not caused by human agents.

• Philosophical Distinction of Evil:

  • Moral Evil: Pain caused by deliberate human actions.

  • Natural Evil: Pain caused by factors other than deliberate human actions (e.g., natural disasters, disease).

• Pervasiveness of Suffering: Suffering is deeply ingrained in the fabric of life, affecting every sentient being, often incessantly.

  • Physical Suffering: Arises from:

    • The natural order requiring some animals to kill others for survival.

    • All animals, predator and prey alike, having urgent but frequently unsatisfied biological needs.

    • Disease and injury, to which all animals are constantly vulnerable.

    • Natural, healthy biological processes (e.g., menstruation, childbirth).

  • Emotional Suffering: Experienced by creatures capable of emotion, including terror, sadness, and confusion.

  • Complex Psychological Suffering: New forms of pain enabled by complex psychologies, such as dread, hopelessness, anxiety, depression, guilt, shame, compulsions, hallucinations, and delusions.

  • Social Suffering: The human need for social connection inevitably leads to the searing pain of loss

• Significance: This problem is regarded by both believers and nonbelievers as a profound challenge to theism. Many atheists (e.g., Bart D. Ehrman, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson) cite it as a primary reason for their disbelief, and many theists acknowledge struggling with it.

• Author's Stance: The author, Louise Antony, argues that the problem of suffering is a sufficiently strong argument against theism to justify atheism, although she acknowledges its complexity.

The Logical Argument from Suffering

• Origins: This argument is attributed to the ancient philosopher Epicurus, as paraphrased by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

• Epicurus's Formulation (Hume's Paraphrase):

  • "$Is \;[God]\; able, \;but \;not \;willing? \;Then \;he \;is \;malevolent. \;Is \;he \;willing, \;but \;not \;able? \;Then \;he \;is \;impotent. \;Is \;he \;both \;able \;and \;willing? \;Whence \;then, \;is \;evil?$ "

• Reconstructed Argument:

  • $(1)$ No morally good being would allow suffering if he or she were able to prevent it. ["No Tolerance"]

  • $(2)$ An omnipotent being would always be able to prevent suffering. (Omniscience is treated as a power included in omnipotence for the argument's simplicity).

  • $(3)$ THEREFORE, if there were a morally good, omnipotent being, there would be no suffering.

  • $(4)$ There is suffering.

  • $(5)$ THEREFORE, there is no being who is both morally good and omnipotent.

• Validity: The argument is logically valid.

• Critique of Soundness: The author argues that despite its validity, the argument is not sound because its first premise ($(1)$) is false.

Challenge to Premise (1): The "No Tolerance" Principle

• Counterexample: The Loving Parent Analogy:

  • Scenario: A loving parent ("Parent"), following child-care expert advice, allows their child ("Child") to experience the "natural consequences" of their actions.

  • Specifics: Child leaves a favorite toy outside despite Parent's warning. Parent foresees a terrible rainstorm will ruin the toy and cause Child great distress. Parent could easily retrieve the toy and prevent the suffering.

  • Outcome: Parent allows the toy to be ruined, and Child is deeply upset.

  • Verdict: The author argues that Parent was not wrong to allow the suffering.

  • Reasoning: Parent's purpose was to teach Child a valuable lesson about negligence, consequences, and the importance of caring for valued possessions. Had Parent intervened, Child would have been spared pain but would have remained ignorant of important structural features of the world (e.g., the strength of wind, fragility of toys) and might have persisted in behavior leading to worse suffering later.

  • Conclusion: Given the importance of this lesson for Child's future happiness, Parent might even have had a duty to allow the suffering.

• Implication for Premise (1): This case demonstrates that the "Principle of No Tolerance" (premise $(1)$) is false. There are circumstances in which a morally good being might justifiably permit preventable suffering.

The Weakened Logical Argument from Suffering

• Revised Premise (1): To account for situations like the Loving Parent analogy, the first premise is reformulated:

  • The Principle of No Tolerance Unless: $(1^*)$ No morally good being would allow suffering if he or she were able to prevent it unless he or she had a good reason to permit it.

• Impact on Validity: Simply replacing $(1)$ with $(1^*)$ makes the original argument invalid; $(3)$ can no longer be derived directly. A logical loophole is opened.

• New Premise Required: To close this loophole and restore validity, an additional premise is needed:

  • No Good Reason: $(2.5)$ There is no good reason that a morally good, omnipotent being could have to allow suffering.

• The Weakened Logical Argument from Suffering:

  • $(1^*)$ No morally good being would allow suffering if he or she were able to prevent it, unless he or she had a good reason to permit it. ["No Tolerance Unless"]

  • $(2)$ An omnipotent being would always be able to prevent suffering.

  • $(2.5)$ There is no good reason that a morally good, omnipotent being could have to allow suffering.

  • $(3)$ THEREFORE, if there were a morally good, omnipotent being, there would be no suffering.

  • $(4)$ There is suffering.

  • $(5)$ THEREFORE, there is no being who is both morally good and omnipotent.

• Significance of Revision: This revision marks the beginning of the end for the purely logical argument against theism, as it introduces a new point of contention ($(2.5)$) which becomes the focus of debate.