problem of evil - summary notes
A01
evidential problem of evil → the evidence of evil in the world makes belief in God unjustified. There is a logical possibility that evil and a perfect God exist together, but the evidence is against that possibility actually being true
Hume puts forward an evidential problem of evil. Hume is an empiricist and approaches the problem of evil as such.
logical problem of evil → This is the a priori argument that evil and the God of classical theism (as defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent) cannot exist together.
Mackie reformulated this argument into the ‘inconsistent triad’ which held that the God of classical theism (omnipotent and omnibenevolence) cannot exist if evil exists. Either Omnipotence, omnibenevolence or evil must not exist, since all three are inconsistent
agustines theodicy → (logical problem of evil) By observing himself and others, he thought humans had a natural predisposition to sin (orginal sin), which for him raised the question of where that came from, since it would seem contradict God’s omnibenevolence to suggest that God created it. He concluded that humanity must be to blame for it and looked to the Genesis story as an explanation. Augustine argued Evil does not actually exist. It is merely a privation of good, meaning it is the absence of Good.
Ireanous theodicy → (evidential) Instead of viewing the Fall as negative, Irenaeus views it as a necessary stage in the development of humans towards perfection. Creation has two steps for Irenaeus – firstly being made in God’s image where we have only a potential for good due to spiritual immaturity. Step two is where we achieve God’s likeness by choosing good over evil which enables us to grow spiritually and morally. The idea is that encountering and overcoming evil makes us become better more virtuous people.
hicks theodicy → Hick argued that human beings were not created perfect but develop in two stages:
Stage 1: Spiritually immature Stage 2: Grow into a relationship with God Hick argued for the Epistemic distance. This means that we cannot truly know of God’s existence.if God appeared to us we would obey his authority rather than really loving what is good for its own sake, which is the morally superior move and therefore most conducive to soul making.
AO2
Plantinga’s ‘free will defence: Plantinga develops a ‘free will defence’ of the co-existence of God and evil. His argument intended to respond to Mackie’s logical problem of evil, which argues that it is impossible for God (as classically defined) and evil to exist together. Plantinga argues that it is possible for God and evil to exist together because evil is the result of free will.Moral evil results from human actions. Some object that free will cannot explain natural evil, but Plantinga explains that it is logically possible for natural evil to either result from:
The free will of demons and Satan.
The free will of Adam and Eve justifing God in allowing natural evil into the world as punishment.
A strength of Augustine’s theodicy against the logical problem of evil is that it does seem logically possible that God allows evil because it is either sin (moral evil) or punishment for sin (natural evil) or the work of satanic energies (natural evil). His argument is that a factual consequence of Adam’s sin was that all future humanity became infected with original sin and thus deserve punishment.
Weakness: It’s not our fault that we have original sin: Followers of Pelagius objected that Adam’s crime is not a personal crime of his descendants. So, it still seems unfair, unjust and thus incompatible with omnibenevolence to suggest that we deserve punishment for it. This argument is strongest when considering cases like children with cancer.
Evaluation criticizing Augustine: The case of innocent children suffering natural evil destroys Augustine’s argument. He could maintain that adults deserve natural evil as punishment for original sin even though it’s not their fault they were born in sin. Augustine still thinks that giving in to original sin counts as a choice - there is no logic behind punishing young children
evaluation defending Augustine: It might seem unfair, but Augustine puts it down to the “secret yet just judgement of God”
A strength of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is that it can be evidenced from observing human behaviour and society: G. K. Chesterton made this point, arguing that you could see evidence for original sin ‘in the street’. R. Niebuhr said original sin was the one ‘empirically verifiable’ Christian doctrine.When Augustine was 16, he and his friends stole some pears. What Augustine found remarkable on reflection was that he did not steal them because he was hungry (in fact he threw them away). He concluded that he did it just for the pleasure of sinning.
Weakness: The scientific evidence is against Augustine: genetic diversity means that it’s not possible for all of humanity to have descended from two people. This, plus the other evidence for evolution, suggests that we evolved and were not created.
Evaluation criticizing Augustine: (Pelagius) Augustine’s observations reflect his society, not human nature. Pelagius argues that could simply be because of the way we are raised. humans have changed lots since augustines time
Evaluation defending Augsutine:Augustine could still be right that human nature is corrupted by original sin, even if he’s wrong about the Fall being the exact means by which that came to be. There is scientific evidence which supports human corruption and corruptibility such as the Stanford prison experiment.
soul making vs dystelelogical evil: Strength of soul-making vs the evidential problem: There is evidence that encountering and overcoming evil develops a person’s character and virtue. “What does not kill me, makes me stronger” – Nietzsche.
Some evil is dysteleological (purposeless). It has no chance of leading to spiritual development. For example, a child who dies of cancer. They are too young to even understand what is happening, let alone learn anything from it. Most animal suffering is also dysteleological. william roe example of the fawn dying in the forest alone
Some evil is soul breaking: d z phillips and the holocaust, who would suggest this made peoples souls?
Evaluation defending Hick Phillips and the dysteleological evil point in general commits a straw man fallacy.Hick’s argument isn’t that the holocaust is justified by soul-making. It is that an imperfect world and free will which could perpetrate the holocaust is required for soul-making. Hick’s defense is successful because the universe is indeed morally ambiguous.
Evaluation critiquing Hick Hick’s logic may is valid, so he may solve the logical problem of evil. However, by definition, there can be no evidence for the epistemic distance
soul making vs dystelelogical evil: God creating us perfectly A strength of soul-making theodicy is its premise that creating us fully developed was logically impossible. A fully developed soul is one which has chosen good over evil. This requires having made a choice. Therefore, it’s logically impossible for God to create us fully developed - logical problem of evil is thus solved
Weakness: An omnibenevolent God would not have created us in the first place.The problem of evil remains, having merely been pushed back to another question. Hick fails to explain why a morally good God would have created us at all.David Benatar is an anti-natalist philosopher, meaning he argues that creating sentient beings who will suffer is wrong.
Final judgement defending Hick: However, this criticism doesn’t apply well to Hick’s theology. Hick survives these questions about God’s decision to create us because he takes care to combine his theory with the proposal that no one ever goes to hell and that we have potentially unlimited attempts to become virtuous in an afterlife
Final judgement critiquing Hick: Benatar’s logic does undermine Hick’s argument. It is only once we exist that suffering becomes justified as for our development. If we never existed, we wouldn’t need to go through this painful process at all. It would be better for us had we never existed because it would be good that we didn’t suffer and we couldn’t miss the salvation.
soul making vs dostoyevsky: A strength of soul-making theodicy is that evil serving some good purpose seems the best way to make it compatible with omnibenevolence.
Weakness: Dostoyevsky’s character Ivan: The key detail of Ivan’s argument is his connection between the suffering of innocent children and the gain of heaven for others People get into heaven because of, on the back of, the suffering of innocent children. Ivan says no good person or God would design this connection into heaven. It’s not that the evil is dysteleological, nor that the process of soul-making is not worth it. It’s that the whole process of soul-making is actually not morally acceptable. So, Hick fails to solve the logical problem of evil.
Final judgement defending Hick: In Dostoyevsky’s book, the response given to Ivan which perhaps reflects his own response, is that earthly suffering will “pass away in eternity”.William Lane Craig makes a similar argument regarding child suffering, that they will go straight to heaven.Heaven is infinite. It is worth suffering from evil to get there.
Final judgement critiquing Hick: This critique from Ivan is successful because it gets around Hick’s standard defenses of himself. Ivan’s point is that this is not a morally acceptable system and that his own moral virtue compels him to reject it.
the problem of evil + free will: Plantinga thought the entire response to the problem of evil could be solved by appealing to free will. He developed Augustine’s theodicy into a ‘free will defence’ of God’s possible co-existence with evil. Without free will, our lives would be pointless and valueless. It’s abuse can directly lead to moral evil and indirectly lead to natural evil in the form of punishment, the work of demons, and having to live in a fallen world due to Adam’s misuse of free will. The power of theodicies then typically functions through attempting to link the existence of evil to free will. They can then argue that removing evil is not logically possible without impacting our free will in some way which would either leave us even worse off or is simply logically impossible for God to do. God’s omnipotence is typically thought by Christian theologians to involve the power to do any logically possible action. God cannot do logically impossible things.
Weakness: the challenge that libertarian free will does not exist: Theodicies rely on the existence of ‘libertarian free will’, meaning the ability to do otherwise. eems to require an undetermined event which is nonetheless somehow also under the control of an agent. This strikes many philosophers as incoherent.
A. J. Ayer argues that our choices are either determined or not. If not, they are random. If determined, they result from prior causes such as our character, which is itself determined by prior causes. In either case, we couldn’t have done otherwise.
Mackie develops this style of argument. Our actions are either the result of randomness, external causes, or our own character. It is those choices which originate from our character that we typically call moral. This must be the notion of freedom theodicies draw on. - if God was really good then he would have given us all a morally good character
Applying this to theodicies, this means:
Adam and Eve would have never disobeyed God. Augustine & Plantinga therefore lose their explanation of natural evil.
All humans would behave morally now, so Augustine & Plantinga lose their explanation of moral evil.
Hick also loses his explanation of why God couldn’t have created us fully or at least better-formed than he did.
This argument attacks the logical coherence of libertarian free will and thus defends the logical problem of evil.
Evaluation defending theodicy: Plantinga responded with his first morally sufficient reason: that it is actually not logically possible for God to create a world where free agents always make good choices. This response from Plantinga presupposes libertarian free will. However, there are many arguments for it.
Evaluation critiquing theodicy: Plantinga tries to respond that God couldn’t have created us in a way where we would only do good actions, since then we wouldn’t have made a choice. However, this response fails to consider Mackie’s argument for compatibilism. God could have given us all a good character. This would have prevented Adam and Eve from causing the fall. It would make soul-making unnecessary because we would be born with already good characters.