SWINBURNE
A THEODICY: AN APOLOGY
(EXPLANATION) OF EVIL ON
THE ASSUMPTION GOD EXISTS
Richard Swinburne (born 1934)
Version of FREE WILL DEFENSE
Basic idea: God gave us (and other
creatures) free will (because it is
good) but it leads to (moral) evil.
[God freely gives up omnipotence…
Also omniscience?
Also Omnibenevolence?]
Logic: the evil resulting from free-will is
justified (outweighed) by the good.
[ Logical Background]
To defeat argument from inconsistency
of omnipotence, omniscience,
omnibenevolence, and evil, only
possibility of consistency need be
shown. Any conceivable theodicy is
OK.
To show God probable (or necessary),
the theodicy must be shown to be
probable (or necessary).
Moral Evil versus Natural Evil
Moral Evil: caused intentionally by free
choice of agents with free will.
Example: suffering caused by violence
Natural Evil: caused without intention by
natural forces
Example: suffering caused by
earthquake
Q: Is natural evil actually moral evil?
Free Will Defense & Responsibility
Question: Is God responsible for evil?
NO: creatures, not God, choose evil.
YES: God knew the effect of giving
creatures free will.
Swinburne: God is responsible, but evil
actually is a good thing (relative to
creatures not having free will).
[ LEIBNIZ (1646-1716) ]
This world
is the best
of all possible
worlds.
Good father argument (91-2):
God must give us power to do
significant harm. Children must grow
up to assume responsibility.
[Q: Is this merely anthropomorphic?
We are not perfect parents,
but God is.]
What if we were free & GOOD?
People must have “a certain moral
depravity,…a system of desires for
what they correctly believe to be evil”
(Swinburne p. 92L).
[Does this make evil a certainty?
If so, how are we responsible for it?
How can it be good for us to be
depraved?]
What about innocent suffering?
Suffering evil is “not a pure loss” but a
“privilege” (92R-93L).
Argument by analogy: privilege to die
for your country [in just war].
[Assumes existence of war. Are we
deluded in thinking peace is
preferable to war?]
Sufferers “Rights” Violated?
God does not need to ask our permission to
make us suffer, because
i) God created us,
[and? or?]
ii) God has “parental”
right. (93R-94L)
[Q: If you could create rabbits (children,
gods), would you have the right to make
them suffer without their consent?]
Natural Evil (partial explanation)
i) So we can learn how to do evil (and
God stay hidden);
ii) Pain yields choices “that otherwise
would not exist.”
(95R-96L)
Animal Suffering?
[Animals suffer, but have no free will,
so are i) innocent and ii) not
responsible for any evil.]
Animals included in parallel but more
minor way. (96)
Heaven? [and Hell?]
Heaven (or some sort of recompense
for suffering) not required, but is a
fall-back argument. (97)