ProblemS of Evil
It is probably better to discuss the problems of evil, since it is Multi-Faceted:
a. Religious: Disruption of faith, religious crisis
b. Philosophical/Theological (why does Satan exist? Why is there evil at all?)
c. Moral: SIN (why do People do evil?)
d. “Natural”/Physical-suffering (why is there a malfunction of natural order)
e. Quantity or degree (Seems like we don't need THIS MUCH evil to prove a point)
f. Intensity of Evil (WHY is this evil SO evil? Intense Pain, etc)
g. Apparent purposelessness of some Evil (fawn in forest fire, ‘innocent’ child)
Atheists criticisms usually come in two forms:
A. Logical Critique: Theists contradicts himself (Mackie) Response: Plantinga
B. Evidential Critique: Evidence of evil proves theism can't be true (Probabalistic)
The atheists evidentialist critique says something like this:
If God exists, then assuming God is Good and Powerful, Evil won’t exist
But, there are instances of Evil,
So, it is probable that God doesn’t exist.
Responses from Theists to these sorts of critiques are usually called Theodicies, and
they come in many forms:
If there are multiple problems of evil, then there are likely multiple solutions-some
explaining some problems, some explaining others. The typical answers are the
following: (which problems do you think these answers solve/don’t answer?)
1. We have free will (and so we are responsible for evil—this explains moral evil)
(Free Will defense—Augustine, Plantinga)
2. We got kicked out of Eden by our choice (that’s why there is natural evil like tornadoes)
3. Trials are necessary to produce moral character. (Hick’s soul making theodicy)
4. There are goods coming from this which we don’t see. (Question: does this answer the
problem entirely? That is Dostoevsky’s question)
5. Maybe God’s Plan is eventually coming to fruition, despite setbacks (process, William
James, or open theism)
Augustine: Evil is Privation (A Lack)
Augustine wrestles with this problem, especially in his essay on freedom of the will.
He says,
1. All things are good
2. They could not be corrupted if they were supremely good
3. They could not be corrupted unless they were good
If corruption could not diminish goodness, it could not harm.
If something is deprived of all good it will cease to exist.
Whatever is, is good
There is no such THING as evil
Nothing is unpraiseworthy
Evil is a lack of good, not a something. It is like a hole. You don’t buy a hole at
Menards. Holes aren’t somethings—they are lacks—lacks of dirt, usually. That is
sin. So it isn’t a positive substance, it is a lack of God.
Hick: Soul-Making Theodicy
John Hick, a famous philosopher of religion, developed the response that if we are to
become moral beings, then we must have moral choices, face difficulties, and only
through these struggles can our soul be refined. He is working with thought from
the Eastern tradition, specifically Iraneus, who sees our spiritual journey as a
process of progress towards unity with God, and a purifying of our soul by buring
off the dross, or chaff.
Hick says that any theodicy must have three things:
1) internally coherent 2) consistent with Data of tradition and world
Free Will problem: Adam & Eve story, Natural evil part of fall
To be Moral, we have to progress and choose. We couldn't be moral without choice.
World of consequences necessary condition for moral development.
Hick responds to Dostoevsky’s character Ivan in the book, Brothers Karamazov, who
asks: Can suffering be worth it?
Hick Responses:
1. Eliminate evil, and world is static
2. Natural indiscriminate evil brings us together
3. Heaven is culmination of the process
4. Hick believes in Universal salvation—he says that only if the small childrens
suffering is made up for by heaven can any of this make sense. But our question
might be: must he, for his position to work?
PROBLEM OF EVIL
1. Dostoevsky: Ivan & Alyosha
Ivan: I believe in Order/Harmony/Word -- but I don’t accept it
Articles He had read: Boy-- general’s hounds
Child beating its chest
World is absurd -- fact -- apparent -- sensible
Understanding is beyond me. I am unable to accept it as intelligible.
Why should children suffer? A. Father’s sins? B. Would’ve been sinner? C. Secret
harmony?
-- all of these theoretical meta-explanations seem untrue to the horror-- real agony
More suffering doesn’t ease the terribleness- Hell doesn’t help
RETRIBUTION:
What manner of man am I? What do I believe? What do I hope for? Suffering of
others? NO!
What is the point of this?
A. Ivan is atheist? B. God shouldn’t have created earth? C. Payback doesn’t solve
problem
I cannot be required to reasonably accept what is beyond my ability. Your philosophical
explanations are not satisfying.
Rowe:
Rowe, and atheist, provides an evidentialist critique. He asks the questions:
1) Is there an argument for atheism based on the existence of evil that may
rationally justify someone being an atheist? The example he uses is that of a fawn
dying in a forest fire. His question is: what good could this produce? We assume
that an omnipotent God would prevent unnecessary evil from occurring.
2) How can the theist best defend his position against the argument for atheism
based on the existence of evil?
3) What position should the informed atheist take concerning the rationality of
theistic belief? a) unfriendly atheism, b) indifferent atheism, c) friendly atheism
His Answers to his Questions:
1) a) It doesn't appear to be reasonable to believe that an omnipotent God couldn't
have prevented this apparently purposeless suffering. Why would God let a fawn
die in a forest fire?
b) nor does it seem reasonable to believe that there is some equally evil evil which
would have occurred if the fawn had not suffered
So, it seems unreasonable to believe
Granted, we cannot prove that God does not have a purpose, but it doesn't seem
very reasonable, according to Rowe. [Aside: But is this right? Maybe there were
too many deer and they were about to die of starvation? Cholera? Could we say
the world is in a broken state due to Man’s sin?]
Theist options: 1) defective (but can't show #1 is false); 2) direct (but can't show that
good results) Rowe thinks there is no way out.
Unfriendly, indifferent, friendly atheism
BC Johnson A critique of various possible explanations for evil
1. Heaven doesn’t explain. Either: necessary or not. If not necessary, then wrong. Why nec?
2. Long term good results? Unknown good? Then do whatever ‘evil’ you want, for God will
stop it if it doesn’t actually lead to good. Like a lawyer claiming that the client is innocent, and
that the evience against him is therefore misleading.
3. Free will. But God, as a bystander, is still somewhat culpable.
4. Facing disasters without assistance helps us to be more independent. Physicians, firemen
5. If God interferes in disasters, he would destroy a considerable amount of moral urgency to
make things right (why bother if God will take care of things). BUT we don’t really think it is
good to maximize moral urgency- appreciate modern medical care, etc.
6. Without suffering, no courage, sympathy, etc. YET we encourage efforts to eliminate evils.
7. God allows inocent to suffer so man’s ego is deflated, and he won’t become proud of his
good fortune.
8. Evil is a necessary byproduct of the laws of nature, so it is irrational for God to intrfere.
Constant miraculous intervention would be crazy. BUT that isn’t what we ask for. Some vs
100lb
9. Evil exists as a necessary contrast to good, so we can know wht good is. Why holocaust nec
10. God has a ‘higher morality’ by which his actions are to be judged. (Good = bad??)
11. God is not powerful enough to prevent evil, although he can create the universe.
Mackie: The theists positions are self-contradictory, inconsistent
Q: God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and yet evil exists? (263)
Adequate solutions: Deny Goodness, Omnipotence, Evil
Fallacious Solutions:a) Good cannot exist without evil
-- limit on God??
--denies evil is opposed to good?
--evil exists, but only enough to serve as counterpart to good?
b) evil is necessary as a means to good:
--God is limited? MUST have some evil as His ONLY means??
`
--
c) Universe better with some evil than without
--God is not concerned to minimise evil, but only to promote good
d) Evil due to freewill
--Freedom of will?
--Why not make us free and good?
--Paradox of omnipotence/paradox of sovereignty
Fairness: The atheist must use actual theist views. They can't simply assert what the
Christian position is without reference to actual Christian views and then assert that they
are self-contradictory.
Comment: It seems that the problems that Mackie claims are internally inconsistent may be
imported from his own creative mind-- Plantinga's critique
Plantinga: Free Will Defense
Explicit Contradiction vs Implicit Contradiction
Mackie can’t say 3 props contain explicit contradiction
Necessarily true: Prop 12 (analytically true—by laws of reason alone) 13-17
Natural vs logical impossibility (kissinger swum atlantic—not necessarily (logically) false)
Is #20 necessarily true??? (278) (think again here of Aquinas)
Fideist Resp: Those who think God is not restrained by logic won't worry about Mackie
Logical-God Resp: Those who think God is restrained by logic won't buy Mackie's argument
(19): A good thin always eliminates evil as far as it can.
(20) There are no limits to what an omonipotent being can do
Is #19 true? Always eliminate evil?? Me and Paul-- chestnuts on fire, gas, etc (279)
--all evil that it knows about needs to be added
Is #19 necessary?? No. What if one can only do one thing at a time??
AMputate leg to eliminate pain?? (280)
Maybe 19b? (280) No. Ex: two mountaineers
All we can derive, even with 19c is: there is no evil that God can properly eliminate (3''-- 282)
Mackie needs (21): "If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he can properly eliminate
every evil state of affairs."
Augustine: World with Evil brings about more good!-- horse, soul, etc
Free Will Defense (287)
FREEDOM: “If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform
tha action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal
laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won’t.”
Freedom isn’t unpredictability. That I can predict doesn’t mean it isn’t free.
Action is morally significant if it would be wrong for him to perform action, but right to
regrain, or vice versa.
Moral evil vs Natural evil
“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good
than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free
creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them
to do what is right. For if he does so, then they aren’t significantly free. . . . To create
creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil .
..”
Leibniz: Best Possible World (289)
1. Free and determined? No. God Can't create just any possible world (290)
2. Free and good?? Question: Could God create any possible world??(290-91) No-- Ardvark
--real freedom requires that it be up to the free person (297, 300)
Oatmeal, Bribe Examples