Competing Worldviews Three Basic Categories Material Monism Material Monism • Examples – Naturalism – Materialism • Matter is all that exists • If X exists, it is explainable in terms of matter or the processes of matter. Material Monism Immaterial Monism Immaterial Monism • Examples – Pantheism – New Age • Reality is reducible to an impersonal, immaterial spiritual force or energy Material Monism Immaterial Monism Created Dualism Created Dualism • Examples – Christianity – Judaism – Islam • Ultimate reality is an immaterial, personal being (mind) • Created reality is comprised of both immaterial and material aspects Material Monism Immaterial Monism Created Dualism Three Essential Tests 1.Test of Reason 2.Test of Experience 3.Test of Practice Material Monism Immaterial Monism Created Dualism Test of Reason • The law of non-contradiction: “X” cannot be “A” and “Not-A” in the same sense, at the same time Material Monism Immaterial Monism Created Dualism Test of Experience • The Test of the Inner World • Are the claims of the worldview contrary (or even contradictory) to one’s experience of the self? • For example, can I make plans and take steps to execute them? Can my worldview explain this apparent ability? Material Monism Immaterial Monism Created Dualism Test of Experience • The Test of the Outer World • Are the claims of a worldview contrary (or even contradictory) to one’s experience of the world beyond oneself? • For example, are pain and death merely illusions? Can my worldview explain the reality of both? Material Monism Immaterial Monism Created Dualism Test of Practice • Can one live consistently with the claims of a worldview? • Failure to do so reveals one of two things: 1. A failure on the part of the practitioner to be consistent with the worldview. (This says nothing about the truth of the worldview). 2. A failure of the worldview to be consistent with reality. (This invalidates the worldview). Material Monism Immaterial Monism Created Dualism Three Essential Tests 1.Test of Reason 2.Test of Experience 3.Test of Practice Created Dualism Christianity Judaism Islam Defending Theism Apologetics Outline I. Introduction to Apologetics A. What is apologetics? B. Why is studying apologetics important? Outline II. Can One Prove that God Exists? A. Cosmological Argument 1. Aquinas’ 5 Ways 2. Kalam Cosmological Argument B. Ontological Argument 1. Anselm’s Ontological Argument 2. Plantinga’s Modal Argument C. Teleological Argument D. Moral Argument E. Pascal’s Wager Outline III. Problem of Evil A. Intellectual Argument from Evil 1. Logical 2. Probabalistic B. Emotional Argument of Evil (Theistic Response) C. Evidential Argument from Evil What is apologetics? • Definition: the branch of theology devoted to the defense of or argument for the Christian faith – From the Greek word apologia, which means a defense, as in a court of law • Found in 1 Peter 3:15—“Always be prepared to make a defense [apologia] to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” Why is studying apologetics important? • Three reasons why it is vitally important for Christians to be trained in apologetics 1. Shaping culture: the gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the backdrop of the culture in which an individual is born and raised Why is studying apologetics important? • Three reasons why it is vitally important for Christians to be trained in apologetics 2. Strengthening believers: apologetics also strengthens one’s personal Christian walk – Knowing why you believe and what you believe will make you more confident in sharing your faith with others – Apologetics can also help you to keep the faith in times of doubt and struggle – Studying apologetics will make you a deeper and more interesting person Why is studying apologetics important? • Three reasons why it is vitally important for Christians to be trained in apologetics 3. Winning unbelievers: – Simply because apologetics does not win large numbers of unbelievers to the faith is not an argument against it. – The fact is that few respond to the gospel, period, so this perceived “lack of success” is not a mark against apologetics. – Moreover, it is difficult to be certain that apologetic conversations lack success, since the fruit of that conversation may be removing obstacles that allow one to come to faith in the future. – Furthermore, if it is effective for a few, we should still do it, since every person is precious to God, and many that are persuaded by apologetic arguments turn out to be those with the greatest influence. Can One Prove That God Exists? Cosmological Arguments The term refers to a collection of arguments that are based on the existence of the cosmos (universe) •Some of these arguments are strictly philosophical, others incorporate findings of science •There are too many to cover exhaustively, so we will consider some of the major arguments Cosmological Arguments Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways 1. The argument from Motion (change) •As we observe the world we see constant motion •If things move, they must have the potential for motion •No potentiality can actualize itself Cosmological Arguments Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways 1. The argument from Motion (change) •Therefore all change requires something prior that causes the movement from potentiality to actuality •An infinitely long series of actualizers is impossible •Therefore, there must be an unmoved, first mover Cosmological Arguments Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways 2. The argument from Cause and Effect •Every effect must be the result of an efficient cause •Nothing can be the cause of its own existence •Therefore, no series of efficient causes can be the cause of the series •Therefore, there must be a First (efficient) Cause Cosmological Arguments Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways 3. The argument from Contingency •A contingent being is one whose non-existence is possible and whose existence is dependent on something else •A necessary being is one whose non-existence is metaphysically impossible and who does not depend on anything else for its existence Cosmological Arguments Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways 3. The argument from Contingency •The material world is composed entirely of contingent things •Therefore, the material world itself is contingent •Therefore, there must be a necessary being to explain the existence of a contingent world Cosmological Arguments Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways 4. The argument from Degrees of Perfection •Things in our world differ in degrees of perfections (beauty, goodness, truth, etc.) •In order to judge that A is more beautiful than B, we must know some standard of beauty Cosmological Arguments Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways 4. The argument from Degrees of Perfection •For this evaluation to be meaningful, there must be something possessing the highest degree of these perfections (beauty, etc.) •That which possesses the highest degree of these perfections is God •Therefore, if these evaluations are meaningful, God exists Cosmological Arguments Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways 5. The argument from Design •We know from experience that objects possessing design and order are made by an intelligent agent •We observe evidence of design and order in the universe as a whole •Therefore, the universe has an intelligent designer, namely, God Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument Whatever begins to exist has a cause The universe began to exist Therefore, the universe has a cause Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument Since the argument is valid, the only way to reject the conclusion is reject 1 or more of the premises Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument Which premise could be false? NB: One cannot reject a premise simply because one does not like it Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause Premise 2: The universe began to exist Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument •P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause •This would appear to be a first principle of metaphysics •Ex nihilo nihil fit: From nothing comes nothing •‘Nothing’ literally has no potentialities •This means the objective probability of nothing producing something is ZERO •To deny this would destroy science Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument •P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause •There is confusion about the notion of ‘nothing’ •http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49LpN5tuboY •http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ePDBPF-4bA Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument P2: The universe began to exist •This is the premise typically challenged •Yet there are serious difficulties with the denial of this premise Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument •Did the universe begin to exist? •Modern cosmological theory confirms this intuition (Big Bang Theory) •http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsQ1XmqEe6M The Kalam Cosmological Argument • Did the universe begin to exist? – The Second Law of Thermodynamics • The entropy of the universe is increasing. • Since the universe is moving toward maximum disorder and minimum energy, and yet we have not yet reached this point, the universe has not been here forever. Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument Whatever begins to exist has a cause The universe began to exist Therefore the universe has a cause Cosmological Arguments The Kalam Cosmological Argument Whatever begins to exist has a cause The universe began to exist Therefore the universe has a cause This cause is personal Therefore God exists The Kalam Cosmological Argument • The cause of the universe is personal – The cause of the beginning of the universe could not have been a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, or else the universe would be eternal – Since the cause is not sufficient, it tends toward personal. – The effect, then, would not need to be around as long as the cause, which suggests a personal being who made a free choice. – Suggests the cause, at least initially, was outside of time The Kalam Cosmological Argument – The cause must be immutable (cannot change) – The cause must be spiritual/immaterial – The cause must be without beginning – There can only be one cause – The cause is unimaginably powerful – The cause is personal • This personal cause is God The Ontological Argument Ontological Arguments • Ontological arguments try to deduce the existence of God from the very concept of God together with certain necessary truths (PFCW, 496) Ontological Arguments • The basic argument is associated with Anselm of Canterbury (11th C) • He made use of the concept of ‘greatest conceivable being’ Ontological Arguments • P1: It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than to exist in the mind alone • P2: ‘God’ means ‘that than which a greater cannot be thought’ • P3: Suppose God exists in the mind but not in reality Ontological Arguments • P4: Then a being greater than God could be thought (one that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence) • P5: But this is impossible, because God is ‘that than which a greater cannot be thought’ Ontological Arguments • Conclusion: Therefore, God exists in the mind and in reality Ontological Arguments • Many philosophers have dismissed this argument as a ‘neat trick’ or ‘charming joke’ – Yet it is difficult to show where it ‘goes wrong’ Ontological Arguments • Plantinga’s modal version • Definitions: – Maximal excellence: to have omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in some world – Maximal greatness: to have maximal excellence in every possible world Ontological Arguments • Plantinga’s modal version • P1: There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness • P2: But X is maximally great only if X has maximal excellence in every possible world Ontological Arguments • Plantinga’s modal version • P3: Therefore, X is maximally great only if X has omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in every possible world • P4: In W, the proposition “there is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being” would be impossible—that is, necessarily false Ontological Arguments • Plantinga’s modal version • P5: But what is impossible does not vary from world to world • P6: Therefore, the proposition “There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being” is necessarily false in this actual world, too Ontological Arguments • Plantinga’s modal version • Conclusion: Therefore, there actually exists in this world, and must exist in every possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being Ontological Arguments • Another version from Anselm (cf. Hartshorne and Malcolm) • P1: If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible • P2: If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary • P3: Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or logically necessary Ontological Arguments • Another version from Anselm (cf. Hartshorne and Malcolm) • P4: If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory • P5: The concept of God is not contradictory • Therefore, God’s existence is logically necessary Ontological Arguments • Whether or not one is persuaded by this type of argument, this argument does demonstrate that belief in God can be defended rationally Teleological Arguments Teleological arguments point to the presence of ‘design’ and argue for the need of a designer Teleological Arguments These arguments are often dismissed on the claim they have been refuted by modern scientific findings •e.g. Darwinian evolutionary theory has ‘proven’ that there is no need for a designer to account for complex systems •Cf. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker Teleological Arguments Some forms of this type of argument are inadequate and open to refutation •Yet it is unwarranted to dismantle a weak form of the teleological argument and then declare that ALL teleological arguments are thereby refuted Teleological Arguments Even in the area of biology there are reasonable, scientific formulations of the teleological argument •Refusing to engage them is not the same as proving them wrong Teleological Arguments Even in the area of biology there are reasonable, scientific formulations of the teleological argument •Irreducible Complexity is a sign of design •“A system is irreducibly complex if it consists of several interrelated parts so that removing even one part completely destroys the system’s function.” (Dembski, Intelligent Design, 147) Teleological Arguments Atheists (and Agnostics) maintain naturalistic processes are adequate to explain life •No designer is required Teleological Arguments Yet the confident ‘atheist’ who extols the virtues and creative powers of evolution (e.g. Dawkins) is guilty of a category mistake •A category mistake occurs when one asks questions or affirms attributes appropriate for one type of entity (category) that are not appropriate for the type of thing (category) under consideration Teleological Arguments Yet the confident ‘atheist’ who extols the virtues and creative powers of evolution (e.g. Dawkins) is guilty of a category mistake •He/She mistakes explanations of OPERATION for explanations of EXISTENCE •To offer an explanation of how life operates is not to provide an explanation of how life exists (or originates) Teleological Arguments Yet the confident ‘atheist’ who extols the virtues and creative powers of evolution (e.g. Dawkins) is guilty of a category mistake •He/She mistakes explanations of OPERATION for explanations of EXISTENCE •Natural laws describe how things operate (function) once they exist, but they do not explain how they came to exist Teleological Arguments Yet the confident ‘atheist’ who extols the virtues and creative powers of evolution (e.g. Dawkins) is guilty of a category mistake •Worst of all, they fail to see that science simply cannot explain existence •Existence is a meta-physical concept Teleological Arguments One scientific form of the teleological argument utilizes modern cosmological findings Teleological Arguments Cosmic fine-tuning •The physical laws of nature contain various constants, e.g., •α (fine structure constant) •αG (gravitation) •αw (weak force) •αs (strong force) •mp/me (proton to electron mass ratio) Teleological Arguments Cosmic fine-tuning •The value of these constants are not mandated by the laws themselves •Fine-tuning means the “actual values assumed by the constants and quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting” Teleological Arguments Cosmic fine-tuning •Physicists recognize the implausibility that these constants could have accidently happened •Paul Davies states that a change in either the gravitational constant or electromagnetism as small as 1 in 1040 would have made the formation of planets impossible Teleological Arguments Cosmic fine-tuning •Physicists recognize the implausibility that these constants could have accidently happened •Roger Penrose calculates the odds of a low-entropy (highly ordered) condition having arisen simply by chance to be 1 in 1010(123) Axiological Arguments The Moral Argument • An axiological argument is an argument that deals with values, especially those of ethics, morality, or aesthetics • One prominent form of axiological argument is based on the existence of moral truths • This argument is simple, yet powerful The Moral Argument • Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values (truths) do not exist • Premise 2: Objective moral values (truths) do exist • Conclusion: Therefore, God exists The Moral Argument • Premise 1: ~G ~OMV • Premise 2: ~~OMV • Conclusion: ~~G [MT] The Moral Argument • This argument is VALID – Thus if premise 1 and premise 2 are both true, then the conclusion must be true – If one is to rationally reject the conclusion, one must show that one or more of the premises is false The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – Many have disputed Premise 1 – E.g. many observe that one does not need to believe in God to believe in objective moral truths • E.g. McGinn, Sinnott-Armstrong, Provine, Baggini The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – Yet this observation is quite beside the point • It is actually a ‘red herring’ – Premise 1 does NOT say ‘unless one believes in God, one cannot believe in objective moral truths’ The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – It is not enough for the professed atheist to affirm a belief in objective moral truth – He/she must be able to demonstrate how they can exist without God • To date NO such demonstration has succeeded • The failures are such that no reasonable hope exists for a successful atheistic account The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – One attempt might be labeled the ‘coherence model’ – One begins with accepted moral truisms and seeks to develop a coherent system of moral beliefs – If the system is internally and externally coherent, then one has a basis for objective moral truths The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – The problem of the coherence model are readily apparent • Whence the moral truisms? • Are these the very moral truths for which the system must account? – If so, it begs the question – If not, where did they come from? The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – The problem of the coherence model are readily apparent • This model treats coherence as a sufficient condition when it is merely necessary • If coherence is sufficient to prove X true, then the atheist must believe in God since the moral argument is VALID (coherent) The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – The problem of the coherence model are readily apparent • It overlooks the fact that false ideas may be coherent with a great many other ideas (both true and false) The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – Atheistic Moral Realism • AMR asserts that objective moral truths just exist (as brute facts) – They do not need any foundation, they just ‘are’ The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – Atheistic Moral Realism • Moral truths are not physical objects, they are ideas • How can ideas simply exist? • Ideas exist ‘in’ minds so if there are no minds, there can be no ideas • Can ‘justice,’ ‘goodness,’ ‘love,’ ‘fidelity,’ etc. simply exist as abstract concepts floating around? The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – Atheistic Moral Realism • Even if one were to grant their brute existence, how would they have any moral force? • Why would there be any obligation to seek , e.g., justice over injustice? • Why should one value justice, compassion and fidelity over injustice, hatred and infidelity? The Moral Argument • Is Premise 1 false? – Atheistic Moral Realism • AMR cannot survive on its own • As long as one already accepts the moral obligation to uphold justice over injustice, it seems easy to ‘do away with God’ • But this simply ‘borrows capital’ from theistic ethics by appealing to an ‘innate sense’ The Moral Argument • This argument becomes even more problematic when one recognizes that more and more atheists are arguing against a notion of free will (e.g. Sam Harris). • Without free will, one is left arguing that we are simply acting upon chemical reactions in the brain. But if this is so, and we don’t have volition, then we cannot choose to do the “good” even if we could objectively establish it without God. Excursus: Goodness and God • Christian Theism maintains God is the foundation of all goodness – Moral – Aesthetic – Metaphysical Excursus: Goodness and God • The claim that God is the foundation of moral goodness has been challenged since the time of Socrates • Many contemporary philosophers assert that Socrates refuted this possibility in The Euthyphro (e.g. Colin McGinn; Julian Baggini) The Euthyphro Problem • Does God choose what is good because it is good or is it good because God chooses it? – If option one is chosen, then the standard of good is external to God – If option two is chosen, then ‘goodness’ is simply arbitrary and could be otherwise The Euthyphro Problem • Option two admits the possibility that evil could have been called good (and good called evil) • If this were true, then the claim that God is good becomes vacuous (emptied of meaning) – It would mean little more than God does what he wants The Euthyphro Problem • If option one is accepted, then it seems ‘goodness’ is independent of God – This means God is not sovereign over good – This means God is not uniquely a se – This means one does not need to appeal to God to have a standard of good The Euthyphro Problem • Theists typically respond that the objection is based on a dubious assumption • The objection assumes the standard of good must be external to God, yet the Theist claims God is the standard • “The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.” –William Lane Craig, “The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God,” www.reasonablefaith.org. The Euthyphro Problem • Julian Baggini (Atheism: A Short Introduction) finds this response inadequate because it leaves one with another dilemma – Is God good because to be good is just to be what God is, or is God good because God has all the properties of goodness? – If option one is chosen, then goodness is merely arbitrary – If option two is chosen, then God is not the standard of good The Euthyphro Problem • Does Baggini’s modified Euthyphro argument undermine the Theistic response? – No, the argument against ‘God as the foundation of good’ works equally well against the allegedly non-theistic standard of good The Euthyphro Problem • To see the problem with Baggini’s modified Euthyphro argument we need only to substitute ‘the non-theistic standard of good’ for the term ‘God’ – Is [God] ‘the non-theistic standard of good’ good because to be good is just what [God] ‘the non-theistic standard of good’ is, or is [God] ‘the non-theistic standard of good’ good because [God] it has all the properties of goodness? – If option one is chosen, then goodness is merely arbitrary – If option two is chosen, then the non-theistic standard of good is not the standard of good The Euthyphro Problem • The modified form of the Euthyphro problem fails to undermine the theistic response to the initial argument • Therefore, the Euthyphro problem fails as a defeater for the theistic claim that God is the standard of goodness Duties and Virtues • We often have an obligation (i.e. a duty) to obey a moral command – We act rightly when we fulfill our moral duty – We act wrongly when we fail to fulfill our moral duty • God is not subject to moral commands – How then can God be good? Duties and Virtues • God is good in the sense that he perfectly possesses all genuine moral virtues – He possesses these virtues necessarily – He possesses these virtues to maximal degree Duties and Virtues • Therefore, God is necessarily and perfectly virtuous • As a result his commands will be good The Moral Argument • Is Premise 2 false? – It seems the only way to avoid the conclusion is to deny premise 2 – Historically the vast majority of philosophers acknowledged the existence of genuine objective moral truths • It is a basic intuition of human experience The Moral Argument • Is Premise 2 false? – Even those who claim to deny such objective moral truths routinely affirm some • It is not enough to point out how difficult it may be to discern the objective truth in some particular moral dilemma – Ignorance of X is not proof of the nonexistence of X The Moral Argument • Is Premise 2 false? – Even those who claim to deny such objective moral truths routinely affirm some • For premise 2 to be false there can be exactly ZERO objective moral truths The Moral Argument • Is Premise 2 false? – It is notoriously difficult to consistently with the denial of all objective moral truth claims • Since even the one who denies their existence lives as if some existed why should we accept their denial? – Cf. the Principle of Belief Conservation The Moral Argument • Is Premise 2 false? – It is notoriously difficult to live consistently with the denial of all objective moral truth claims • Since the actions and statements of the ‘denier’ are contrary to their denial, they do not really accept that Premise 2 is false • Thus they have no rational ground for denying the conclusion of the moral argument The Moral Argument • This argument demonstrates the high cost of Atheism – People unwilling to pay this price CANNOT rationally claim to be Atheists • It also demonstrates that Atheism is contrary to our moral intuitions (basic beliefs) – It fails the test of experience and practice The Wager • Pascal’s “The Wager” is not so much an argument for the existence of God as it is a reminder of the high cost of choosing one side or the other. • Like the moral argument, where an atheist is left claiming that there is no objective morality, this argument also points to the eternal consequences of one’s decision. The Problem of Evil The Problem of Evil • One of the most serious challenges to belief in God • Two distinct forms of the problem: – The Intellectual Problem • Logical Problem • Probabilistic Problem – The Emotional Problem The Intellectual Problem of Evil Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is not benevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? David Hume The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Logical Problem of Evil • It is alleged that the following premises are logically incompatible – God is omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good) – Evil exists The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Logical Problem of Evil • A key question: What does it mean for two (or more) premises to be logically incompatible? – NB: it is important to be able to recognize when something has been demonstrated – Two (or more) premises are logically incompatible when there is no possible explanatory model in which all of the premises can be true – If an explanatory model is available in which all of the premises can be true, then they are NOT logically incompatible The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Logical Problem of Evil • It is not at all clear that these premises are incompatible – There is no obvious contradiction • What hidden assumptions underlie the charge? The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Logical Problem of Evil • Alvin Plantinga has shown that the Atheist accepts two dubious assumptions: – Omnipotence entails that God can create any world that he desires – Omnibenevolence entails that God would prefer a world without evil over a world with evil The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Logical Problem of Evil • Omnipotence entails that God can create any world he desires – But if God desires to create a world in which some creatures have genuine libertarian freedom, is it feasible that he can create a world in which everyone always freely chooses to do the good and never evil? – There are good reasons for rejecting this possibility • Omnipotence does not require that God can do the logically impossible (i.e. create square-circles) • Causing someone freely to choose X is also logically impossible The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Logical Problem of Evil • Omnibenevolence entails that God would prefer a world without evil over a world with evil – Why should anyone accept this claim? • The burden of proof is on the Atheist – Are there not some genuine goods that can be acquired only through suffering (at least in some sense)? The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Logical Problem of Evil • There are compelling reasons for rejecting the hidden assumptions of the Atheistic challenge • Without these dubious assumptions the Theist can reasonably accept the following: – God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent – God creates a world in which evil exists and has a morally sufficient reason for doing so The Intellectual Problem of Evil • Both of the premises can, in fact, be true • Therefore, they are not logically incompatible The Intellectual Problem of Evil • Defense and Theodicy – A defense simply seeks to establish the logical challenge (defeater) has failed – A theodicy seeks to provide an explanation of the sufficient reasons for the presence of evil The Intellectual Problem of Evil • Defense and Theodicy • One does not need to know WHAT this morally sufficient reason is in order to claim THAT IT COULD BE – This counter-argument is intended simply to refute the charge that the premises are logically incompatible • It defeats this ‘defeater’ to belief in God The Intellectual Problem of Evil • This does not resolve the intellectual problem of evil • There is also the “Probabilistic Problem” to consider The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – This argument recognizes there is no logical inconsistency in the existence of God and evil – But this argument asserts given the amount and types of evil present in the world, the existence of God is highly improbable • Thus one should accept the more probable view The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – Although advocates of this argument assume it is compelling, there are at least three important points they overlook – See Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 541-48 The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – Point 1-Probability must be assessed with respect to all relevant background information • One cannot isolate one aspect in seeking the probability of X – What is the probability that Mary’s new boyfriend bench presses 450 lbs, runs a 4.5 40, and makes 2 million dollars per year? – In terms of the general population it is quite small (considerably less than 1/10 of 1 percent) The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – Point 1-Probability must be assessed with respect to all relevant background information • When one considers all the relevant information the apparent improbability actually becomes highly probable! – – – – – – Origin of the universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument) Fine-tuning of the universe (Teleological Arguments) Origin of life Biological complexity (even irreducibly complex systems) Objective moral truths Etc. The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – Point 2- We cannot have confidence that we can accurately assess the probability that God has no morally sufficient reason for permitting the evils that occur • How could we possibly know this? • Consider the arguments against Utilitarian ethical theory – How can one possibly know whether an action will produce the greatest good for the greatest number? – This would require one to be omniscient! The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – Point 3- Christian Theism includes doctrines that increase the probability of the existence of both God and evil • A. The chief purpose of life is not ‘happiness’ (as we usually understand it) but personal, saving knowledge of God and the establishment of His kingdom – Persecution seems to encourage, not discourage, belief in God – Persecution seems to encourage the growth of God’s kingdom The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – Point 3- Christian Theism includes doctrines that increase the probability of the existence of both God and evil • B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose – Much evil and suffering are the result of this rebellion (cf. Romans 1:18ff.) The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – Point 3- Christian Theism includes doctrines that increase the probability of the existence of both God and evil • C. God’s purpose is not restricted to this experience of life; it includes eternal dimensions – 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen.… (ESV) The Intellectual Problem of Evil • The Probabilistic Problem of Evil – Point 3- Christian Theism includes doctrines that increase the probability of the existence of both God and evil • D. Knowledge of God is immeasurably valuable and good The Emotional Problem of Evil • Although philosophy is best equipped to deal with the ‘intellectual problem of evil,’ it assists one faced with the emotional problem – NB one must be careful and kind in the use of philosophical arguments to address the emotional problem The Emotional Problem of Evil • Although philosophy is best equipped to deal with the ‘intellectual problem of evil,’ it assists one faced with the emotional problem – If there is no God, then pain and suffering are not ‘wrong;’ they just are • Does one get angry that the sun rises in the east? • It doesn’t make sense to become angry at something that is not really wrong The Emotional Problem of Evil • Although philosophy is best equipped to deal with the ‘intellectual problem of evil,’ it assists one faced with the emotional problem – If there is no God, then ‘evil’ is not ‘evil’ it is just unpleasant • The fact that people, including atheists, are outraged by ‘evil’ is revealing The Evidential Argument from Evil • William Rowe’s Evidential Argument from Evil Factual Premise: There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse Moral Premise: An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse Conclusion: There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. The Evidential Argument from Evil • Possible Responses to Rowe 1. Undercut the argument for accepting the factual premise (Modest Response) • Rowe’s argument fails to meet the conditions for applying the principle of credulity because human beings cannot meet the two criteria – Must possess the capacity to search the relevant vicinity – Must have executed this capacity to search the relevant vicinity 2. Identify specific goods which may be connected with the suffering; come up with a justifcation for God, a theodicy (Direct attack on factual premise) The Evidential Argument from Evil • Possible Responses to Rowe 3. Moorean Shift – Atheist • Premise 1: There is gratuitous evil • Premise 2: God would prevent gratuitous evil • Conclusion: There is no God – Theist • Premise 1: God exists • Premise 2: God would prevent gratuitous evil • Conclusion: There is no gratuitous evil Some Examples • “Does God Exist?” Craig vs. Peter Atkins