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