EVIL AND SUFFERING

• FWD explains evil - strengths

  - If we accept the steps of the FWD it's does seem to solve the problem of evil- The FWD does not avoid or diminish the idea of evil- It acknowledges evil as a consequence of freedom
• FWD explains evil - weaknesses

  - Dostoevsky is unlikely to be satisfied by suggestion that innocents suffer for the benefit of other peoples virtues - Evidential problem is not resolved fully
• FW and moral perfection appear to be incompatible - strengths

  - Swinburne and Plantinga have a point. If we are genuinely free then surely we must be able to have real choices- God cannot therefore limit our choices
• FW and moral perfection appear to be incompatible - weaknesses

  - JL Mackie argues that if God was omnipotent God could create humans with the ability to always make the right choice
• FWD is consistent with the God of Classical theism - strengths

  - God is benevolent in giving us freedom (Augustine)- God is benevolent in allowing for free will (King and the Maiden in Hick)- God is omnipotent (2 stage creation in Hick)
• FWD is consistent with the God of Classical theism - weaknesses


  - Hicks 2 stage creation allows for millions of years of tragic evolution- Augustine takes the bible literally
• Free will is about choices - strengths


  Hick and King and the Maiden
• Free will is about choices - weaknesses


  - Free will is an illusion because we are programmed by culture, worldviews and neuroscience
• Free will explains natural evil - strengths

  Swinburne natural evil
• Free will explains natural evil - weaknesses

  Why should people suffer for other peoples benefit?
• Responses to moral evil - accounts for evil

  - God is benevolent (good gifts / Swinburne)- God is benevolent (free will led to our disobedience led to God sending Jesus. Augustine)- God is an omnipotent creator (2 stage creation)- God is benevolent (epistemic distance/Hick)- Moral evil is acknowledged and understood (free will is of great value)- Logically impossible for God to have created beings who are morally perfect and have free will (Swinburne)
• Responses to moral evil - does not account for evil

  - JL Mackie argues that an omnipotent God could resolve the problem of morally perfect people and free will- We are not truly free. Free will is an illusion
• Responses to natural evil - accounts for evil

  - Death places a cap on our suffering - Natural evil is a consequence of living in a morally free world - God created the world imperfect (Hick and Swinburne)- Develop our virtues
• Responses to natural evil - does not account for evil

  - Why should someone benefit from an individuals suffering and pain?
• Response to the logical problem of evil - accounts for evil

  - An omnipotent and benevolent God is justified in continuing to permit evil in creation in order to allow free will- An omnipotent God cannot receive a logical contradiction
• Response to the evidential problem of evil - accounts for evil

  - The benefits of free will (a loving relationship with God) justifies evil - The value of free will is enormous
• Response to the evidential problem of evil - does not account for evil

  - Does not address Dostoevsky's stories of evidential problem are not resolved
• What is Griffin's argument about God's role in creation?

  - The world was ex-materia (with existing material). The universe is uncreated and infinite and having within it a deity - God was limited in his role as creator by what resources were already present but also limited in what could be developed. Flawed aspects of creation accounts for natural evil. God works by persuading creation towards a state of greater order and complexity, two kinds of goodness found (harmony and intensity). When creation rebels against God's persuasion he does nor have any power to impose his will so the corresponding evils of discord will result. His role is reduced to one that attracts creation to a state of perfection using persuasion
• What is Griffin's argument about the explanation of evil?

  - As the creation process develops the possibilities for good and evil increase, as both harmony and discord can be experienced in greater intensity. As humans exert their own influence on the world, God's control is further diminished as humans can ignore God. - By admitting the limits to God's power, process thought no longer needs to justify why God does not intervene to stop evil, for God is simply unable to do this.- God saw the possibility of goodness and believed that the value of goods was worth the risk.
• What is Griffin's argument about God suffering too?

  - God suffers with the world every time a morally evil act is committed. God is part of the world, affected by it and unable to control it. It is harder to be angry with God because he is not an impassive spectator but one who took great risks and shares in our suffering- It would be unreasonable for humans to condemn God for his role in the creative process when he suffered unimaginably more than anyone else from the consequences
• What is Griffin's argument about the purpose of evil in process thought?

  - The universe was chaotic and disordered at the start of time. There was no suffering or pain but a state of very high triviality- God is benevolent so it makes sense that he would push this chaotic but empty and meaningless universe towards order and harmony. But he should do this by slowly persuading the universe to order according to the fixed laws of nature- God of classical theism could create a perfect world in an instant, but realistically harmony and intensity are achieved through slow development of life through the process of evolution- The increasing complexity in the universe allows more happiness and pleasure, but also opens up the possibility of more pain and suffering. They are linked. - God has the dilemma in knowing that increasing harmony in the universe correspondingly increases the amount of evil. He is not omnipotent so there is no way to avoid this. It is better to live in a world with opportunities for goodness and suffering than to have no world at all.
• Griffin's response to natural and moral evil - accounts for evil

  - Logically explains benevolence of God- God could not do anything else but create because of his benevolence - Panentheism: God suffers with us demonstrates God's benevolence - Moral and natural evil is explained through the opposites of discord and harmony- Moral evil is a real possibility because of free will
• Griffin's response to natural and moral evil - does not account for evil


  - God is not omnipotent and cannot affect or change the universe only persuade
• Griffin's response to the logical problem of evil - accounts for evil

  - Logical problem of evil is flawed as it starts with the idea that God is omnipotent then concludes that since evil is present God must not exist. However Griffin argues that God is not omnipotent
• Griffin's response to the logical problem of evil - does not account for evil

  - God is not omnipotent (ex-materia)- Not a traditional Church teaching
• Griffin's response to the evidential problem of evil - accounts for evil

  - God suffers alongside- Natural evil exists because ex materia was flawed- Where there is harmony and intensity there also has to be discord and triviality
• Griffin's response to the evidential problem of evil - does not account for evil

  - There is no afterlife- No understanding of justice. If God is benevolent then surely he is also just?
• Panentheism - strengths

  - God is interconnected with the universe and humanity - God can be ultimately benevolent
• Panentheism - weaknesses

  - God is changeable - God cannot be omnipotent and changeable- Is not the god of classical theism- Is not a theodicy- Where did God or ex materia come from?- How can they be eternal?
• Not omnipotent - strengths

  - God is a benevolent and persuasive God- Why does God have to be omnipotent?- Ex materia explains the problem of natural evil in the world
• Not omnipotent - weaknesses

  - Not God of classical theism - Why believe in a God that cannot have any power?- Denying omnipotence of God merely skips around the issue- Omnipotence of God is in scripture
• God is benevolent - strengths

  - In line with scriptural understanding of a loving God- God suffers with humanity/reassurance
• God is benevolent - weaknesses

  - No afterlife does not seem just or loving- God suffering anthropomorphises God- Some people suffer hugely
• Understanding evil - strengths

  - God is not responsible for evil as God is not omnipotent - Goodness outweighs evil
• Understanding evil - weaknesses

  - What is the point? Is it worth it?- When you are suffering and in pain does it matter that there is greater goodness?
• Explaining evil - strengths

  - Explains natural and moral evil - Life is about fighting evil and promoting good
• Explaining evil - weaknesses

  - As the complexities of life continue evil increases
• What does Richard Swinburne offer an explanation of natural evil by using the FWD?

  Death serves two purposes

  1. The existence of death is crucial to avoid the toy world, where moral choices become meaningless. By having a limited time span, our choices take on enormous importance.

  2. Death places a cap on how much suffering we endure. If death did not exist our capacity to suffer would be enormous. A truly benevolent God is required to allow death in the world
• What is Plantinga's Transworld Depravity argument?


  1. The argument is about whether God, being so powerful, could have made humans with free will but also only the ability to always make the right decision. For some this would be a contradiction and God cannot contradict himself

  2. JL Mackie argued that it would not be a contradiction. If God truly was omnipotent it would be possible. Mackie argued that God could have allowed us to have the options of both good and evil but we always choose good

  3. Plantinga argues back that God simply could not have created us truly free but with the ability to always make right choices. This is because true freedom has to always include the REAL possibility of doing wrong not just the idea of doing wrong
• What does JL Mackie say about the FWD?

  It is no contradiction to suppose that an omnipotent being could create beings who were genuinely free but always made the correct moral decision when faced with a choice.