The problem of evil

• omnipotent: all powerful
• omniscient: all knowing
• omnibenevolent: all loving
• omnipresent: present everywhere
• Inconsistent triad: the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God, and the existence of evil in the world can't be compatible
• theodicy: an attempt to explain the existence of evil in a way that is consistent with the belief in God
• natural evil: evil and suffering caused by non human agencies
• moral evil: evil and suffering caused by humans
• privatio boni: a phrase used by Augustine to mean an absence of goodness
• free will: the ability to make independent choices between real options
• epistemic distance: a distance in knowledge and understanding
• The logical problem:

  • If God is all loving, knowing and powerful than why does he allow evil to still exist
  • This problem is first attributed to Epicurus (as Hume had wrote about it)
  • J.L. Mackie is the best known proponent of the logic form of this argument
  • He expresses that the logical problem is only a problem if you believe in God
  • the inconsistent triad is linked to this problem, as not all 3 points can happen or exist at once
  • a priori argument against God's existence
• The evidential problem:

  • a posteriori argument against God's existence
  • it argues that there is too much evil in the world for God to exist
  • John Stuart Mill -> due to the amount of evil in the world, if there was a God he would be sadistic
• John Stuart Mill quote


  In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature's every-day performances
• Background information on Augustine:

  • was Bishop of Hippo
  • was a member of a cult that rivaled Christianity
  • this cult was called Manicheism
  • the Manichees believed that the universe was held in a cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil ==> they were on the side of Good
  • people couldn't be blamed for morally bad actions as it was the result of evil winning
  • when he became a Christian he disagreed with this
• Augustine's Theodicy:

  • Soul deciding ==> key importance ->chose evil -> miss use of freewill
  • believed that God made everything perfectly
  • evil was a lack of Good
  • Evil is caused firstly by the fall of the angels, and for humanity it is caused by THE FALL ---> Adam and Eve
  • due to the fall, we can now misuse our free will ----> causing evil
  • believed that as punishment for misusing free will, you can be sent to a physical hell
• Genesis quotes that can be sued for Agustine:

  •  God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. 
  • “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
• Soren Keirkegaards: free will defence

  • used free will to defend God
  • used the analogy of a king becoming a peasant so a peasant girl will fall in love with him and not his money
  • why would she want to love the king if people died because of him
• Strengths of Augustine's Theodicy:

  + absence of Good logically means that logically there would be evil

  + idea that evil can arise when people exercise free will fits in with what we see in the world around us

  + follows biblical account --> "very good", blames Adam and Eve

  + Aquinas - supports Augustine and adds that natural evil is only from evil from our perspective (for example like a cat eating a mouse)

  + Swinburne - agrees to the extent of saying death is a greater good as without it you'd never achieve anything as you'd have eternity to do things on earth
• Weaknesses of Augustine's Theodicy:

  • where does hell and satan come from as God can't create evil
  • how could Adam and Eve find out about evil
  • goes against the theory of evolution, as it believes that it goes from order to chaos not the other way around
  • Schleiermacher -> contradictory to claim that a perfectly created world went wrong
  • implies evil created itself --> ex nihilo
  • how could Adam and Eve disobey God without knowing about good or evil
• Irenaeus background information:

  • as a child, heard and saw St. Polycarp, the last known living connection with the Apostles,
  • served as a missionary
  • Christianity was still very new
  • persecution of Christians was still prevalent
• Theodicy of Irenaeus:

  • soul making
  • God allows evil and suffering deliberately so we can grow as people and mature to have a free relationship with God
  • argued evil had to exist in the world for us to appreciate the good
  • good is a qualitative judgement
  • Hick and Swinburne have developed similar beliefs
  • key distinction between God's image and likeness
  • Kant argued we could only act morally right with choice
  • likeness of God only happens after death
• Strengths of Irenaeus Theodicy:

  + if the world was not perfect, this explains clearly why evil could exist =>> both moral and natural

  + the concept of us morally progressing --> fits in with the theory of evolution

  + helps us develop our moral code easier

  + explains why the inconsistent triad doesn't have to be an issue

  + recognisable --> value in relationship

  + we are made in the image of God not likeness --> more prone to sin
• Weaknesses of Irenaeus Theodicy:

  • suffering leads some away from religion
  • some people (disabled/infants)
  • couldn't God teach us moral lessons through lesser evils, as evil doesn't always justify the means
  • hurt people hurt people
  • evidential problem
  • not everyone has the same chance of development
  • doesn't offer a clear explanation as to why God didn't make us morally perfect
• John Hick:

  • Hick underwent a strong religious experience that led him to accept evangelical Christianity and to change his career direction to theology and philosophy
  • Lived and worked in Birmingham => made him believe that all cultures and religions allowed for salvation
  • Improved the Irenaean type of theodicy
• Hick and the Augustinian theodicy:

  • Hick rejected the theodicy
  • not logically impossible but lacks plausibility
  • 'myth rather than history'
  • 'radically implausible, must look elsewhere for light on the problem of evil'
• Hick and the alternative strand of Christian thought:

  • Irenaeus himself did not develop a theodicy, but he did build the framework for one
  • does not depend on the fall
  • consonant with modern knowledge concerning the origins of the human race
  • can't be attributed to Irenaeus
• Hick and the two stage creation:

  1. In the Image of God
  2. In the likeness of God

  First stage was the gradual production of homosapiens, through the long evolutionary process
• Hick + social and moral immaturity:

  • early homosapiens are not the Adam and Eve
  • life for homosapiens was not easy, it was a constant struggle for survival, morally and spiritually immature creatures
  • IN THE SECOND STAGE: the intelligent, ethical and religious animal is brought through ones own free responses -> divine likeness
• Ideal Stage: not something already enjoyed and or lost but is the future of which we do not know
• Hick and the perfection in the future not the past:

  • Irenaeus couldn't question the fall due to his historical knowledge
  • today there is no evidence for us being in the ideal state in the past
  • it will happen in the future
• Hick and epistemic distance + freedom:

  • if humans were perfect there would be no free will
  • must be brought into existence from a distance by God
  • etsi dues non daretur = there were no God
  • God is not overwhelmingly evident
• Hick and virtue through hardship:

  • challenge and temptation are intrinsically more valuable than virtues
  • to get goodness as a virtue => God made us as imperfect creatures who can then attain to the more valuable kind of goodness
• Hick and moral evil:

  • animalistic nature --> "many and varied forms of social injustice"
  • nevertheless our sinful nature in a sinful world
  • moral character consists of moral goodness
• Hick and natural evil:

  • if there was no natural evil there would be no development of human intellect
  • no human civilisation and or culture
• Hick Criticisms:

  • not plausible to say that this much pain and suffering is needed -> if we are to grow through free will we must come across extremes of evil, otherwise we must hand our free will back
  • calamity and disaster strike indiscriminately, the good are likely to suffer just as much or more than the wicked -> 1. if goodness was rewarded all the time, everyone would be unjustly good for rewards. Truly moral actions are done because they are good not for rewards. 2. disasters cause a mutual caring and love for eachother
• Evil and Eschatology:

  • without eschatological fulfilment, the theodicy would fall apart
  • implausible to many today
  • we all reconcile with God
  • evil is a person-making process
• Christian Scientists: a group created by Mary Baker Eddy, who believed that evil and suffering don't exist and that they are a construct of the human mind --> this undermines a great deal of suffering such as the Holocaust and many other wars
• Is Augustine's view of the origins of moral and natural evil enough to spare God from the blame for the evil in the world?

  + doesn't say God tolerates evil

  -evil is more serious than Privatio boni

  -suggests God didn't think ahead

  -Schleiermacher => angels can't have a motive to sin unless created imperfect

  -undermines God's omniscience
• David Hume: Could our world not be more hospitable and still teach us what we need to know, does suffering have to be so extreme