existence of evil - 25 marker

• logical problem of evil


  J.L. Mackie

  • god is omnipotent
  • god is wholly good
  • evil exists
  • there seems to be a contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true then the third would be false. However all three are essential parts of most theological positions
• evidential problem of evil


  given the existence of evil, which of the following is the more reasonable hypothesis:

  • H1 - there is an infinitely powerful, wholly good God who created the world
  • H2 - there is no such God (this is the more reasonable hypothesis)
  • supported by figures such as Charles Darwin, David Hume and William Rowe
  • David Hume - 'we must forever find it impossible to reconcile any mixture of evil in the universe with infinite attributes'
• First A

  Plantinga's Free will defence:

  • God is justified in letting moral evil occur because it is the only way for there to be something very good: the existence of significantly free creatures
  • if God has been ready to intervene to prevent every horrendous evil, there would have been no significantly free creatures and this would have been a great loss
• First C

  Mackie's objection to the Free Will defence:

  • P1 - there is a possible world in which every creature is free to do evil but, as a matter of fact, never does evil
  • P2 - an omnipotent God can bring about any possible world
  • P3 - therefore, an omnipotent God can bring about a possible world in which ever creature is free to do evil but, as a matter of fact, never does evil
• First R

  Plantinga would respond to this argument by saying that this is not free will and therefore creatures are not significantly free

  If God created a world in which creatures had the choice to do evil but never did, it is the same as creatures being unable to do evil and therefore they aren't significantly free
• second A

  Soul making theodicy

  • P1 - a world containing evil is required for humans to be capable of moral development, including the acquisition of certain virtues e.g. compassion or charity
  • P2 - a supremely good God would want his creatures to be capable of moral development, including the acquisition of such virtues, as we strive for perfection/ to be like God
  • C1 - therefore, if God creates a world, then it must be a world with evil

  the soul making theodicy assumes that unless people freely choose good over evil, then their choices and actions are not morally significant
• second C

  existence of extreme and pointless suffering?

  • extreme suffering - we could arguable still learn from suffering to a much lesser extent than what we suffer
  • pointless suffering - there are some kinds of suffering where seemingly no good comes from it at all e.g. babies and young children having terminal cancer
• second R

  the level of evil is relative and sometimes we cannot learn from our mistakes unless we suffer deeply because then we understand the consequences of our actions on a more serious level

  suffering will always seem pointless but without it we cannot be able to morally development and then our existence seems pointless
• third A

  soul making theodicy
• third C

  Lewis

  • Lewis argues that the cause and effect theodicy is not good enough
  • he argues that God is not bound by cause and effect - God could make a world where evil is not needed for 'Good'
• third R

  Toy world

  • Hick raises the idea of a world in which God ensure that there is no pain and suffering
  • robbery could occur but no one would suffer
  • there would be no need to work but this would not be detrimental
  • according to Hick, there would be moral development in this kind of world
  • there may be no morality at all - no generosity, no courage or kindness
  • he argues that our lives would be aimless and that our harsh environment is a necessity in offering us the potential for change, for understanding, for improvement and be able to move closer to God