The problem of evil and suffering

• the free will defence needs to show that

  1. Humans cannot have free will without the existence of moral evil

  2. Having free will is worth the cost of suffering
• first order good/ evil

  The experience of happiness or the experience of misery or pain
• second order good/evil

  We can respond to suffering with kindness or compassion or we can respond with cruelty and hate
• second order goods

  exist to maximise first-order goods and minimise first order evils
• second order evils

  maximise first order evils and minimise first order goods
• third order goods


  free will allows humans to choose. Pain and suffering are needed to help us develop sympathy
• fourth order goods


  God creates humans with free will, which teaches us to be morally responsible.
• Mackie's rejection of the free will defence

  1. it is logically possible for a person to make free, good choices all of the time.

  2. god could of created humans so that they only make those choices

  3. god did not do so

  therefore;

  1. either god lacks the power to do so or,

  2. god is not loving enough to do so,

  3. either way the free will defence fails.

  mackies conclusion is that;

  4. god does not exist.
• Plantinga's defence of the Free Will Defence


  3 possible worlds:

  - the world as it is with 'morally significant free will' with no causal determinism from God which means that there is no evil and suffering. (logically possible)

  - The world without morally significant free will with causal determinism to make people choose good (logically possible but makes human robots)

  - both free will and gods determinism (logically impossible)

  
  

  Therefore Mackies argument fails
• Plantinga's natural evil


  - this is tied up with punishment for the fall

  - it is logically possible that God created or allowed natural evil because of human sin in Eden
• Strengths of the free will defence

  It offers a logical explanation for evil, by removing the existence of evil from God and placing it on mankind, Explains the inconsistent triad, it encourages the development of human character helping us be better and limit evil, Swinburne explains why God doesn't stop suffering. Plantinga argues theres no possible way in which God could've created humans who would always make good choices.
• Weaknesses of the Free Will Defence


  Peter Vardy doesn't think it justifies natural evil it has no human cause, Rowe's evidential problem isn't solved because why is there so much evil, Determinist argue free will is an illusion
• Causal determinism


  the idea that every event is caused by preceding events and conditions and by laws of nature. Therefore humans do not have free will.
• Libertarianism


  In the free will debate, this is the view that although some aspects of human existence are determined by physics, biology and chemistry, humans nevertheless have a degree if free will and so can be held morally responsible for their actions.
• Hick's Soul-Making Theodicy


  God wants us to attain true happiness through suffering ("soul-making"); evil is a by-product of where we are in development of the soul
• Four key influences on Hick's thinking


  Rejection of Augustine's theology as outdated and theologically unsatisfactory

  - his wish to apply modern science

  - the need to respond to the challenges of atheism

  - his religious convictions that arose out of personal experience
• Humans are the high point of evolution


  - a long evolutionary process is willed by God

  - the human telos is to have a connection and personal relationship with God, which can only be achieved by a free willing response to good and evil.
• God set an

  epistemic distance between himself and humanity
• Epistemic distance


  A distance in knowledge and understanding
• Objections made to Hick's theodicy

  does not address the issue of animal suffering

  - does not resolve the problem of purposeless evil

  - does not justify the very worst of evils
• Hick's response to does not address the issue of animal suffering


  pain is needed to warn animals of danger

  - they do not fear future harm

  - animals exist to stop us realising our 'special nature' and their suffering is beyond our understanding
• Hicks response to does not resolve the problem of purposeless evil


  this has to remain a mystery to keep the epistemic distance, if it was not we would not be able to freely choose a relationship with God.
• Hick's response to does not justify the very worst of evils


  if the worst evils are removed then the next worst would be the worst

  the more evils removed = the less free humans are
• strength's of hick's theodicy

  - More logical than Augustine's idea

  - In line with evolution

  - Non-literal approach to Genesis

  - Incorporates suffering

  - Recognises importance of Jesus to everyone, not just as a role model

  - Universalism seems closer to the idea of an omnibenevolent God

  - Provides natural evil with a purpose
• weaknesses of hick's theodicy

  - Why is the epistemic distance so large?

  - Doesn't consider large amount of animal suffering

  - Why could God not just create a perfect world where we make the right choices? We wouldn't be aware.

  - Doesn't talk about the imbalance of suffering or suffering of the innocent

  - Universalism seems to remove some of the freedom Hick argues is central. If you know you're going to heaven anyway, why be really nice?

  - Universal salvation also seems to undermine Jesus' sacrifice.

  - Are there not other ways for God to develop humanity? Why evil, pain, and suffering??

  - Some people cannot use suffering and pain in a developmental way, it this necessary for them?
• Process Theology as presented by Griffin

  - exnilio is a mistranslation of genesis 1:1 god sorted out the already existing chaotic matter

  - the concept of God's omnipotence, if the Universe already existed then he could not be in full control of it

  - the so-called truths of the bible cannot be accepted just because they are logically possible.
• Key points of process theology

  - God is not transcendent

  - analogy of humans not being able to control how the body works

  - God is the soul of the universe

  - God and the universe exist panentheistically
• God is


  responsible but not culpable
• Process Theology applied to free will


  God shares all our suffering and cannot influence the lowest level of existence as they lack any awareness for God to appeal to
• Strengths of Griffin's process theodicy

  - Fits with current scientific knowledge

  - Those who suffer have assurance that God understands what they are going through

  - No conflict between omnibenevolence and the reality of evil

  - The emphasis is on what we know from this world.
• Weaknesses of Griffin's Process Theology

  - we cannot be sure of the correct translation and interpretation of Genesis 1:1

  - Does not apply to animals

  - This type of God might be considered unworthy of worship

  -deeply unsatifactory for many thesists
• A biblical background to evil

  Genesis 3: Adam and Eve being forced out of Eden after disobeying God

  The Genesis stories of the floods

  God himself is the author of evil as well as good

  some say that satan is the cause of evil
• Natural evil

  disease, suffering of animals, natural disasters ect

  natural evil causes imaginable stress such as animals caught in a wild fire with no escape

  
  

  OT: flood was punishment for the corruption of humankind

  NT: Jesus controls nature, eg by healing the blind
• Moral evil


  hurtful and harmful evil that humans carry out

  such as the holocause and acts of sexual violence

  - raises the question of why God permits such evils
• some have denied the existence of evil


  Augustine claimed that evil is the absence of good like how darkness is the absence of light

  
  

  Aquinas claims that evil was the lack of something good that was natural in it:

  - blindness in a rock is not evil whereas blindness in a human is
• the evidential problem of evil

  1. the sheer quantity of both natural and moral evil are overwhelming, for example natural disasters

  2 the pointlessness of so much evil that serves no useful purpose, Rowe's example of the fawn suffering a slow and painful death in forest fire.

  
  

  This question's God's omniscience, he must have known the terrible suffering that would be caused by both the laws of nature and humans.