the problem of evil is both a logical problem and an evidetial problem. theodices are attempts to defend the existence of god despite the existnece of evil and suffering in the world
evil as a logical problem
the inconsistenct triad is an argument against the concept of an all powerful and all loving god while evil persists. it states that these 3 beliefs cannot exist at the same time
the logical form of the argument states athat an all powerful god would be able to stop evil and suffering and an all loving god would want to stop evil and suffering. the argument concludes that god canot have these qualities given the fact that evil and suffering do exist
solving logical problem of evil
some sholars may choose to solve the logical problem of evil by stating that evil serves a good purpose depsite the fact it appears to be bad
in addition some may suggest that god is not totally powerful or not totally loving
evil as an evidential problem
this argument states that there is too much evil and suffering in the world for an all powerful and all loving god to exist
the extent of evil and suffering throughout human history cannot be explained by the existence of god
supporters of this argument state that the extent of evil and suffering in the world doesn't suggest a loving god
who suggest that evil and suffering in the world suggest a cruel and malevolet creator
john staurt mill
theodicies that justify divine responses to evil - augustine: perfection and the fall
augustine belived that evil was not a substance or force
augustine belived that god created a perfect world which was full of variety and goodness. this variety meant that some things will have more capabilities the others
as angles were created with variety, some recieved less grace from god and were less able to worship god. this meant that some angels feel into sin as a result of misusing their free will
theodices that justify divine responses to evil - augustine: adam and eves role
adam and eve chose to disobey god by misusing their free will. they were tempted to disobey god by a fallen angel
this act of disobedince corrupted the natural world and the human soul. as a result natural and moral evil entered the world
theodicies that justify divine responses to evil - the irenean theodicy
ireneus was a very early christian. he argued that god allows evil and suffering to exist
he argued that humans were made in gods image but that humans have to grow into the likeness of god
Theodicies that Justify Divine Responses to Evil - the ireneantheodicy: free will
irenaeus said that free will is an important part of being made in the image of god. humans have the option to choose to commit evil and suffering. by choosing to be good, humans can devlop into a freely chosen, mature relatioship with god
irenaeus argued that evil had to exist in the world in order for us to appriceate goodness
in the afterlife humans can continue to grow into the likeness of god
Theodicies that Justify Divine Responses to Evil - hick on the irenean theodicy
hick argues that evil and suffering is part of gods plan to help us to grow into a loving free relationship with god
god keeps himself at an epistemic distance from humans to ensure that we make free choices and are not forced to do good deeds
Theodicies that Justify Divine Responses to Evil - hick on moral character
hick argues that the world exists to shape our moral charcter. he argues that the world has a 'vale of soul making'
by making good moral decisons and learning from suffering, humans can turn to god freely
in the afterlife, our spirtual journey towards god continues and we are able to achieve salavation
what did augustine define evil as
a privatio boni - absence of good
analysing augustines theory - agustines inadequate theory
agustines understanding of evil as privation is inadequate
examples of evil, such as the suffering of innocent children, genocide or natural disasters, canot be understood as merley a lack of goodness
augustine recognises the role of humaity and misuse of free will as the cause for a lot of evil and suffering which we see in the world today
analysing augustinestheory -genesis and qualities
augustine relies on a literal interpretation of the genesis text - this doesnt appeal to 21st century beliefs about the origin of humans
augustines theodicy raises issues with gods omnniscince - if god knows everything why did he not anticpate the misuse of free will
augustines theodicy undermines gods omnipotennce - for example if god was all powerful, he would be able to removed the damage causes by evil and suffering
positive of augustines theodicy
augustinnes theodicy is succesful in preserving gods omnibenevolnece - god doesnt want evil in the world and it wasnt part of his orginial creation
augustines use of biblical text to support his undertstanding of the origin of evil appeals to a christian audience
analysig iraneus theory - view of suffering
ireaneus theodicy fails to recognise the fact that some people suffer a lot more - examples of evil such as innocent people killed in terrorist attacks or childhood cancer, do not always allow for a 'vale of soul making'
suffering can make people worse, rather than better or stronger. suffering doesnt always lead to spiritual maturity. suffering can lead to a lack of faith, bitterness and resentment
D.Z phillips on iraneus
D.Z phillips argues that its wrong to suggest that god planned evil as part of his initial creation - for phillips this suggest an eveil god who was willing to let humans suffer so that free will is presevered
positives of iraneus theory
ireanus theodicy is appealing because it provides comfort and purpose to those who are suffering. it allows us to recognise that evil and suffering allows us to devlop as human beings
the idea of 'soul making' appeals to our past experince that suffering enables us to grow as human beings
irenaeus thoedicy recognises free will as the means for which we can develop morally and spiritually
Analysing Logical vs Evidential Arguments & Monotheism - misunderstanding omnipotence
the belief that an omnipotentgod would be able to remove evil and suffering relies on the assumption that an all powerful god can do everything
richard swinburne argues that omnipotence is misunderstood. god can only do what is logically possible. it is a logical contradcition for god to allow human freedom while also not allowing for evil and suffering to occur
Analysing Logical vs Evidential Arguments & Monotheism - evil may be necessary
the belief that an omnibennevolet god would seek to remove evil and suffering relies on the assumption that its always better to have no evil than to have evil in the world
scholars such as hick and richard swinburne argue that evil is necessary for us to devlop and into a free relationship with god
Analysing Logical vs Evidential Arguments & Monotheism - evil for good and gods uniqueness
the logical version of the problem of evil recognises that evil and suffering may exists for good purposes. if evil and suffering allow for spiritual and moral development then evil becomes good and necessary
the evidential problem of evil fails to recognise the uniqueness of god. we are finite humans with limited capacities
so it is difficult to understand how an Omni - God would respond to evil and suffering within the world
Analysing Logical vs Evidential Arguments & Monotheism - can we defend monotheism
some people may argue that there is a far greater amount of good than evil in the world. the plentiful examples of goodness and beauty suggest that god may still exist
human beings are finite with limited capacities. there may be a purpose and reason for evil and suffering which we still don't understand
theism is about faith. a belief in ngod is not based on the balance of evidence. god doesn't have to explain the existence of evil and suffering in his creation