Problem of Evil and Suffering

• Logical Problem of Evil

  
  

  
  

  • Epicurus inconsistent Triad- identifies an inconsistency between omnipotence, omnibenevolence and evil
  • Augustine summarises it as "either god cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good"
  • Mackie says "a wholly good being eliminated evil as far as he can"
• Evidential Problem of Evil

  •the vast quantity of evil in the world suggests an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God isn't a plausible explanation for it
• Free Will Defence

  a key part of many of the most influential explanations for the problem of evil, boil down to moral evil as a result of freewill and action
• Objections to the Free Will Defence- plausibility

  •augustine literally interprets the first book of the bible, but many see it as symbolism.
• Plantinga- objection to mackie

  
  

  • rejects the idea god can many any logically possible world, since he can't make a world where humans aren't made by god
  • there could be one person 'Curly Smith' who is corrupt in natre always chooses one evil, so it wouldn't be possible for god to create a world where curly is free and always does good
  • therefore evil is compatible w a all good all powerful god, doesn't prove the none existence of god. Only that believing in his none existence is rational
• Hick's Soul-making Theodicy

  image and likeness of god- humans are created imperfect but in the image of god as rational intelligent beings. humans should strive to move to the likeness of god which involves a relationship with him
• Criticisms of hicks theodict

  
  

  injustice- traditional Christianity emphasises responsibility for one's own actions and how you're judged by god who sends you to heaven or hell, universal salvation is unjust it takes away the point of following god and doing good in life
• David Griffin- Process Theology

  
  

  • God is not omnipotent, so there's no inconsistent Triad- he can't actually prevent all evil, he's bound by the laws of physics which are a necessary part of the world
  • and isn't omniscient, doesn't know the future only the many possibilities
  • God isn't transcendent, hes present in the world and suffers with us, he's part of the world
  • people have real free will,
  • God can make moral demands but as he doesn't and cant force people to follow them its not logically possible to force free people to obey
• freewill defense- augustine

  • god created a perfect world and evil was introduced through the choices humans made, hes not responsible. it lead to The Fall and expulsion from paradise (pain in child birth, death, having to work the land)
  • says "a runaway horse is better than a stone" meaning free will is a good thing having it and sinning is better than no freewill at all.
• freewill defense- peter vardy

  • summarises the defense as,
  • humans should strive for a loving relationship w god,
  • it must be chosen freely,
  • so god gave us freewill,
  • freewill means sometimes humans choose good and sometimes choose evil,
  • therefore evil exists to facilitate a loving relationship w god.
• freewill defense hick and swinburne

  • god doesn't want to make a "toy world" for his pet humans so it's a mistake to question why it's unpleasant.
• Biblical perspective on evil- the devil

  • the devil is one way the bible accounts for evil through christian dualism with the devil as the fallen angel responsible for all evil, and god as the power of good within both the old (book of job) and new testament (Matthew 4 "tempted by the devil", Luke 22 "satan entered judas")
  • Book of Job discusses evil, but fails to offer a defense against the problem of evil. rather, it shows a believer how they should cope with it.
• response to griffin

  the god he describes in his argument is different from the one described in scripture, so different he is defending a different god. therefore his theodicy doesn't stand since it isn't actually defending the god in the problem of evil
• logical problem of evil

  •Technically a priori as it's an inconsistency within the definition of three things, but it only becomes an actual objection to the existence of god when you use evidence from the world, making that a posteriori
• logical problem of evil

  the problem is exacerbated when we consider god as omnipotent as well, he isn't oblivious to the evil since he knows anything, and if he is capable why hasn't he gotten rid of it yet?
• evidential problem of evil

  John Stuart Mill said the natural world is full of evidence of evil, any good in the world is the result of "their own efforts" and we shouldn't be "imitating the course of nature", goes against teleological arguments like paley
• evidential problem of evil

  A posteriori because it takes the evidence of our own experience- suffering, wrongdoing, loss as it's starting point
• biblical perspective on evil- creation stories and the fall

  • genesis: 1, god brings order out of chaos, there's already formless matter before god starts to create, the creation is "good", "very good"
  • genesis 2: creatio ex nihilo, god is the source of all things so there's no evil
  • the fall- evil is brought into the world by the free choice of Eve and Adam, their disobedience causes evil to enter the world which becomes flawed and are punished with pain in childbirth, death and having to work the land
• biblical perspective on evil assessed

  • the fall and free will account for moral evil, the devil can account for natural evil but him physically creating natural disasters is hard to believe and poses the question of why god can't stop him
  • the creation stories can't seem to solve the problem of evil either, taken literally the stories conflict and the fall seems unfair and taken figuratively it still implies that freewill causes the evil in the world and why would god make that so?
• freewill defense - irenaeus


  Freewill is necessary to improve and work towards spiritual maturity, through noble action.

  Evil is an unfortunate side effect of that freewill but worth it for salvation/redemption
• objections to the free will defense - flew and the definition

  • free actions are ones not influenced externally only caused internally within a person. for example you chose to marry the person you love based on the type of person you are internally.
  • goes on to say that god could have created a world where all humans had a good nature but were free by Flew's definition, they'd always choose to do the right thing because of the person they are which would be better than our current world
• objection to flew


  • there is no difference between flews "naturally good" people and robots or puppets who are programmed to act a certain way. its important to theists that god gave people the ability to chose a relationship with him, but in flew's world got seems to have manipulated humans to bring about the desired results.
  • for example if a hypnotist persuaded someone they were in love would that love hold any value, we question the love of flews free people the same way
  • furthermore a manipulative god like the one flew decides may not be worthy of worship.
• objections to freewill defense - mackie and the definition


  • another version of flews argument, presented as a logical possibility within god's ability
  • its logically possible for him to choose to do good once,
  • so he could choose good every time
  • any individual can choose to do good their whole life
  • god is omnipotent so can create any logically possible world, so couldve made a world genuinely free and all good, but he didnt,
  • so hes not omnipotent or not all good (reiteration of the logical problem)
• Hick's soul making theodicy

  
  

  • epistemic distance- "god is not overwhelmingly present" basically god's presence is not obvious within the world so you can chose not to believe.
  • also added to this, god would continually have to intervene and alter the world to prevent all evil, which would lead to no regularity in nature and if there was no regularity and science then the choice to believe in god is gone.
• Hick's soul making theodicy


  soul making world- the world is dangerous / evil to help humans develop good habits and virtues by making choices. You can't learn morally without difficulties and challenges, which help us develop into the likeness of god. Any suffering is made up for in heaven. A world without pain may be a good world in itself, but wouldn't make for good soul making
• Hick's soul making theodicy

  eschatology- you can only achieve the likeness of god after death, there is no hell only purgatory until everybody is saved you get infinite chances. this is supposed to make up for the idea that an omnibenevolent god would not sentence people to eternal damnation
• criticism of hicks theodicy

  existence of suffering is incompatible with a good god- the theodicy explicitly says god is responsible for creating a world where there's natural evil, therefore it's not disproving the problem as it conflicts with the notion of omnibenevolence
• criticism of hicks theodicy

  theres too much suffering- again this links to the evidential problem, it's just nonsensical to say a good god would create a system that functions on suffering and many would reject the idea that even a single life lost due to an evil act is one too many.
• criticisms of hicks theodicy

  Kant- rejects the idea it's ok to torture someone to get information to prevent a terrorist attack, because you shouldn't harm one as a means to an end. Similarly you may reject the idea god makes a world where suffering exists so we develop into the likeness of god
• criticisms of hicks theodicy

  the theodicy lacks plausibility, especially the eschatological aspect which seems largely speculative and has no scriptural backing
• strengths of process theology

  • it explains why an omnibenevolent omnipotent god doesn't put an end to all suffering by taking away one of the triad
  • the fact that god suffers may encourage believers, by making god more personal
  • there is no certainty god will triumph over evil so it may encourage religious people to do more good to help him
• weaknesses of process theology


  • makes god seem weak, powerless to stop evil and not worth worshipping
  • is incompatible with the ontological argument
  • doesn't provide a real defense against the problem of evil ,by denying god his omnipotence its not defending the god of classical theism but a new, lesser god
  • it isn't consistent with the teaching in the bible where god has power over the laws of nature he created
• moral evil


  acts of humans which are considered morally wrong like murder, theft, rape
• natural evil


  natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis, things humans have no control over
• flews father example


  • someone says god loves us as a father loves his children but there are children dying of cancer. the earthly father frantically tries to help their child but the heavenly father, whos much more powerful, reveals no concern. why does god not stir when his children cry out in pain?