evil and suffering

• augustine “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.”
• logical problem

  a wholly good and loving god would prevent evil if he could

  god can do anything he wants, then he can eliminate evil and prevent it from happening

  evil and suffering exists

  god isnt real
• the inconsistent triad is a priori but it only becomes an actual problem if evil exists in the world through experience aka a posterori
• the evidential problem is an a posteriori argument

  the vast quantity of evil counts against an all good creator

  john stuart mill - the natural world is full of evidence of evil

  mill argues against those using a posteriori arguments to defend god as the evil in the world actually points to a sadistic creator
• biblical perspectives on evil include genesis and satan
• genesis on evil

  evil is brought into the world by the free choice of eve and adam. because of their disobedience, evil enters the world.
• satan on evil

  christian dualism occurs sometimes in the old testament - job 1:!2 and more in the new testament - the parable of the weeds
• the free will defence - augustine

  freewill lead to the original sin of adam and eve

  this introduced pain and suffering into the world

  evil is introduced by human choice and is the responsibility of humans, not god
• the free will defence - irenaeus

  freewill is necessary to improve ourselves and the world. evil is an unfortunate side effect of god granting free will but it's a price worth paying for salvation
• the free will defence - vardy

  1. the highest good for humans is a loving relationship with god
  2. love has to be freely chosen
  3. god gave us freewill to achieve one
  4. genuine freewill means sometimes humans will be evil
  5. evil exists so humans can choose a loving relationship with god
• hick and swinburne - god didn't create a cosy toy world for his human pets to live in
• criticisms of the freewill defence include plausability and the definition of free will
• criticism 1 - plausibility

  st augustines account depends on a literal interpretation of genesis which isn't common
• criticism 2 - flew on freewill

  freely chosen actions have causes within themselves, not externally. has to be powered by your own character and desires. god could have created us all with a good nature yet we were still free

  • just puppets. idiot flew. hypnotist analogy
• criticism 3 - mackie on freewill

  it is logically possible to choose to do good throughout anyone's life. god is omnipotent and can create any possible world, so he could make one where we are all generally free yet all chose to do good but he didn't

  • plantinga rejects any possible world, eg a world where humans arent created by god. curly smith counterexample
• hick's soul making theodicy

  1. image and likeness of god
  2. epistemic distance
  3. soul making world
  4. eschatology
• image and likeness of god - humans aren't perfect but we strive to move from the image to the likeness of god
• epistemic distance - god isn't obviously present so humans have a choice whether to believe in god or not
• soul making world - challenging environment provides stimulant for human development. in heaven all will be well
• eschatology - we only achieve the likeness of god after death. everyone will be saved through a post death soul making state. hell doesn't exist
• in support of hick's theodicy

  a world without pain would be very good but not for soul making

  this world suits the purpose to develop very well, as if it were impossible to harm someone god would continuously intervene, making science unusable and everyone would believe in god
• criticisms of hicks theodicy include plausibility, injustice, the problem of evil, is suffering worth it, do the ends justify the means and epistemic distance
• criticism 2 - injustice

  humans are responsible for their own actions in traditional christianity

  universal salvation is therefore unjust
• criticism 3 - the problem of evil

  god is responsible for creating the world with natural disasters, which are not very soul making
• criticism 4 - is suffering the price worth paying?

  holocaust
• criticism 5 - do the ends justify the means?

  questions whether it is right to justify the existence of evil so that we live in a world in which we can develop into the likeness of God.
• criticism 6 - epistemic distance

  if accepting god means no evil then why not?
• griffin's process theology

  god isn't responsible for moral evil as he can only do what is logically possible. he has persuasive control, not coercive control. he loves and suffers as we do

  it is better to worship a god without the ability to intervene in evil than a god who can but didn't
• Griffin says, “God does not refrain from controlling the creatures simply because it is better for God to use persuasion, but because it is necessarily the case that God cannot completely control the creatures.”
• strengths of process theology

  explains the triad

  the fact god suffers may be encouraging
• weaknesses of process theology

  weak god unworthy of worship

  contradicts biblical teachings

  denies the existence of the god of classical theism