Problem of Evil

• Natural evil

  - Refers to things such as disease, the suffering of animals that are prey for other animals, earthquakes, and natural disasters.

  -> They are a result of things beyond human control.

  
  

  - In the most severe forms of natural evil, it can use unimaginable distress for its victims.

  -> Many Christians find natural evil hard to accept, particularly on a large scale.

  
  

  - Examples of natural evil:

  -> A small child dying of agonising cancer.

  -> Tsunamis.

  -> Animals caught in forest fires with no means of escape.

  
  

  - Old Testament gives numerous examples of God using the forces of nature to wreak havoc on people.

  -> The flood was his punishment for the total corruption of humankind.

  -> The exodus resulted in the escape of the Israelites but the drowning of many pursuing Egyptians.
• Moral evil

  - The hurtful and harmful acts that humans as moral agents carry out, or to human inaction when someone is in need.

  -> The problem of this evil becomes prevalent when truly horrendous acts of evil are committed. e.g. the holocaust, sexual violence carried out on children by paedophiles, torture.

  -> This raises the question as to why God permitted such evils to be carried out.
• The logical problem of evil

  - Argument against God's existence based on logic and centered around how God's characteristics of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and existence aren't compatible with the problem of evil.

  - Mackie came up with the inconsistent triad; God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent while evil exists.

  -> Omnipotence means he has the power to eliminate evil.

  -> Omnibenevolence means he has the motivation to eliminate evil.

  -> Evil cannot possibly exist if God has these qualities.

  -> If evil exists then an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God does not.

  
  

  - An a priori argument because the conclusion follows from logical thinking behind the definitions of omnipotence and omnibenevolence without experience.

  - Can sometimes be an a posteriori argument by referencing our experience of evil and drawing the conclusion that God and evil cannot co-exist.

  - Deductive argument. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be.
• The evidential problem of evil

  - None of the reasons that Christians give are good enough to justify the suffering we see.

  - Inductive argument.

  
  

  - Rowe's fawn example of a fawn suffering a slow and painful death in a forest fire gives the point that some examples of suffering are pointless. None of the reasons Christians can give seem to apply in these cases. It serves no good in terms of enabling human free will or moral and spiritual development.

  
  

  - Dostoyevsky's 'the brothers' makes a point that even if there might be some reason for allowing suffering to occur, the evil outweighs the benefits.

  
  

  - Calls into question of Gods omniscience. An omniscient God must know the terrible suffering that could be caused by natural and moral evil.
• Hick's Soul-Making Theodicy


  - God lets suffering exist because it is necessary for us to develop as people.

  
  

  - Like Irenaeus, Hick had a two-stage concept of humanity.

  -> Humans = still in the process of creation.

  -> Second stage = made into the likelihood of God is still in process.

  -> Human morality is developed through experience of evil.

  -> People have the potential for a conscious and personal relationship with god. This is fulfilled in the afterlife.

  
  

  - Hick calls this process of developing human morality through overcoming challenges 'soul making'.

  -> Process of learning, growing and developing as people. It takes place over our entire lives as we overcome challenges and improve our personalities. In doing this, we get closer to God.
• Epistemic distance: Hick


  - God set an epistemic distance between himself and humanity.

  -> Epistemic distance = a distance from knowledge. The world operates in such a way that humans cannot know from it that there's a God.

  -> This allows humans full freedom to choose to have a personal relationship and faith with God.

  -> A loving relationship is only authentic and of value if it is freely chosen.

  -> This means that the world must contain the full range of moral and natural evils, allowing humans to develop the second-order virtues.

  
  

  - Responses to problems:

  -> Pointless suffering: If there was no pointless suffering, we would notice that there must be a God and all epistemic freedom would be lost. Being able to explain all types of suffering would remove our faith.

  
  

  -> Too much suffering: All evils are a matter of degree. If we remove evils like the Holocaust, then the next-to-worst evils will seem the very worst. The more evil we remove from the world, the less moral freedom + responsibility humans are left with. This defeats the purpose of evil.

  
  

  -> Animal suffering: The world contains the full range of moral and natural evils as it has to. Animals have no fear of death. Pain warns animals of danger, so they have to experience pain to exist. If there were no animals, it would be evident that we were created by God.
• The Free Will Defence

  - Free will is the ability to genuinely choose between alternatives.

  -> Genuine free will will necessarily include: the permission to do evil, the ability to do evil and the opportunity to do evil.

  
  

  - The Free Will Defence needs to show that:

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

  -> Having free will is worth the cost in terms of suffering.

  
  

  - Mackie's free will defence (he does not think this is a good argument and is ATHEIST).

  
  

  -> There are first-order goods/evils: The experience in life of happiness or pleasure (e.g. eating your favourite food) /

  The experience of pain or misery (e.g. having a toothache).

  
  

  -> There are second order goods/evils: We can respond to suffering with kindness, love, and compassion. Second order goods maximise first order goods and minimise first order evils. / We can respond to suffering with cruelty, hate, and spite. Second order evils maximise first order evils and minimise first order goods.

  
  

  -> Third order good: Free will allows humans to decide whether to maximise or minimise first and second order good or evil in the world.

  
  

  -> Fourth order good: God creates humans with free will which teaches us to be morally responsible.
• Evaluation of the free-will defence: Mackie


  - Mackie's objection: we can get the good bits of free will without the bad ones.

  -> It is logically possible for a person to make free, good choices all the time.

  -> God could have created humans so they would only make free, good choices.

  -> God did not do so.

  THEREFORE EITHER

  -> God lacks the power to do so.

  -> God is not loving enough to do so.

  -> Either way, the free will defence fails.

  -> God does not exist.
• Objection: Plantinga


  - Plantinga thinks that God doesn't like suffering but there's no way to get free will without it. This is a morally sufficient reason to allow suffering.

  
  

  - Plantinga's three possible worlds:

  -> There is free will and suffering.

  -> There is free will and no suffering.

  -> There is no free will and no suffering.

  
  

  - An all-loving and all-powerful God would create the best possible world for us to live in.

  - Mackie and Plantinga believe that this world has free will in it.

  - However, Plantinga believes a world can only exist with free will with suffering.

  -> This is because if people never do wrong then it must be due to God stopping them from doing wrong. This is not real free-will.
• Process Theology: Griffin


  - Griffin claims that it does not make sense to think of God as being separate from the universe.

  - It is more sensible to think that both God and the physical universe exist necessarily, and that they exist together.

  -God is panentheistic, meaning that everything is in God. God is the soul of the universe.

  - God is the process of the universe.

  
  

  - Griffin claims that God cannot control what is happening in the Universe any more than the human mind can stop its body from feeling pain or getting hungry.

  - God is powerful but not omnipotent.

  - God doesn't intervene because he can't.

  
  

  - Griffin solves the problem of evil by saying that the universe is made of pre-existing matter that God used. We have natural disasters due to the flawed material that God used. We have moral evil because we have free will. Although God does not like evil, he is suffering among his creation.
• Process Theology: Evaluation


  - God's lack of omnipotence in process theology can be seen as a weakness as a God so weak is not worth worshipping.

  -> What is the point of evil if there is no reward? There seems no logical reason for someone to worship a God who started a process that he couldn't control which left us with a world where children can die from sexual abuse.

  - Griffin fails to solve the problem of evil. By the suggestion that God did not fully create the world, Griffin is no longer talking about the God of classical theism as he has removed an attribute.