evil and suffering Flashcards
natural evil vs moral evil
natural evil: pain and suffering caused by natural processes
moral evil: evil caused by human choice
the inconsistent triad
-god is omnipotent
-god is omnibenvllent
-evil exists???
context behind FWD
-St Augustine’s understanding of evil and sin puts FWD in context
-Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate forbidden fruit and were cast out of Eden
-This misuse of FW unbalanced the harmony of Gods creation and led to the privation of the goodness in the world that we call evil
-also influences philosophers like Platinga and Swinburne
FWD
-theodicy that claims evil and suffering is the inevitable consequence of human FW
-human FW and it’s consequences are worth the sacrifice of the evil and suffering that comes with it
-central to FWD is Leibniz claim that ‘this is the best of all possible worlds’
Alvin Plantiga on FWD
-claims there are 3 world options
WORLD 1: world as it is. human FW and no casual determination and therefore wide spread evil and suffering
WORLD 2: no human FW with God causing everyone to do good all the time
WORLD 3: human FW exists but everyone’s chooses to do good all the time (Mackie argues that this is not possible)
Richard Swinburne on FWD
-argues god cannot intervene even when such moral evil occurs as the death of 6 million jews as such intervention would compromise human FW.
-natural evil makes our decisions and lives more meaningful as we have to make them in the context of suffering that we must endure
-a world without evil (therefore FW) is a ‘toy world’ one void of meaning
FWD strengths
-Plantinga shows FWD is logically possible in terms of natural and moral evil
- FWD accounts for natural evil as it presents human beings the opportunity to develop second order goods
-A toy world would be meaningless (Swinburne)
-resents a compatibillist account of FW
FWD weaknesses
-logically possibility doesn’t make it true
-account of natural evil rests on outdated biblically interpretation of the fall
-evidential problem of evil?
-do we even have FW? (sam harris)
first-order goods vs second-order goods vs third-order goods vs fourth-order good
first-order good= a good at the basic level of human experience (delicious meal or breaking leg)
second-order good= more valuable and significant than first-order goods (compassion or cruelty)
third-order good= FW allows humans to choose between these two things
fourth-order good= god creates humans with FW which teaches us to be morally responsible
john hicks-soul making theodicy key points
•humans are the high point of evolution
•the word is a ‘vale of soul-making’ (john keats phrase) world is geared to enable spiritual growth
•god set epistemic distance between himself and humanity
to allow humans to choose to have a relationship with god
•sin is inevitable, it is failure to live in right relationship with god
soul-making theodicy context, four key influences:
-his rejection of the widely accepted augustinian soul-deciding theodicy (as outdated and theologically unsatisfactory)
-wished to apply modern scientific, theological and philosophical insight
-the need to respond to the challenges of atheism (eg that of mackie)
-his religious convictions that arose out of personal experience
soul making and universalism
the belief that ultimately all humans will enjoy eternity with god eg ‘go to heaven’
mackie on FWD
set out his example of FWD in under to disprove it, his example is one of clearest and most compelling examples of FWD.
his rejection of it was opposed famously by theologian alvin plantinga
FWD rejections (mackie)
-logically possible for someone to freely choose good at every point of choice
-theodore god could have made people so they have true free choice yet always choose good
-he didn’t do so, so he
•lacks power
•lacks love
•does not exist
FWD defense (plantinga)
-3 possible worlds
-only 1st is logically possible and not robotic
-natural evil, punishment for the fall, god created/allowed natural evil because of human sin in eden
soul-making objections
-doesn’t address issue of animal suffering as they can’t develop spiritually
-concept of epistemic distance does not resolve problem of purposeless evil
-theodicy does not justify the very worst of evils
hicks response to objections
-pain needed to warn animals of danger
-purposeless evil has to remain a mystery so epidemic distance isn’t lost, we don’t know god exists so can freely choose relationship with him
-if worst evils are removed next evils would become the worst
strengths of soul-making theodicy
-theodicy fits with current scientific thinking on evolution
-idea of epistemic distance justifies all kinds of evil and its extent, since final goal of heaven for us all justifies the means
-claim that the concept of eternal damnation in hell is a defeat for the love of god makes sense
soul-making theodicy weaknesses
-if humans are evolved animals how is it that they are in the image of god?
-hicks justification of animal suffering is weak, the end doesn’t justify the means, heaven doesn’t make the suffering justified
-if all are ultimately saved, god is ultimately overriding human freedom
process theology context
-arose twentieth-century by David Ray Griffin
-an attempt to take into account the insights of quantum mechanics
-this led to rejection of a number of traditionally held christian beliefs e.g
•ex nihilo
•concepts of god omnipotence
•so-called truths of bible
process theodicy key points
•god and universe both have necessary, panentheistic and external existence
•god can’t control his body (the universe), he persuaded the universe into ever-increasing complexity and order
•god is responsible but not culpable for having sparked off evolutionary process that resulted in so much suffering, god shares our suffering
process theodicy strengths
-fits in with current scientific knowledge and with biblical criticism
-god as fellow sufferer because entire sensory experience of universe is ‘in’ him means those who suffer have assurance that god understands what they are going through
-rejection of gods omnipotence means there is no conflict between the existence of an all-loving god and the reality of evil
process theodicy weaknesses
-some theists claim that we cannot be sure of the cotrrrvt translation and interpretation of genesis 1:1
-doesn’t apply to animals who suffer just as much
-such cod is unworthy of worship
-idea of objective immorality is deeply dissatisfying and unsatisfactory for many theists
