Evil and Suffering Flashcards
(43 cards)
1
Q
describe natural evil
A
that which the world does to us. ranges fro skin irritation caused by bed bugs to full scale disasters obliterating the population
2
Q
why is natural evil a problem for christianity
A
- natural evil is the most difficult form of evil for religious people to accept because moral evil can always be attributed to free will, but natural evil can’t be blamed on Humans
- the obvious seat of blame is god, because it should be easy for an omnipotent god to control the forces of nature, particularly since most christians believe god created the laws of nature in the first place
- for chirsitnas the issue is particularly hard to understand because in the Bible, god uses natural evil to punish people - eg the plagues in exodus to persuade pharaoh to free the Israelites
- if god could control natural evil back then, why not now? q
3
Q
describe jesus’s answer to the problem of natural evil
A
- Jesus seems to answer this question in John 9;1-13 when the disciples came across a blind man and asked if his blindness as his fault because he’d sinned. Jesus said: ‘it was not that this man sinned or his parents, but that the works of god might be made manifest for him’ thus shifting the question to the purpose of suffering - it gives god an opportunity to act, so he heals the men
4
Q
describe moral evil
A
evil which is caused by humans - why wouldn’t god intervene if he was omnibenevolent
5
Q
describe the religious response to the problem of moral evil and evaluate it
A
- god has a plan by which all suffering will eventually lead to the perfect harmony of life in heaven , but this isn’t necessarily a satisfactory response as it doesn’t justify animal suffering (where is god’s love for creation and animals don’t go to haven) and what parent would buy the future harmony of heaven at the price of letting their child die in the hokocause
6
Q
describe Dostoyevsky’s conclusion via Ivan Karamazov about the existence of. moral evil
A
- god asks too high a price now for the harmony of heaven in the future - it is beyond our means. this is the essence of Ivan’s rebellion against god - he wants no part in heaven.
- Ivan’s complaint against god doesn’t just apply to the evidential problem of evil, but all types.
7
Q
define the problem of evil
A
- a philosophical and theological issue that questions how an all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good god can exist in a world containing evil and suffering
8
Q
describe the evidential problem of evil
A
- a posterori, inductive
this version acknowledges that the existence of god may not outright disprove god, and can logically coexist with him, but argues that the sheer amount/speciific types of evil; 9eg intense suffering) makes god’s existence highly unlikely. it focuses on the evidence of evil to suggest that it is improbable for a benevolent and omnipotent god to allow such suffering. - scholars who support this argument examine evil and suffering in the world and determine how this affects the probability of god’s existence
- these arguments don’t offer absolute proofs, bit rather increase the likelihood that evil can’ be explained by god. the quantity and quality of evil.
- William Rowe gives the example of pointless evil - a fawn dies a slow, agonising death from burns in a forest = this death does not impact human free will nor build human character by developing virtues, so it is pointless, and questions fod’s attributes
9
Q
describe the logical problem of evil
A
- claims that the very existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god. in other words, if god truly is all good, he’d want to eliminate evil, and ion he was all-powerful, he’d be able to do so. the fact evil exists seems to contradict the idea of such a god.
10
Q
logical problem of evil: describe the inconsistent triad as presented by Mackie and Epicurus
A
Mackie: god is a) omnipotent) omnibeveolent but c) evil exists, therefore either a) or b) is logically inconsistent and therefore wrong
Epicurus: ‘is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is not omnipotent. is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent. is he both able and willing? then whence evil?’
11
Q
Give religious responses to the Evidential problem of evil
A
1) some suffering is good
2) some suffering brings out the best in human nature
3) all suffering will eventually lead to the perfect harmony of life in heaven
12
Q
describe the solution to the PoE that denies god’s omnipotence
A
- if god isn’t omnipotent he can’t control evil so can’t be blamed for its continued existence
- this is the preferred solution of process theodicy
13
Q
describe the solution to the PoE that denies god’s omnipotence: what are the problems with this approach?
A
- for most believers, a god who isn’t omnipotent wouldn’t be worthy of worship, and a non-omnipotent god wouldn’t be god - as god’s omnipotence is central to his identity
14
Q
describe the problems with the solution to the PoE that denies god’s omnibevevolence
A
for ,most christians this is unthinkable as the belief that for is good and loving is a support to those who experience evil and the basis of future hope for life in heaven
‘god will wipe away every tear from their eyes’
15
Q
describe the solution to the poe that demises evil exists
A
- proposed by st Augustine
- contends that evil is a privation of good an doesn’t exist in its own right
16
Q
describe the solution to the poe that denies evil exists: what are the positives of this approach
A
- if evil is just the absence of good, there is no logical ‘problem’ to be solved
17
Q
describe the solution to the poe that denies evil exists: what are the negatives of this approach
A
- denying the reality of evil doesn’t seem to be a acceptable solution most people have experienced the power of evil and see it being as tangible as goodness
18
Q
describe what Mary baker eddy said about evil
A
‘god is completely good as that only goodness was real. evil and suffering are simply the failure to understand the loving nature of god’
19
Q
describe the augustinian theodicy
A
- his theodicy discusses the idea that not only does god exist, but so do evil and suffering. in fact, all are necessary in this world. god is right to allow evil and suffering as they play an important part in our nature and development as humans. for Augustine, god is just and allows suffering to happen as a punishment for human sin.
- augustine argied that when god created the world, he made it perfect therefore evil didn’t come from god, bit rather the decisions made by humans. humans misused their gift of free will, and chose to turn from god, so our naturally disobedient natures mean we sin
- evil isn’t a thing in itself but rather a privation of good
- humans inherited original sin therefore are naturally prone to immorality and we experience immoral things as punishment
20
Q
give the moral criticisms of the augustinian theodicy
A
how can a loving god allow suffering and make us pay for Adam’s mistkaes
21
Q
give the logical criticisms of the augustinian theodicy from Schliermacher
A
- it is a logical contradiction to say that a perfect world could go wrong
- if god had created a perfectly goos world then it could never go wrong. if humans were able to choose evil, evil must have existed in the first place - this would mean the world wasn’t perfect, so god is to blame for evil
- in nature, suffering it vital for survival, as things must die so others can live - god use have made the world this way
- god is unjust in allowing humans to be punished for Adam’s sin
- the existence go hell as a place of eternal punishment contradicts the existence of an all-loving god.
- if hell was part of the design o the universe and god knew the world would go wrong anay, why did he create it?
22
Q
give the scientific criticisms of augustinian theodicy
A
- belief in the genesis creation story is strongly challenged by evolution - is the idea that we were ‘seminally present’ in Adam biologically sound? no.
23
Q
describe the irenaean theodicy
A
- an upwards and soul-making theodicy - it offers the opportunity for humans to improve themselves and work up to perfection. humanity is on a learning curve, striving towards perfection/ suffering has the benefit of creating an environment where desirable characteristics can be developed by mankind.
- irenaeus: ‘ a world without problems… would be morally static, for moral growth comes through responses to challenges’
- irenaeus also argues that suffering serves the purpose of showing us the things we wouldn’t automatically know - eg body pain
- god created us imperfect and the world so that we could develop into perfection, creating humans with the intention of allowing them to develop. if he simply made us perfect wouldn’t have the chance to choose to be imperfect - god has to give humans free will and permit evil and suffering to occur so we can develop perfection ourslkcs
- through natural and moral evil we develop spiritually so they are necessary and help us undertsntd the world as a place of soul making
Romans 5:3: ‘we rejoice in our sufferings because we know that suffering produces perseverance, character and hope.’
24
Q
describe Hick’s soul-making theodicy
A
- based on irenaeus
- hick further developed the idea that the world is a ‘vale of soul-making’
- hick agreed that humans were created as imperfect from the start, so that they could grow and develop into the ‘likeness’ of god. he developed this further by explaining that through hardships and life, humans develop virtues which are more meaningful than if they were simply graced to us by god
- these good, moral traits are best as they come from free will - unlike Augustine, who claimed that humanity destroyed a perfect world, Hick and irenaus argue that the perfect world is one to look forward to
25
Describe Hick's idea about children of god
- in the irenaean tradition, humans didn't 'fall' from perfection - rather they are created as imperfect beings who nevertheless have the capacity to become 'children of god'
- just as good parents love their children, humans are made for a living relationship with god - god is described as the Father
- no human father can force his children to love him - children learn to love this parents through a free response to their parent's care - this is the same as god.
- having created their children through an act of love, parents then develop their children's character by teaching them how to live responsibly within the world.
- hick extends this 'two-step' process of how humans create and develop their children to god's creation and development of the human race: 'let us make mankind in our own image' - Hick calls this image 'Bios' meaning the biological life of human beings
- he calls the likeness 'Zoe' = perfect personal life of humans as seen in Jesus
- god creates the human race through biology and allows it to develop itself until veery human achieves the likeness of christ - we are capable of a personal relationship with god and eventually humans can become christ-like. according to hick, this stage is 'the fulfilment of god's purpose of humanity, the 'bringing of many sons to glory' the creating of children of god' - just as children can matter and respond to their parents in freedom and love, the human race matures and does the same
- all will be saved and enter heaven - because god is infinitely persuasive, every individual will be brought into a moral and spiritual relationship with god. this happens at different times for different individuals
26
Describe Hick's idea of an epistemic distance from god
- we exist at an 'epistemic distance from god', a 'distance of knowledge' - if humans knew god existed, their freedom would be lost, because they would just do whatever they thought god wanted them to do
- the world has to contain the full range of moral and natural evils, so that humans can develop the second order virtues such as courage, sympathy, empathy and compassion - qualities by which we become children of god
- hick agrees with the FWD, our sufferings Mae us virtuous
27
give hick's rejection of Mackie's argument the god could have created us so that we always freely chose the good
- god couldn't have created us with a built-in awareness of the virtues, because it wouldn't be authentic, but rather compelled. love cannot be forced otherwise it is worthless
28
give the strengths of Hick's argument
- epistemic distance argument could technically be used to defend any type of evil
- evil being necessary for soul making is a powerful argument: individual people, and humanity as a whole, cannot develop without challenge, and suffering develops character - it would be unrealistic to suppose that we can experience great goodness without also being exposed to great evils
- Hick's argument about the doctrine of hell constituting the worst part of the poe is also convincing - if hell exists the god who sends you there isn't loving. Hick argues that we might experience different levels of existence after this one before reaching heaven - a process of becoming worthy - this is a coherent argument
- his theodicy fits evolution as the first stage of human development, therefore it fits generally with scientific evidence
29
weaknesses of hick's theodicy
- doesn't give a coherent argument regarding animal suffering - says that there is no explanation for it, but then says that it is needed to maintain the epistemic distance with god
- to some extent the some of total pain isn't justified by heaven
- critics also argue that Hick's idea of universal salvation diminishes the significance of Jesus's crucifixion and that his pluralist views contradict with traditional christian life
- it suggests that if all are destined for salvation, suffering seems unnecessary as god could have created humans with a memory of the journey instead
- whilst hick's theodicy is coherent, ultimately the main question is whether the amount of suffering in the world is justified by the promise of eventual salvation - a dilemma which remains unresolved until heaven is experienced
30
give the christian free will defence
'god is justified in allowing evil to exist in the universe because evil is needed to allow humans to understand and prefer the good'
31
give Mackie's argument/criticism of the FWD
- he questions why god didn't just create us so that we would always choose the good out of our own free will
- it is possible to have free will and choose good over evil and maximise first order goods and minimise first order evils, as we do that - why wouldn't god just make this the default
- 'The obviously better possibility of making humans who would act freely but always go right' - J.L Mackie
- Mackie therefore argues that freewill is compatible with a god who predetermines humans to always do the right thing
- Mackie argues that because god did not do so, either he lacks the power to do so/he is not loving enough to do so - either way, the free will defence fails, therefore god doesn't exist
-
32
give Plantinga's criticism of Mackie's free will defence
- there is no possible world which God could have created in order for humans ate always make good, free choices
- in such a world, even if you wanted to tell a lie, you could not - as god would have made that world so that in effect you couldn't lie
- in a world without any kind of evil, you could not even think evil thoughts, therefore clearly you wouldn't be free at all
- Plantinga argues that the words 'free to choose' must mean that there is a real choice between real options- being 'made' in such a way that you could always choose the good is not a free choice- the idea of 'making someone free to always do this' is a logical contradiction
- however, the statement that 'god cannot do this' doesn't put a limit on god's power - god can do everything that is logically possible, but it is logically impossible to make people so that they always freely choose the good
- it would therefore seem that plantinga is right and mackie is wrong
33
Give Plantinga's 'Morally Sufficient Reason One'
- deals with moral evil, nd claims that: 'god's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value'
- god could not eliminate much of the suffering in this world without thereby having eliminated the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships with
- we are not machines/robots - we can make choices that are genuinely free, so that people have the chance to put into practice Mackie's second-order goods of compassion ect - this kind of freedom is the most important because it means people are morally responsible for their actions
34
Give Plantinga's Morally Sufficient Reason 2 in defence of natural evil
- 'god allowed natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and eve's punishment for their sin in the garden of eden'
- most philosophers argue that MSR 2 is ridiculous - unscientific, relies on potentially mythological story of Adam and Eve.
- However, Plantinga is only trying to show that it is possible - not logically true
- however unlikely, it is possible that logical evil was created by god because of Adam and Eve therefore he has successfully refuted Mackie's claim that the free will defence is incoherent
35
Give the argument that the Fwd accounts for natural evil
- to a certain extent it does
- natural forces such as these seem to be an inevitable part of the way that the world works, as everything obeys the laws of nature - eg gravity is responsible for earthquakes
- if god were Able to intervene to stop all such accidents, somebody would inevitably realise someone controlled the world - we need to be free for our actions to be meaningful
- nature has to follow the laws by which it works
- when we see people suffering as a result of natural evil, it gives us the opportunity to develop Mackie's second order goods of compassion
36
give the argument that the FWD DOESN'T account for natural evil
- natural evil isn't caused by human free will, but rather the forces of nature
- was it really necessary for god to create the forces of natrue to be so destructive - none of these things are under the control of humans, so in the majority of cases humans cannot be blamed
37
give the strengths of the FWD
- Plantinga successfully shows that Mackie's rejection is incorrect
- there is no doubt that nature evil does bring about rh opportunity to develop second-order goods, and these are more valuable because they've been developed
- FWD establishes that a world with free creatures is more valuable than a world without them - without freedom, there is no achievement and no real happiness - it is indeed possible that this is why god allows evil to occur
38
give the weaknesses of the FWD
- Plantinga's argument doesn't show that MSR 1 and MSR 2 are true - his explanation that natural evil is brought about by Adam and Eve elevates a mythological story to the status of a philosophical argument, which it is not
- the FWD relies on a libertarian account of free will - this cannot be proved, but rather only assumed
- it isn't a convincing response to the evidential problem of evil -
39
Explain Griffin's Process Theodicy
- based on the argument that the christian view of creation ex nihilism is based out of a mistranslation of genesis - one which shows that god's first creative act is to create the universe and gpod does this from nothing simply using creative power
- griffin argues that this is a mistranslation and in reality god was creating order out of the 'formless and void' chaos
- griffin argues that the world is uncreated and eternal and god is inextricably bound with it - god's role was therefore to develop what was already there, by 'persuading it' into a greater state of order and complexity, and the evolution of life on earth is one aspect of this persuasion.
- griffin argues that god is a 'persuader' rather than a creator
- therefore if he didn't create the universe from nothing he is no longer omnipotent, and chaotic matter has some power of its own to resist god
od and the universe exist together. God's role is as a persuader- he persuaded matter from chaos to order. God cannot abolish/prevent evil- he works through persuasion (divine lure). God must be relational- divine love should include sensitivity to joys and sorrows of mankind.
- God is the 'great companion, the fellow sufferer who understands'.
-Griffin argues that because God didn't create the universe ex nihilism he therefore is not omnipotent
40
Strengths of Griffin's process theodicy
- it is a realistic approach
- supported by the discovery at a sub-atomic level that reality is a constant process of flux and change, which supports griffin's argument that the creation of the universe wasn't from nothing but rather he gradual ordering of pre-existing chaotic matter
- it presents an 'understanding god' - one who contains the entire sensory experience of the universe meaning that believers who suffer know god understands
- regards his ideas as probabilities rather than facts
41
give the weaknesses of griffin's process theodicy
- Lack of omnipotence: John Roth considers this a weakness, arguing he is therefore not worthy of worship - 'a god of such weakness, no matter how much eh suffers, is pathetic'
- the suggestion that god cannot control evil is a major weakness for some: even though god may do his best there is still no guarantee that god will succeed in overcoming evil - process theodicy therefore admits that there is a element of risk - if advanced entities like humans have sufficient power to reject god's persuasion towards the good then human existence will probably result in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare - it gives little incentive for joining the fight against evil
- some argue that it is unchristian
- Evidential problem of evil: griffin argues that god cannot be blamed for choosing to bring about this universe from chaotic matter, as having this universe despite suffering is preferable to having no universe at all - however why wouldn't god just stop when he realised his persuasion wasn't working, and why did he start a process he couldn't control
42
43
