Mackie text

Question 1

What are the two forms the problem of evil can take

Answer 1

Logical and evidential

Question 2

Explain the logical problem of evil

Answer 2

The existence of evil is enough to make believing the the GoCT to prove that believing in God is irrational or logically inconsistent

Question 3

Explain the evidential problem of evil

Answer 3

Looks at the distribution of evil and inductively argues evidentially that if the GoCT did exist he would not allow the brutal suffering we can see in the world

Question 4

What two premises does Mackie add to the problem of evil before he makes his deductive arguement (logical)

Answer 4

1) Good is opposed to evil so it will eliminate it wherever possible

2) There are no limits on an omnipotent being’s power

Question 5

Mackie then uses these extra premises to make a deductive logical problem of evil arguement

Answer 5

P1 - God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent

P2 - Evil exists

P3 - An omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would completely eliminate evil

P4 - Therefore the existence of evil and God are incompatible

C - God does not exist

Question 6

Why might a theist disagree with P1

Answer 6

Because they might say that there are some limitations on God’s power

Question 7

Why might a theist disagree with P2

Answer 7

They might say that evil is just a privation of good and so it is impossible to eliminate it

Mackie thinks both of these objections to the problem of evil are not adequate

Question 8

Which 4 solutions to the problem of evil does Mackie deal with in this text

Answer 8

Evil is a necessary counterpart to good

Evil is necessary as a means to good

The universe is better with the existence of some evil

Evil is due to human free will

Question 9

Explain the arguement that evil is a necessary counterpart to good

Answer 9

Some theologians say good cannot exist without the presence of evil, meaning that for good to exist there is a requirement for some opposite evil to exist. For instance, we couldn’t understand what joy was if we didn’t have suffering to compare it with

Question 10

What is the problem with arguing that evil is a necessary counterpart to good

Answer 10

Contradicts omnipotence because God cannot create a world containing only good

Mackie said that good was opposed to evil so would eliminate it wherever possible. If they are counterparts it is hard to imagine how good could eliminate evil entirely

Question 11

Explain the idea that evil is necessary as a means to good

Answer 11

Instead of being a counterpart to good, evil is a means to good. For example a natural disaster may inspire people to find courage in themselves and help others

Question 12

How does Mackie counter the idea that evil is necessary as a means to good

Answer 12

Compromises God’s omnipotence as it implies he is bound by certain causal laws (that good is not possible without evil as a means). Since many theists want to argue that God is responsible for creating causal laws, this contradiction is unacceptable

Question 13

Explain the arguement that the universe is made better by the existence of some evil

Answer 13

Linked to soul making theodicies where it is argued that good that comes about from overcoming suffering is greater than good created for its own sake. Only stressing the negative effects of evil ignores the spiritual and moral growth it can bring about

Question 14

Give an example a first order good

Answer 14

Happiness

Question 15

Give an example of a second order good

Answer 15

Goods that arise due to the existence of first order evils. e.g., courage and benevolence

Question 16

What is a third order good

Answer 16

God’s benevolence, or the will to maximise second order goods in the world

Question 17

Problems with the arguement that the universe is made better by the existence of some evil

Answer 17

Possible to argue that second order goods aren’t really higher order goods but rather means to achieving first order goods. For instance, the second order good of overcoming pain might simply be a means for maxisimising the first order good of joy

Presents God as only promoting a certain type of good and not attempting to minimise first order evils. This could result in an undesired situation where basic pain is maximised in order to bring about a smaller amount of greater good that comes about from maximising pain

If we accept the existence of second order goods then we also have to accept the existence of second order evils. This would include concepts like cruelty and malice, which arise when greater evil is promoted in the face of first order evils

The difficulty with second order evils is that they are the kind of evil an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would eliminate, as they are unnecessary in promoting second order goods and merely spread the amount of suffering in the world

If we try and invoke a third order good to deal with this issue, then we get an infinite regress of higher order evils and goods. For instance if we made an appeal to the third order good of benevolence overcoming cruelty, this would imply the existence of cruelty overcoming benevolence as a third order evil. This infinite regress is problematic, as theists want to present a certain good as being of the highest order, such that its existence is greater than all the goods and evils preceding it and that can therefore justify all the evils that preceded it

Question 18

Explain the arguement that evil is due to free will

Answer 18

Invokes free will as a higher order good to justify the existence of evil. Moral evil is the result of humans being free to either be morally good or morally bad and it is of greater good that we are free in this respect than if we were simply automata. As freedom is the highest possible good it justifies the existence of any evil that comes about as a result

Question 19

How does Mackie object the the arguement that evil is due to free will

Answer 19

Says that is possible for God to create humans in a way that we are free but always choose right. Even if this seems illogical an omnipotent God should be able to make it happen

Presents a counterfactual arguement to support this, that if humanity acting bad is logically necessary for freedom this implies that freedom is simply randomness rather than choice determined by someone’s character or nature. Because it is possible to conceive of a world where everyone is free and good, it is also possible that God should be able to create a world without creating arbitrarily bad human actions

Question 20

Explain the paradox of omnipotence Mackie points out

Answer 20

Can God create humans with such freedom that he cannot control them. If he can’t, then he can and should intervene to prevent evil. If he can then he has the ability to bind himself and therefore lacks omnipotence

Question 21

How is free will and determinism importance in this debate

Answer 21

If all states of the world have a complete set of prior causes such that we can explain any event by its prior causes, then everything is pre-determined by prior causes and we cannot really choose our actions

Mackie is a compatibilist and thinks that free will can be reconciled with a deterministic world. This is known as soft determinism rather than hard determinism, which holds that humans have no genuine free will

Others have a libertarian approach which says that we have the ability to act freely regardless of prior causes and events

Question 22

Explain Mackie’s distinction between first and second order omnipotence

Answer 22

First order omnipotence is the unlimited power to act

Second order omnipotence is the unlimited power to decide what powers any being in the world has to act on

Says that both powers cannot be held at the same time

Question 23

Why is Mackie’s compatibilism important

Answer 23

Because it allows him to argue that an omnibenevolent God would have been capable of creating a world where humans both act freely and act good in every instance

Question 24

Summarise the Augustinian Theodicy

Answer 24

Evil is a privation of good. Evil is a punishment that results from our misuse of free will, with God remaining perfectly good and bearing no responsibility for evil and suffering

Question 25

Explain the Irenaeuan Theodicy

Answer 25

Linked to the soul making theodicy and salvation history. Evil exists to be part of our process of maturation, where people normally grow in the face of suffering and hardship. This makes evil essential for achieving greater good and allowing us to achieve perfection

Question 26

Explain Platinga’s solution

Answer 26

One of the most prominent critics of Mackie’s arguement, similar to Augustine. Says moral evil is explained by human free will. Said that fallen angels or supernatural beings could be response for natural evil

Question 27

Hick’s solution

Answer 27

Similar to Irenaeus, said that God created evil so that we could grow and develop spiritually. Evil is therefore a veiled form of good when we take a holistic view of its purpose

Question 28

What is the issue with the two extra premises Mackie introduces

Answer 28

Plantinga disagrees with the idea that there are no limits on the power of an omnipotent being by saying that God cannot do that which is logically impossible, so the issues about God binding himself no longer hold and it is conceivable that God could create humans with free will

Soul making theodicies can counter the premise that good will eliminate evil wherever possible by saying that the existence of evil is necessary to create higher order goods and so good is therefore not required to eliminate evil in every instance

Question 29

Why have people begun to shift towards evidential forms of the arguement

Answer 29

All that is needed to disprove the logical problem is to prove that there is a logically consistent solution. Therefore many see the evidential version as stronger because we can work inductively from the excessive evil in the world to the probable non existence of God

Question 30

What is a straw man arguement and why is it relevant here

Answer 30

This is where someone appears to argue against a proposition but instead argues against a superficially similar proposition. Debateable whether Mackie is debating against the same conceptions of free will and omnipotence that theists actually hold. He does this especially with Plantinga’s free will defence

Question 31

Give a Mackie quote where he explains his compatibilist view that we can have free will and always choose good

Answer 31

If there is no logical impossibility in man choosing the good on one, or several, situations then there can be no logical impossibility in him doing this in every situation

Question 32

Explain how Plantinga criticises these ideas

Answer 32

Distinguishes between two worlds…

1) A world with no evil where humans are given significant free will but are causally determined by God to always choose the right action

2) A world with no evil where human are given significant free will but are not causally determined by God to always choose the right action and avoid wrong actions.

While Mackie says 1 is possible Plantinga thinks this is inconsistent, as people would be unable to act morally even if they desired to. Furthermore, if causal principles prevented us from performing bad actions, then it would also prevent us from having bad thoughts, further diminishing the idea that we could be truly free in this state

However, 2 is logically possible, where free humans could choose good all the time by virtue of moral perfection

Thinks denying humans libertarian free will means there is no significance to their actions . If this is the case then we can argue, contrary to Mackie’s assertion, that God could have created this form of free will as a greater good than the second order goods and evils identified so far. This means that so long as we accept libertarian free will the problem of evil is solved

Question 33

How does Plantinga counter the omnipotence paradox pointed out by Plantinga

Answer 33

He says that there are logical limits to God’s power, such as the ability to contradict himself or perform a bad action

Question 34

Why does the omnipotence point still apply despite this counter arguement

Answer 34

‘The thinkers who restrict God’s power, but keep the term ‘omnipotence’, may reasonably be suspected of thinking, in other contexts, that his power really is unlimited

While Plantinga may want to respond to criticism by limiting the omnipotence of God, they might want to apply it wholeheartedly in other cases where appropriate.

For instance, theologians have often argued God created the world ex nihilo, but this requires God to be spaceless and timeless as well as outside the law of nature in order to be able to create and govern the logical laws of our universe

‘The view of God as limited by causal laws conflicts with the view that causal laws themselves are made by God’

Question 35

Explain how the soul making theodicy falls down in the face of the logical problem of evil

Answer 35

This arguement says that human progress and growth takes the position of highest order good that we can see in the free will defence. Whether we undergo unnecessary amounts of suffering to achieve spiritual growth is a matter for the evidential problem of evil. Mackie is just concerned about whether this idea is logically consistent

Gives the objection of the infinite regress of evils as there is no form of good that can trump all of the preceding evils

The arguement therefore hinges on whether we can logically identify any possible goods that do not have a corresponding level of evil and that can justify the evils preceding it. One could point towards God’s benevolence as an example but it is difficult to see how this could have a permanent presence in human moral actions unless God played a causal part in all human interaction

Plantinga succeeded by pointing towards a single good (free will) that trumps all other goods but soul making theodicies cannot make this appeal

Question 36

Even if we accept the logical problem has been dealt with by one of these theodicies what must theologians still deal with

Answer 36

Plantinga still has to explain why the excessive amount of natural suffering in the world is more probably caused by supernatural beings than the development of a benevolent God. Soul making theodicies have to account for evil that plays no role in human development

Question 37

Why is Mackie’s attempt to prove that theism is ‘positively irrational’ so damaging for the theist

Answer 37

If they accept his arguement as true then they must admit that it would be logically inconsistent with the GoCT. While some theists may be okay with the leap of faith required to worship something that is logically incoherent, many others would want to regard the idea of God as being a reasonable one and a valid explantion for the universe around us.

If a theist is giving up reason for religious belief, it could be said that they are giving up reason altogether

If we accept Mackie’s arguement then God becomes an article of radical faith. This will aid anti theists like Dawkins who see religion as irrational and dangerous and can argue further that its disappearance is essential for a flourishing, rational society

Question 38

Why are atheists also guilty of taking unverifiable leaps of faith

Answer 38

Most atheists have faith in the existence of the natural world

Question 39

Make the case that religious belief being irrational is both nothing new and not that much a problem for theists

Answer 39

For many theists, the idea of faith has always gone hand in hand with a lack of physical evidence and often the paradoxical nature of God. The idea of the trinity does not fit into formal logical categories for example

Could also look at Kierkegaard and his two kinds of faith. The ‘leap of faith’ is the idea of decisively committing yourself to God without empirical evidence and the ‘knight of faith’ which is the free individual who has committed himself to faith in God and himself. Here the paradoxical ideas of God are an essential part of religion

Question 40

How is limiting God’s omnipotence a problem for theists

Answer 40

Plantinga says on omnipotent being is still limited to the realms of what is logically possible

However, if God created the universe ex nihilo then he must be the creator of all causal laws. A theist could say that logic is different from the creation of contingent matter, but many of the logical principles we hold are determined from ideas we derive from nature. For example, even the logical idea that a triangle cannot have 4 sides is only possible through the thought processes and observations created by God. If our entire worldview is presented by God, it becomes hard to argue that logical principles are not created by the same God. The paradox of omnipotence returns if we have to accept the idea that God is bound by the logic he created

Theists could argue that this talk of omnipotence is viewing the power of God through human concepts, which are inadequate when talking about God. Wittgenstein argues that transcendental subjects are not ones we can ever effectively discuss or examine. The language we use can not meaningfully refer to God

‘What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence’

All this means that Mackie’s challenge provides a fork in the road for theists

1) If they accept the challenge then this leads them down the path of a more paradoxical concept of God

2) Looking for a solution forces further discussion about the terminology used about God and religious language

Question 41

What is a blik

Answer 41

An unverifiable perspective held by a theist that allows them to accept evidence for God the atheist does not

Question 42

How does Plantinga’s free will defence have a big impact on day to day human experience

Answer 42

While we may be initially repulsed by immoral actions, in terms of this theory they actually hold a greater good behind them and we could view it with the same joy we would normally reserve for good actions. While this does line up with gospel ideas of the forgiveness of sins it does also seem counter intuitive

Question 43

How does accepting Mackie’s arguement impact everyday human experience

Answer 43

If we reject the idea of God on the basis that it is irrational and inconsistent then we are likely to be pushed into observing the world without reference to ideas that require faith. This will distort our perspective towards a more limited view of meaning and push people away from recognising religious or revelatory experiences

Question 44

What was Mackie’s attitude to morality

Answer 44

Moral sceptic, did not believe in any objective moral values

Question 45

What does theists such as WLC says would be the impact on morality if God did not exist

Answer 45

Then morality would be relative and there would be no clear path for humans to follow. As Ivan claims in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: ‘If God does not exist, then everything is permitted’

Question 46

How could trying to find a solution to Mackie’s challenge pose problems for believers

Answer 46

Because to do so they need to either compromise the omnipotence or omnibenevolence of God and thus may be forced to accept a kind of deistic God that does not have a personal relationship with them. If his omnibenevolence is limited then humans may no longer accept him as a guide for a moral decision making, leading them also to a conclusion of moral relativism

Question 47

Explain The Fall and how it relates to the idea of natural evil

Answer 47

Metaphysical Christian idea that humans committed original sin and have an inclination towards doing evil. Says that when original sin was committed this was an act of grave disobedience against God that condemns us to mortality, sin and suffering in all future generations

This is important for theologians because it shows that it is logically possible for natural evil to come about despite the presence of the GoCT. When the fall occured Eden ceased to be and natural evil entered the world