Problem of Evil Flashcards
what is moral and natural evil
moral = suffering or evil that is as a result of a free agent –> human choice
natural = suffering or evil that is the result of natural processes –> earthquakes
what is libertarian free will
the ability to do or refrain from any given action, choices are made by free agents and are non-causally determined
what is determinism
the claim that we do not have free choice, actions are causally determined, this can take the form of religious determinism, for example God’s plan or scientific determinism
what is the formal version of the logical problem of evil
P1) God is defined as omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient
P2) A God with all these qualities would have the ability desire and knowledge of evil to destroy it
P3) if evil exists then God cannot
P4) Evil does exist
C1) Therefore, God does not exist
what could be three other reasons why God allows for evil to exist
- free will is such a good thing for humans and outweighs evil
- Free will requires the possibility to choose evil (Plantinga’s Free Will Defence)
- evil exists as opportunities to become better people (Hick’s Soul-making Theodicy)
what is the formal version of the evidential problem of evil
P1) There are instances of suffering which an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being could have prevented without losing some greater good or leading to greater evil
P2) A God with those qualities would prevent these instances of suffering if God could, unless God could not do so without losing some greater good or leading to greater evil
P3) These instances of evil are not prevented as there is evil in the world
C1) Therefore, it is unlikely that a God with those qualities exists
what is the difference between the deductive logical problem of evil and inductive evidential problem of evil
the logical problem is a deductive argument –> if the premises are true then the conclusion is guaranteed to be true, by necessity
the evidential problem is an inductive argument which makes particular observations about instances of evil and infers that it is likely that God exists as they are not prevented
the difference is that the logical problem can demonstrate beyond doubt that God does not exist if it is true, whereas the evidential problem can only give us good reasons to doubt God’s existence
what is a significantly free creature
a being able to do or refrain from any given action –> Libertarian Free Will
morally significant acts are those done by moral agents with significant freedom
what is the formal version of the free will defence
P1) A world containing significantly free creatures is better than a world without such creatures
C1) Therefore, if God creates a world, then it would be one with significantly free creatures
P2) If a world contains significantly free creatures then moral evil is possible in that world
C2) Therefore, if God creates a world then it must be a world in which moral evil is possible
C3) Therefore, the existence of evil is compatible with the existence of God
how does compatibilism undermine the free will defence
- if hard determinism is true then libertarian free will cannot be
- compatibilism = the view that determinism is not mutually excluding with free will, for this to be possible we have to redefine what we mean by these, midgely argues that determinism has often meant that events were forced, this leads to fatalism, the claim that we can do nothing with our fate, like moral nihilism
- rather than forced, she defines determinism to mean regularly occurring within time
- if libertarian free will was accurate then our choices would be random leading to the undermining of our ability to make choices
- instead free will means to make choices based on causes they occur regularly in time, in this way we can see free will and determinism to not be mutually exclusive
- she discusses the example of a farmer on the Nile, they are able to make the decisions that they do to plant crops and thrive because of regular flow of the river
Mackie further argued that God could have created humans who freely chose good in all instances meaning that free will would not necessarily entail evil, how does this undermine the free will defence
- no logical contradictions would arise if God had created human beings who had free will, but who had such a tendency to do the right thing that they freely choose good in all instances, if this is the case then evil is not a necessary condition of having free will
- may also suggest that God could have created human beings to even be just a little bit better at making the right choices, this would reduce the overall amount of and intensity of evil in the world, this is more fitting in relation to the evidential problem
what is epistemic distance and how does it translate the divine purpose that Hick believes God has for human beings
- epistemic distance is the idea that for free will to be possible, and therefore for faith and God to be possible, we must necessarily be uncertain about the existence of God
- if we had certainty on this, we either wouldn’t believe in God, as God does not exist OR we would believe in God as God does exist
- since neither options are free, neither allow for soul making
what is soul making and the link to the existence of evil being compatible with God’s existence
- soul making is the theodicy that Hick provides to rationalise the existence of evil, to explain why it is that God does not prevent evil actually occurring
- process via which human beings forge their souls on the earth to prepare for entry to heaven
- God does not intervene due to epistemic distance, which allows humans to freely enter into a relationship with God and to develop our souls into a form fitting of heaven
formal version of Hicks soul making theodicy
P1) A world containing evil is required for humans to be capable of moral development
P2) A supremely good God would want his creatures to be capable of moral development, a process which continues after physical death
C1) Therefore, if God creates a world, then it must be a world with evil so we can develop our souls
give reasons why Hick’s soul making theodicy is and is not convincing
convincing = Hick responds to pointless, terrible and animal evils, Hick’s concept of eschatological verification, if it is convincing then it resolves the evidential problem
unconvincing = Ayer’s verification principle, Flew’s application of the falsification principle
how does animal suffering pose an issue for Hick’s soul making theodicy
the purpose of evil is to provide opportunities for soul making, but it is not clear why animals suffer
how do terrible evils pose as an issue for Hick’s soul making theodicy
some evils are so terrible that it is hard to see why they might be necessary to make souls, such as the holocaust
how do pointless evil examples pose as issues for Hick’s soul making theodicy
there are many instances of evils that don’t appear to have a purpose and do not obviously lead to soul making such as children dying awful deaths before they can make their souls
how does Hick respond to the issues of terrible, pointless and animal evils
Epistemic distance requires the complete non-intervention of God
- animal suffering –> they do not have souls and only suffer so humans can have opportunities for soul making –> response that there are other forms of soul making, we do not need to hurt them necessarily
- terrible evils –> if we cut these out, we would just end up with new extremes, we would carry on until no evil existed, undermining the possibility of soul making completely, there also might provide opportunities for soul making
- pointless evils –> these will provide opportunities for others to make their souls
