The Problem Of Evil

Question 1

Logical Problem of Evil: BASICS

Answer 1

Based on 3 statements and observed facts
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omnibenevolent
3. Evil exists
All three can’t exist at same time

Question 2

Logical Problem of Evil: DENYING GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE

Answer 2

Suggests unworthy of worship

Question 3

Logical Problem of Evil: DENYING GOD’S BENEVOLENCE

Answer 3

Contradicts teachings of Jesus and undermines very basis of Christian belief

Question 4

Logical Problem of Evil: DENYING EVIL

Answer 4

1. Augustine: evil is absence of good in same way darkness is absence of light
2. Aquinas: evil was lack of something good that was natural to it

Question 5

Evidentiary Problem of Evil: BASICS

Answer 5

Quantity
Quality
Pointlessness

Question 6

Evidentiary Problem of Evil: BASICS EXAMPLES

Answer 6

Quantity: Holocaust
Quality: Holocaust
Pointlessness: deer dying in a forest fire w. no one around

Question 7

Evidentiary Problem of Evil: QUESTIONS

Answer 7

God’s omniscient
Omniscient God would know about terrible suffering caused by both moral and natural evil

Question 8

Free Will Defence: FIRST ORDER GOOD/ EVIL

Answer 8

Experience in life of happiness
Experience in life of misery/ pain

Question 9

Free Will Defence: SECOND ORDER GOOD/ EVIL

Answer 9

Respond to suffering w. compassion, kindness, love
— maximise first order good, minimise first order evil
Respond to suffering w. cruelty, hate, spite
— maximise first order evil, minimise first order good

Question 10

Free Will Defence: THIRD ORDER GOOD

Answer 10

Free Will allows humans to chose betweeen two things w. pain needed to develop capacity for empathy to ‘grow’

Question 11

Free Will Defence: FOURTH ORDER GOOD

Answer 11

God gave humans free will which teaches us moral responsibility

Question 12

Free Will Defence: MACKIE’S REJECTION

Answer 12

Logically it is possible for someone to freely chose good at every point of choice
Therefore God could have made people so they have true free choice yet always chose good
He didn’t so…
- He lacks power
- He lacks love
- He doesn’t exist

Question 13

Free Will Defence: PLANTINGA’S DEFENCE- Moral Evil

Answer 13

3 possible words mean 3 options
1. W. morally significant free will & no causal determination from God means no evil & suffering
2. W/out morally significant free Will w. God’s causal determination to chose good so no evil
3. W. morally significant free will & God’s causal determination to chose good so no evil
According to Plantinga…
1. Logically possible
2. Logically possible= humans as robots
3. Logically impossible= genuine free will incompatible w. causal determination
Therefore Mackie’s argument fails

Question 14

Free Will Defence: PLANTINGA’S DEFENCE- Natural Evil

Answer 14

Tied up w. punishment for Fall
Logically possible God created/ allowed it because of human sin in Eden

Question 15

Free Will Defence: STRENGTHS (3)

Answer 15

Plantinga’s approach shows logical possibility in relation to types of evil
Addresses issues of natural evil which has to be free to follow its laws of operation
World w. genuine free will has more value than one w/out it

Question 16

Free Will Defence: WEAKNESSES (3)

Answer 16

Doesn’t mean Plantinga’s argument is true
All hinges on whether libertarianism provides right interpretation of human experience
Does being free justify such a terrible cost as the Holocaust?

Question 17

Soul-Making Theodicy: BASIS (2)

Answer 17

Apply modern scientific, theological, philosophical insights
Respond to challenge of atheism

Question 18

Soul-Making Theodicy: KEY POINTS (6)

Answer 18

1. Humans are high point of evolution
2. Work is a ‘vale of soul- making’
3. Two stage concept of humanity
4. God has epistemically distance w. humans
5. Sin is inevitable
6. Universalist

Question 19

Soul-Making Theodicy: OBJECTIONS (3)

Answer 19

Doesn’t address issue of animal suffering
Epistemic distance doesn’t resolve problem of purposeful evil
Doesn’t justify very worst of evils

Question 20

Soul-Making Theodicy: HICK’S RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS (3)

Answer 20

1. Pain needed to warn animals of danger, don’t fear future/death
2. Remain mystery so ED isn’t lost as we would know God existed so couldn’t chose rel. w. Him
3. If worst evils removed, next worse evil would become worst evil/ more evils removed, less free & responsible humans are

Question 21

Soul-Making Theodicy: STRENGTHS (3)

Answer 21

Fits w. current scientific thinking of evolution
Idea of ED justifies all kinds of evil
Claim of concept of eternal damnation in Hell is defeat for love of God makes sense

Question 22

Soul-Making Theodicy: WEAKNESSES (3)

Answer 22

If humans are evolved animals, how are we made in image of God
Justification of animal suffering is weak: end doesn’t justify means
If all are ultimately saved, God overriding human freedom

Question 23

Process Theology: BASIS

Answer 23

Take into account quantum mechanics

Question 24

Process Theology: REJECTIONS OF WHAT

Answer 24

Idea of creation ex nihilo
God’s omnipotence
Truth of Church can’t be accepted simply because it is logically possible

Question 25

Process Theology: KEY POINTS (4)

Answer 25

1. Both God and universe is transcendent, pantheistic, eternal
2. Just as humans can’t dictate way body works, God can’t do that w. His body, universe
3. Drive towards increased complexity inevitably leads to tow possible & parallel paths
4. God is responsible not culpable for having sparked evolutionary process resulting in so much suffering

Question 26

Process Theology: STRENGTHS (4)

Answer 26

Fits w. current scientific knowledge & biblical criticism
Concept of God can suffer, shows those that suffer that God understands
Rejection of God’s omnipotence leaves way for no conflict between benevolent God & reality of evil
Strong case for subjective immortality based on parapsychology

Question 27

Process Theology: WEAKNESSES (4)

Answer 27

Claim we can’t be sure of actual translation for Genesis 1:1
Doesn’t apply to animals whose suffering is equal to that of humans
For many theists God is unworthy of worship
Idea of objective immortality is unsatisfactory to many theists