The Problem of Evil Flashcards
What is Mackie’s Inconsistent Triad?
Evil, omnipotence and omnibenevolence form an inconsistent triad, meaning it cannot be the case that all three exist.
This is because an all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil
An all-loving being would be motivated to eliminate evil
What type of argument does Mackie use to present his Inconsistent Triad?
A deductive argument - the existence of evil is logically incompatible with God’s existence.
A Priori Version - God and evil cannot coexist.
A Posteriori Version - if evil exists, then God cannot.
What is the logical problem of evil?
The Inconsistent Triad, and any arguments that use logic to deduce that evil disproves the existence of God.
What is the evidential problem of evil?
The evidence of evil we experience makes the existence of a perfect God unjustifiable.
This is different from the logical problem of evil as it doesn’t directly blame evil for disproving God. Rather, evil is just evidence to disprove God’s perfect nature.
What type of argument is the evidential problem of evil?
An inductive argument - the premise that evil exists is only evidence which supports the conclusion that God does not exist – it does not logically guarantee that God does not exist (unlike with the deductive logical problem).
What does Augustine’s Theodicy say about the creation of evil?
Evil was created by man when we disobeyed God during the Fall. Adam and Eve gave us an inclination towards sin (moral evil), and their actions forced them to live in a fallen world (natural evil.)
Why would Augustine say the God cannot get rid of evil despite his omnipotence and omnibenevolence?
Evil is not a substance; it is a privation of good (privatio boni.) Therefore, God cannot get rid of something intangible; that would be logically impossible.
Humans are responsible for evil and for God to intervene would be to remove our free will. Therefore, it is the most loving thing to do to retain evil. Evil is like a punishment.
How would Pelagius refute the idea that evil is like a punishment for humanity’s sin?
If we are sinful by nature and cannot avoid sin, it would be unjust to punish us for this. It’s also not ethical to be punished for the actions of two people - Adam and Eve.
How would Augustine respond to Pelagius’ criticisms of his theodicy?
The “secret yet just judgement of God” is difficult for humans to understand. God doesn’t punish us because of Adam and Eve, he punishes us because we are inherently sinful, and we were “seminally present” in the loins of Adam. Predestination is therefore deserved.
Psalm 25:10 suggests “all the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth,” suggesting that God will always be benevolent even if we don’t understand.
How does Augustine’s theodicy fail against the evidential problem of evil?
It relies on Genesis, which can’t be proven against scientific thought. Genetic diversity shows we couldn’t have all come from two ancestors.
Augustine doesn’t understand reproduction - we couldn’t have all been present in Adam’s loins.
HOWEVER Original Sin could be seen by observing the world. Augustine uses the analogy of how he stole a pear as a child; not out of hunger but just because he could. This shows even children as being predisposed to evil.
What is the Irenaean Theodicy?
God allows evil because it is soul-making. A good person is someone who chooses good over evil, so evil must be allowed to exist so people can access heaven by choosing to avoid evil.
We were made in the image of God, but have to grow into the likeness.
For Irenaeus, God is like a father figure. Whilst evil is harsh for us, it ultimately helps us become better people.
How does Hick develop the Irenaean theodicy?
The vale of soul-making: humans were created imperfectly so they can grow into the likeness of God.
Epistemic Distance: God has to hide himself or not let us know that he definitely exists. If we knew he existed, we would obey his commands without thought, but this is not genuine moral development. We have no free will.
Why doesn’t God just make us as good people to begin with, according to Hick?
It would be logically impossible. A good person is someone who has chosen good over evil. If God made us good, we would not have made that choice.
How does the evidential problem of evil criticise Irenaeus and Hick?
There are many examples of evil that are not soul-making. For example, infant death is not soul-making because the child does not understand evil and is not given a chance. Evil can also be soul-destroying, and can make someone worse.
How does Hick overcome the evidential problem of evil?
If all evil aligned with character development, it would be too easy to see the existence of God, hence why ‘pointless’ evil is useful in maintaining the epistemic distance.
It is also these ‘pointless’ evils that develop our compassion towards others.
