The problem of evil Flashcards
(14 cards)
two different types of evil
- moral evil: caused by humans
- natural evil: caused by nature
Augustine Argument 1
- initially inspired by Manichaeism// thought evil was a separate positive force
- then inspired by Neoplatonism (all being is grounded in the form of the good, meaning evil cannot exist)
what? - Evil is privatio boni
- Evil is privatio boni.
- If so, then God did not create evil.
- So, God is not responsible for evil.
own example?
- Imagine you are a superhero, a volcano is exploding, it is not your fault, and thousands will die. What will you do? And what would you think of a superhero who did not help the people?
JL Mackie// Objection to Augustine argument 1
Who?
- A 20th-century philosopher who argued against the coherence of theism, particularly the idea of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God coexisting with evil.
What?
- The question is not whether God created evil; the question is why God allows evil. Evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God—an inconsistent triad.
why?
1. Evil exists. This is an observable fact- suffering, moral wrongdoing, and natural disasters all demonstrate the presence of evil in the world.
2. If so, then God is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. This is because if God were omnipotent or omnibenevolent, then he would be able to prevent evil and would want to. Since evil exists, at least one of those attributes is compromised.
3. So, God is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent.
Aesthetic theme argument
- We have a limited perspective on the universe. This is plausible because as humans we experience reality in a fragmented way- we only perceive one moment at a time and cannot see the full picture of how events connect across time. Just as someone standing too close to a painting might only see rough brush strokes and not the full artwork, we may not recognise the larger purpose or order of seemingly “ugly” parts of reality.
- If so, then evil might make the universe better.This is plausible Just as seemingly chaotic or unpleasant elements in a painting contribute to its overall beauty when viewed as a whole, apparent evils in the universe might serve a greater purpose that we cannot fully grasp
- Therefore, evil might make the universe better.
Augustine’s free will defence
- God is just. This is plausible because justice entails rewarding good and punishing wrongdoing fairly. If God is just, then He must respond to moral failure in a way that upholds divine order and fairness. Just as a fair judge, teacher, or parent enforces consequences for wrongdoing to maintain justice, God would also ensure that Adam and Eve faced an appropriate punishment for their disobedience.
- If so, then God should have punished Adam and Eve with the creation of evil. This is plausible because, in Augustine’s view, their sin corrupted human nature, leading to both moral and natural evil as just consequences. The punishment fits the crime: their disobedience separated them from God (the source of goodness), resulting in suffering and death. Just as a teacher may impose discipline to uphold fairness, or a judge may enforce penalties to maintain justice, God’s response ensures that sin carries meaningful consequences, reinforcing the moral order.
- So, God should have punished Adam and Eve with the creation of evil.
Hick’s Objection to the Free Will Defence
- Augustine does not always explain why Adam and Eve or Satan would disobey God.
- Before the fall, humans and angels had a perfect relationship with God. This is plausible because, according to Augustine, Adam, Eve, and the angels were created in a state of harmony with God, free from sin and corruption. They existed in a world where they fully experienced God’s presence and goodness, meaning there was no external influence compelling them to turn away from Him.
- If so, then it is unintelligible why they would disobey Him.This is plausible because there is no reason or motivation for rebellion in a state of perfection. Normally, disobedience arises from ignorance, dissatisfaction, or external temptation, but if Adam, Eve, and Satan were created in a flawless state with full knowledge of God’s goodness, their choice to sin would appear inexplicable. This challenges Augustine’s explanation, as it leaves the origin of evil unclear—if perfection was truly perfect, why would any being choose to reject it?
- So, it is unintelligible why they would disobey God.
Augustine Reply to Hick
- Think of a time you chose because you just felt like it, there was no deeper reason.
- Libertarian notion of freedom.
- There is no further explanation for free choices.]
- Freedom is just the ability to disobey because you want to, for no other reason.
RM Hare
who?
- inspired by Ireneus
what?
- does not believe in the literal fall
- distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God.
- Humans are created imperfect with moral characters (‘image’)
- Allowed to develop into perfect beings (‘likeness’)
- They do this by practising free responses to suffering.
why?
1. Responding to suffering is the only way for humans to become morally perfect. (Plausible because growth requires challenges. Just as physical strength develops through exercise, virtues like courage, compassion, and patience develop through real-world struggles.
2. If so, then God should create suffering. (This is plausible because, if God’s goal is for humans to achieve moral perfection, He must provide the conditions that make this possible. Just as a teacher challenges students with difficult tasks to help them grow, God would allow suffering as a necessary environment for humans to develop into morally perfected beings. Without suffering, moral progress would be impossible.)
- So, God should create suffering.
Hume// Objection to the soul making theodicy
- The soul-making theodicy only works if it is the only possible way to make people morally perfect.
why?
1. God is all-loving and all-powerful. This is plausible because classical theism defines God as omnibenevolent (completely good and loving) and omnipotent (capable of doing anything logically possible). If God truly embodies these attributes, then He would seek the best possible way to help humans achieve moral perfection while minimizing unnecessary harm.
- If so, he would find a way to be perfect that does not require suffering. This is plausible because a truly loving and powerful being would not rely on unnecessary pain if a less harmful alternative existed. Just as a compassionate teacher would find ways to educate students without subjecting them to suffering, an all-loving God would logically choose a method of moral development—such as learning through philosophy, literature, or reason—that does not involve intense human suffering.
- So, God would find a way for us to become perfect that does not require suffering.
Swinburne and Moral
What? Suffering is logically necessary for becoming morally perfect. To be morally perfect, you need to be charitable. That’s only possible if there are needy people. To be morally perfect, you need to be brave. That’s only possible if there is evil threatening you.
To act morally, I need to act because it’s the right thing to do, not because God says so.
Hick and the ‘epistemic Gap’ Theodicy
Responding to suffering is the only way we can perfect our characters. //links to Kant and the hypothetical imperative as we wouldn’t be pursuing duty for duty’s sake
- To be moral, i need to do things because it is the right thing to do. This is plausible because true morality requires genuine choice. If people only acted morally out of fear of punishment or the expectation of reward from God, their actions would not be truly virtuous. Instead, for moral goodness to have real value, it must come from an individual’s free decision to do what is right, rather than being compelled by external certainty of divine existence.
- If so, I have to be unsure that God exists. This is plausible because if God’s existence were undeniable, moral choices would become obedience rather than genuine virtue. Just as a person who is constantly watched may behave well out of fear rather than moral conviction, certainty of God’s existence would undermine the development of authentic moral character. The “epistemic gap” (our uncertainty about God) preserves human freedom in moral decision-making.
- If so, evil has to exist. This is plausible because a world without evil or suffering would provide overwhelming evidence of a perfectly good and powerful God, removing the “epistemic gap.” If there were no suffering, humans would have little reason to doubt God’s existence, and moral choices would be made out of obligation rather than free will. By allowing evil, God maintains a level of uncertainty about His existence, ensuring that people choose good for its own sake rather than out of coercion or expectation of divine intervention.
- So, evil has to exist.
Flew the death of a 1000 qualifications.
- For Hick, God;s love is the kind that deliberately disguises itself.
- So, a God that loves us is indistinguishible from a God that hates us.
- ‘God loves us’ dies the death of 1000 qualifications.
- If so, then ‘God loves us’ is meaningless.
- So, ‘God loves us’ is meaningless.
Hick: eschatological verification/falsification
Two men are travelling together along a road. One of them believes that it leads to the Celestial City, the other that it leads nowhere. But since this is the only road there is, both must travel it. Neither has it been this way before. Therefore, neither can say what they will find around each corner. During their journey, they meet with moments of refreshment and delight, and with moments of hardship and danger. All the time, one of them thinks of his journey as a pilgrimage to the Celestial City… The other, however, believes none of this, and sees their journey as an unavoidable and aimless ramble… Yet, when they turn the last corner, it will be apparent that one of them has been right all the time and the other wrong.
argument for the evidential problem of evil
- Some evils seem to have no purpose. This is plausible because we observe instances of extreme suffering—such as natural disasters, childhood diseases, and random acts of violence—that do not appear to contribute to any greater good. Unlike suffering that builds character or teaches lessons, these evils seem unnecessary and arbitrary, making it difficult to justify them within a divine plan.
- If so, then God probably doesn’t exist. This is plausible because an all-powerful, all-loving God would be expected to prevent unnecessary suffering. While some evils might serve a purpose (e.g., moral growth), seemingly pointless suffering challenges the idea that God is both benevolent and in control. If such evils exist, the most reasonable explanation is that God likely does not exist or does not have the attributes traditionally ascribed to Him
- So, God probably doesn’t exist.
