The Problem of Evil

Leibniz Criticism:

'If this is the best of all possible worlds, what can the others be like?' - Dr Pangloss, in Voltaire's novel Candide. Not easy to support it when faced with the concrete reality of pain and suffering.

5 Resolutions

1) Traditional theism should be abandoned. 2) Evil is neccessary for Good. 3) Evil needs to be seen in a wider context. 4) Evil is a means to a greater good. 5) Evil is the responsibility of humans.

Natural Evil:

1755, Morning, All-Saints' day in Lisbon, there was an earthquake that wrenched streets apart by 5 metre fissures and turned the city into ruins. Soon afterwards, a massive tsunami swept into the remains of the city, as a result of the earthquake, the areas not destroyed by earth or water had a fire break out that lasted for days. 90,000 people were all crushed, burned, or drowned. Proof that this isn't the 'best possible world'.

Moral Evil:

Acts of cruelty, viscousness and injustice carried out by humans upon fellow humans and other creations, including the concept of 'sin'. St Augustine argued that the once perfect world of the Garden of Eden has been made imperfect by the 'original sin' of Adam, and that the suffering caused by natural disasters and disease is God's punishment for his original moral evil.

Irenaeus' Theodicy:

Argues that humans must use their free will to work towards moral and spiritual understanding, eventually achieving perfection in the next life. So, for Augustine, perfection existed in the past, at the moment of creation, and we have fallen from this state of grace; whereas, for Irenaeus, perfection will come in the future at the end of time. Hick also takes a teleological approach, saying imperfections will lead to a better state. The world is a 'vale of soul making' in which our souls are strengthened and matured by the struggle and suffering of this life. God maintains an 'epistemic distance' from us.

Free Will Criticism:

Augustine relies on the literal interpretation of the first book of the bible. Many now read this symbolically. Little believe believe angel Satan turned away from God, which introduced evil into the world.

Evil is necessary for Good

Augustine's 'Aesthetic' Theodicy

POE effect on believers:

Believers have to reconcile their belief in God with their day-to-day encounter with pain and suffering in the world.

Logical Problem of Evil:

Blievers are committed to holding two apparently inconsistent beliefs. 1) God is the all powerful, wholly good and all-knowing creator of the universe. 2) Evil exists in the universe. 3) (Mackie), A wholly good being eliminates evil as far as he can. (Believes we can't hold all three true simultaneously, and must give up at least one.)

John Hick

Can the presence of evil in the world be reconciled with the existence of a God who is unlimited both in goodness and in power?

Process Theology:

Claims God isn't omnipotent, and Whitehead claims that God is the 'great companion - the fellow sufferer, who understands'. He;s not separate from his creation, but a part of it, influencing events but not determining them. This surrenders God's omnipotence, although he's able to affect his creation through his infinite persuasive power, he can't eradicate evil or prevent evil from happening.

Augustine Criticisms

Darwin - suffering of animals, doesn't seem to be balanced by anything, even after they die. > Augustine isn't concerned, but merely suggests that nature needs to change and progress, and animals dying help such a thing. He must also justify the eternal pain of humans who are punished and go to hell, by explaining how the suffering caused on this Earth is balanced by the suffering of the wrong-doers in hell, Augustine has simply moved the POE onto the next life, Why would a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient creator allow eternal pain and suffering to exist for those in hell?

Evidential Problem of Evil:

Darwin, David Hume, and contemporary philosopher Rowe, believe the sheer amount of evil in the world weights against there being a God who's omnipotent and wholly good. Doesn't aim to show that the theist holds a set of inconsistent beliefs, but poses a question: "Given the existence of evil, which of the following is the more reasonable hypothesis?" There's an infinitely powerful, wholly good God who created the world. There is no such God.

St Augustine's Definition

Evil is 'which we fear, or the act of fearing itself;. It's the absence of goodness, in other words, it's a lack of goodness, a failure to flourish or fulfil a natural purpose. Evil is privatio boni (a privation of good).

Evil is a means to a greater good:

Evil is an enabler for other goods which wouldn't exist without evil. It could mean that the universe is in some way a better place because of the existence of evil.

Flew Free Will Criticism:

Freely chosen actions are ones that have causes within the persons themselves, rather than externally. As long as your choice is internal to you, then it's freely chosen. Flew then goes on to say that God could have created a possible world in which all humans had a nature that was good, and et in which they were free. In such a world, humans would always freely choose the right thing. > Quick reply. Hypnotism. We must choose to worship and love him.

Examples of Moral Evil:

Genocides of Hitler and Stalin in the 1930's and 1940's killing 10 million people. Many politicised murders occurring around the world. HIV.

Augustine's Aesthetic Theodicy:

God is good and powerful, and created a perfect world. Evil was then introduced into the world as some of his creatures turned away from God. Augustine places particular blame on the fall of the angel Satan from heaven, and on the failure of Adam and Eve to resist temptation in the garden of Evil. This constitutes the original sin of humans, corrupting the natural goodness of the world. This places the blame for moral and natural evil on the freely chosen acts of God's creatures, as it's also part of the natural balance of the universe. It's an argument for the beauty of the universe, as Augustine draws an analogy with how an artist makes of light and dark shades that create harmony and balance in a painting. Augustine claims it's a matter of perspective, as although for us it might seem there is too much pain and suffering and too much evil that goes unpunished, our sinful acts are ultimately balanced by the justice of God: after we die we are all judged, and sinners atone for their sins by being punished. The beauty Augustine is referencing is 'moral beauty' where ultimately justice is done, and the moral balance of the universe is restored.

Leibniz's Theodicy:

God, from amongst all the possible universes that he could create, chooses the one he does. The one selected must be the best one possible as he is wholly good. It must, despite it's appearances, be the best universe going, and every feature is an essential part of the divine plan. The main pain and suffering of this world are just some of the many essential ingredients which go into the construction of the best possible world. Evil, must, in some way contribute to making it a better place than every other possible universe. If anything was different, the world would be worse off. We aren't able to see why each local instance of evil is necessary to the divine plan, and it's inexplicable to us why God should allow this or that person to suffer, but is as we don't have God's perspective on the whole of creation, and neither are we able to understand what the rejected possible worlds are.

Contrast Theory:

Good only makes sense in contrast to evil (Hick), and they trade off, so evil is necessary for god. We wouldn't have a concept of good without evil, and we wouldn't be able to recognise good acts for people to strive towards. To use an analogy, a world without evil would be similar to a world no colours but red - we wouldn't see the red as we couldn't compare it to anything.

Theism:

Have as their object of worship a God who is the all-powerful creator of the world, and who cares deeply for his creation.

Vardy

Highest good for humans is a loving relationship with God. Love must be freely chosen. So God, who is all powerful and loving, gave humans free will. Genuine free will means that humans will sometimes choose good, sometimes evil Therefore evil exists in order that humans may choose a loving relationship with God.

Evil is the responsibility of Humans

Human free will is an essential element of St. Augustine's and St Irenaeus' theodicies. Evil is a side effect of God granting us free will (I), while sin is a result of Adam and Eve (A). For I, it's a price worth paying is there's the possibility that human free will can lead to salvation and redemption.

Mackie Free Will Criticism:

It's logically possible for me to choose to do good on any one occasion. It's logically possible for me to choose to do good on every occasion. It's logically possible for any individual to choose to do good throughout their life. God is omnipotent and can create any logically possible world. Therefore God could have created a world in which we were all genuinely free, yet we all chose to do good. God did not create such a world. Therefore, either God is not omnipotent, or he is not wholly good.

POE reply to TTSBA

Lead in a direction far away from Christian teachings, and so they're unacceptable to many believers. For those who are attempting to make sense of the universe and of evil from a position outside traditional theism, such solutions may be reasonable and plausible.

Contrast Theory Criticism:

Mackie points out that it sets a limit to what God can/can't do. He can't create good, or make us aware of good, without simultaneously creating evil. If we wish to maintain that God is omnipotent then this theory must be abandoned. Good and evil aren't opposites in the same way 'up' and 'down' are. Good has certain intrinsic features that aren't defined simply by opposition to evil. Aquinas views evil as a 'lack of goodness', however to see 'evil' as 'pain and suffering' means they're not opposites. Hick points out that pain has a different physiological structure and cause to pleasure, and it doesn't make sense to think of them as opposites. We can also imagine a world in which everyone is good (Communist Utopia/Christian Kingdom of God) and there's nothing inconsistent in this idea. May be we need no idea of these concepts, and might not recognise them as 'good', but this isn't the same as saying they're not actually good, and most importantly, isn't the same as saying that their world wouldn't be better than this world.

Theological Anti-Realism

Wittgenstein, claim that religious beliefs don't refer to anything in the real world. God doesn't imply belief in a being who exists 'out there', in the real world. Includes a commitment to a moral way of life, a cultural tradition/attitude/approach to the world. This means it's that POE is no longer a problem, as God isn't a real being existing independently of our minds, and so couldn't have made the world differently or have intervened to prevent evil from happening.

Evil needs to be seen in a wider context

Need to look at pain and suffering in a broader theological context. Survival after our physical death is usually thought to involve survival of an immortal soul. Plato, believed that our soul existed before we were born. Monotheistic religions of Jews & Christianity claim that our souls are created at conception, or thereabouts. All are agreed that there's some form of life after death, whether it be by surviving as purely spiritual beings, being into a new body or by resurrection. Hick argues that an omnipotent, personal creator wouldn't allow his human creations to cease to exist while his aspirations and purpose for them hadn't been met. Is the existence of a benevolent God compatible with a world in which there is a finite amount of suffering in this life, but an infinite amount of happiness in the next life?

Religious Sects

Propose God isn't the only powerful deity, e.g. Zoroastrians and the Manicheans believe a benevolent God views with a malicious devil for control of the world. This dualist perspective undermines the absolute power of God, and is at variance with much that's written in the Bible. However, there's ambiguity in the Old Testament as to whether God or the devil is the source of evil, and in some passages (book of job), the Devil seems to carry out evil acts on behalf of God. These theories lead away from Christian teachings, and are unacceptable to many believers.

Evil:

Refers to the concrete and negative experiences that sentient beings have of the world. These negative experiences can be grouped into the physical (hunger, cold), and the mental (misery, anguish, terror), and we can summarise these two types of experience as pain and suffering.

Wider Context Hell Criticism:

Seems as if it simply defers the problem of evil to the next life, and amplifies it. It's difficult to reconcile the existence of a benevolent God with the existence of suffering in this life, how much more difficult are we going to find it reconciling such a God with the unlimited suffering of hell in the next life. Why would God create a person with free will, knowing they'd abuse it and end being tortured for all eternity? The question is recognisable as one raised by the problem of evil - positing the existence of hell hasn't resolved the problem.

Swinburne's Theodicy:

Some forms of evil are the means to certain goods. Accepts God's omnipotent and could stop evil, but only at the price of sacrificing the virtuous acts which are the noble human response to its presence. The existence of suffering makes higher-order goods possible. E,.g. courage and charity wouldn't exist if there no one in danger or in need. Nazi conc camps can be justified if they led to greater goods, such as acts of sympathy, co-operation, and benevolence. Better to live in this world then a 'toy world' where nothing threatens us and human actions have no significant consequences. No evil means there'd be no moral dimension to anything - our actions would be devoid of meaning, and so if there's a point to human agency and any space within the universe, we need to live a world with real challenges and our actions matter. God created a 'half finished' universe, giving humans the opportunity to improve it from within. If god intervened every time someone fell from a building, our actions wouldn't be anticipated, and not abiding withe laws of nature. A law abiding universe will contain natural disasters and all the pain and suffering of the fight for survival.

Irenaeus Criticism:

The claim that evil exists as a means to some other good has been contested. Distribution of misery seems to be random and meaningless, so that it may be heaped upon those who seem less deserving. We have to ask 'is the end worth it' - posed by Dostoyevsky, as he questions whether God is justified in creating a world that contains so much pointless and gratuitous evil in order to attain certain goals.

Wider Context Dualism Criticism:

Theologians feels it's our immortal soul that survives our death, with the possibility of physical resurrection at some future point. However, distinguishing between the soul and body in this way is a form of dualism, and mind-body dualism has had a troubled history. Problems of dualism (see FW & D). If we survive our bodily death in some form, will we be the same person as we once were?

Traditional Theism should be Abandoned

Two revisionist theories that stand out: Theological Anti-realism, and process theologies.