4.5 The Problem of Evil

Greater goods defense

The claim that God allows some evil to exist because it is necessary to the achievement of a greater good

Free will defense

The claim that God could not create creatures (such as us) who have freedom of the will but who are incapable of doing evil

(The) Problem of Evil

The difficulty of reconciling the existence of suffering and other evils in the world with the existence of God

The Logical Problem of Evil

The existence of evil makes God's existence logically impossible.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The existence of evil makes God's existence unlikely.

Moral

The greater goods defense can explain both natural evils and moral evils, because it claims that suffering can cause good results that could not be obtained without it whether this suffering has natural or human causes. The free will defense, however, is primarily an explanation of why God allows human _____ evil to exist.

Job

The moving but disturbing Biblical story of _____ has served throughout the ages as a dramatic symbol of the problem of evil

Natural evil

The suffering to humans and animals resulting from natural causes such as genetic defects, diseases, earthquakes, and tornadoes

Free

"But if we are right in supposing that God's purpose for man is to lead him from human Bios, or the biological life of man, to that quality of Zoe, or the personal life of eternal worth, which we see in Christ, then the question that we have to ask is not, Is this the kind of world that an all-powerful and infinitely loving being would create as an environment for his human pets? or, Is the architecture of the world the most pleasant and convenient possible? The question that we have to ask is rather, Is this the kind of world that God might make as an environment in which moral beings may be fashioned, through their own _____ insights and responses, into 'children of God'"?--John Hick

Criticisms of the free will defense

1. First, the defense assumes that it is impossible for creatures to be free at the same time that they are incapable of doing evil. 2. The free will defense admits that a certain measure of freedom of the will would make this world better than if free will was totally lacking. But couldn't we get along with a little bit less free will if it meant less suffering in the world?

Evil

1. God is perfectly good. 2. God is all-knowing (omniscient). 3. God is all-powerful (omnipotent). 4. _____ exists. 5. If God exists and is a being who is good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then there would be no evil in the world. 6. Therefore, God does not exist.

(Albert) Camus

French novelist and author of The Plague

Weaknesses of atheism

1. Some atheists argue with the psychiatrist Sigmund Freud that religion is a psychological crutch that emotionally weak persons use to get through life. Certainly, religion fulfills the emotional needs of many people. But can this argument be turned against the atheist? List some reasons why someone might find the existence of God to be psychologically threatening and the belief in atheism to be an emotionally comfortable crutch. 2. Most religious and secular systems of ethics have some notion of the intrinsic worth, dignity, and equality of each person. But if we are just a random collection of atoms impersonally coughed up by nature, as the atheist believes, do we have any rational basis for believing in the intrinsic worth, dignity, and equality of all persons? Does the notion of the intrinsic worth of all persons fit better with the view that we are made by a loving God and that we bear God's image? 3. Daniel H. Osmond, professor of physiology and medicine at the University of Toronto, argues that modern science arose from the theistic belief in the divinely ordered rationality of the universe. From this historical point he goes on to explain: "To be sure, many scientists today are able to do science without necessarily believing in a Purposeful Creator. But in order to do so, they must implicitly accept an ordered universe that can be known...Purpose lies outside their domain of scientifi c discourse much as the roots of a tree lie outside the trunk. In each case the latter cannot stand without the former though the former is hidden from view." Is it plausible, as Osmond maintains, that the "trunk" of science depends on the "hidden roots" of theistic belief? Does theism have the best explanation for the existence of this intricately ordered universe and of minds that are capable of theoretically examining this order?

Assumptions (of the greater goods defense)

1. Some evils are necessary to achieving certain good ends 2. The good that is achieved outweighs the evil 3. The same or a greater amount of good could not have been attained by any means that did not involve the presence of these evils

Strengths of atheism

1. The theist argues that the world needs a cause and finds the explanation in a God who is eternal and uncaused. Is this answer any better than the atheist's answer that the universe or matter and energy themselves are eternal and uncaused? 2. Before the rise of modern science, people thought that all natural events, such as disease and the motion of the planets, were the result of God's activity. However, science has continually shown that events in the world once thought to be mysterious can be explained as the product of natural causes. Do these findings suggest that in the scientific age God is no longer a necessary hypothesis? 3. In Camus's novel The Plague, Dr. Rieux said that he was "fighting against creation as he found it" and that "I shall refuse to love a scheme of things in which children are put to torture." Rieux's point is that if suffering is part of God's plan, then people are not supposed to fight against suffering. In other words, if suffering makes us better persons, then I am not doing you a favor if I try to alleviate your suffering; I should simply accept your suffering as part of God's scheme of things. However, most of us, like Dr. Rieux, feel compelled to fight against suffering. Are we then fighting against God's will? Do these considerations undermine the notion that suffering serves a divine purpose? 4. Religious philosophers have tried to show ways in which the presence of suffering could be compatible with the existence of an all-powerful, loving God. But does it seem that even the best responses to the problem of evil turn out to be less than conclusive? Don't these explanations wear thin when we confront the suffering of an innocent child? Can't we point to instances of suffering that do not have any conceivable good purpose and that seem to be beyond explanation and justification?

(The) Natural order defense

Argument associated with C.S. Lewis that asserts that in order for there to be free choices, whether these choices are good or evil ones, there has to be a fixed, reliable order of natural causes and effects

Moral evil

Bad actions and their unfortunate results for which humans (or other moral agents) are morally responsible

Possible

In developing the greater goods defense, theists formulate the argument that certain moral goods such as courage, compassion, fortitude, forgiveness, and forbearance are human traits and are responses that enrich us as human beings, which would not be ______ if there were no evil in the world

Soul-breaking

Suffering rather than contributing to the process of (John Hick's) "soul-making," often brings about "_____," because people are crushed, defeated, demoralized, and dehumanized by great suffering.

Theodicy

The attempt to justify God's permitting evil to occur in the world

Bambi Argument

William Rowe's evidential problem of evil argument that argues because there a many instances of pointless suffering it is unlikely a God exists