Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The problem of evil - Coggle Diagram
The problem of evil
-
Theodicies
Augustine’s theodicy - evil not created by God as god created a perfect world
- god gave us free will
- we abused free will which corrupted the perfect world
- allowing sin and evil into the world
- evil is the creation of humans
Augustine’s 4 themes
1) Evil is the privation of Good
“god saw all that he had made, and it was very good”
- impossible for God to create an imperfect world
- evil is not a real substance, just the absence of good
- privatio boni
- in the same way that black is not a colour, but a lack of colour/light
- God not responsible
2) Human free will
- evil comes from entities which have free will
- Adam and Eve misused free will and suffered as a result
- Augustine said God knew this would happen and planned to send Jesus to redeem humanity
- some misuse their free will and some use it correctly and turn to Christ
3) the principle of Plenitude
- completeness
- Augustine argued the best possible world contains every variety of creature and is not one that contains only the best things
- why some creatures are imperfect e.g wings on an ostrich
- explains why there is inequality in nature e.g slug vs butterfly
- explains why God created imperfect creatures like humans and destructive natural things like earthquakes
- if the world were perfect it would not be the world, it would be heaven instead
4) The aesthetic theme
- the world is perfect when it is seen in its enirety, from God’s perspective
- Augustine says humans only see part of the picture which can make the perfect world seem imperfect
- things seem evil that are not evil, a tidal wave is not evil in itself, only when it destroys buildings
- good things can come from evil: a tidal wave may destory a city but stronger buildings would be built as a result making it safer
- universe only perfect when considered as a whole
-
Irenaen theodicy - Later taken up by John Hick
-irenaeus argued God does allow evil in the world and deliberately created it as part of the order so humans can develop into a mature and free relationship with God
- without these we wouldnt be able to be fairly judged and sent to heaven or hell
- for Irenaeus God is partly responsible for evil has he created imperfect humans with free will
- but he did this deliberately so they could develop into his likeness
- this is choice which would mean they actually would deserve the reward
- Swinburne supports: “suffering provides opportunities to show courage and patience
- God couldn’t just create us in his image in the first place otherwise there
John Hick’s vale of the soul making
- developed Iranaeus theodicy
- we are made in the image of God with the capability of developing into his likeness
- God created an imperfect world on purpose so that humans could develop good qualities that bring them closer to the likeness of God
- soul making
- we need an imperfect to do this
- our world is not designed for the maximisation of human pleasure and the minimisation of human pain - it is adapted for soul making
- Hick believes that God maintains a distance from humanity, known as epistemic distance
(God is partially responsible for evil as he created a world which contained evil and allowed humans to have free wok which gives us the ability to choose evil things)
Soul making continues after death
- sometimes people do not develop their souls properly during their lifetime
- soul making can continue after death
- universal salvation
Strengths of Hick’s theodicy
- explains that God created evil for a good purpose, solves the problem of evil
- appreciates the idea that things are better when you have to work hard for them
- hick’s theodicy doesn’t reply on the literal truth of the creation stories in the bible
Weaknesses
- downplays the importance of the fall allowing human sin into the world
- undermines Jesus’ role in helping humans achieve salvation
- universal salvation contradicts the Bible’s teachings on Jesus and the possibility of going to hell
- fails to explain the extent of suffering (some evil cant develop goodness e.g ptsd
- relies on the fact that we have free will to develop into the likeness of God, Gregory S Paul argues free will comes with making decisions for themselves, children dont have free will but Hicks theodicy relies on this
(fails to explain the suffering of humans who dont have free will like children)
Evidential formulation
- the fact that we can talk logically about God existing with evil means it cannot be logically impossible
- moral evil vs natural evil
- therefore evidential is better
Evidential problem = aposterori
- rests on evidence from the natural world and asks us to reach the best explanation for the evidence we have seen
- the amount and the nature of evil we experience tells us that God almost certainly doesnt exist
- doesnt go as far as to say it is logically impossible, only that the evidence of evil strongly suggests that God does not exist
John Stuart Mill
- believed that the presence of evil and suffering in nature should be used to question the existence of God
- Mill is disputing the claim that an omnibenvolet and omnipotent God exists
- he thought that this kind of God would not allow the kinds of evil to exist that do actually exist
- e.g Nazi Germany, children with bone cancer..
- MILLS ARGUMENTS CAN CHALLENGE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AS THERE IS NO PURPOSE TO EVIL - SHOWS A LACK OF ORDER
William Rowe
- Rowe does not argue that God would allow any evil but he says that God wouldn’t allow the intense human and animal suffering that happens in the world
1) intense suffering exists that an omnipotent being could have prevented without losing some greater good
2) an omnibenevolent being would prevent intense suffering if it could unless it could not do so without losing some greater good
3) there does not exist and omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being
Rowe specifically talks about animal suffering
- animals cannot reach heaven as they do not have souls yet they suffer
- relates to argument that God allows suffering because it helps is achieve salvation
- this cannot justify animal suffering