Philosophy writing assignment 2

The Problem of Evil

Omniscient — all knowing

Omnibenevolent — wholly good

Omnipotent — all powerful

How is a 3-O being compatible w/ existence of Horrible stuff?

1. If God exists, s/he is 3-O

2. If there were a 3-O being, there would be no seemingly pointless pain and suffering

3. There is seemingly pointless pain and suffering

4. So there is no 3-O being (2,3)

Conclusion: God does not exist.

Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, he/she/they is 3-O

2. If there were a 3-O being, there wouldn’t be tremendous amounts if pain and suffering etc. in the world.

———Where the action is. To deny 2 is to say some story can be told about why a 3-O being allows pain and suffering

3. But there ARE tremendous amounts of pain and suffering

4. So there’s no 3-O being (2,3)

_Conclusion: So God does not exist (1,4)_

Going to look at 3 main ways of denying 2, in 2 categories. Consider this a table of contents for the next several classes.

1. SOMEHOW, good requires evil in order to exist. (Mackie’s 1 and 2 squashed together). There MUST be bad stuff for anything to be good

2. The universe is BETTER for the pain and suffering

2a) The pain and suffering render possible certain good things that wouldn’t otherwise be possible /Mackie’s #3 /

2b) Pain and suffering is due to human free will (some of it!), and free will is a huge good

Solution 1: there can be no good without evil/bad/pain and suffering — it logically depends on evil for its existence.

*Notice that this approach requires saying that good/God is act to _minimize_ evil, not to _eliminate_ it. (Mackie treats this as an objection. It isn’t really.)

This solution turns on taking ‘good’ in a relative way.

_Bigger problems with this solution_

— why so much pain and suffering?

— Is it worth it? God could

## Discussion

Paper 2 should choose one of 2a) and 2b)

evil—pain and suffering

2b) Free will — world will be better

Something bad but might be good

_Background worry about the project_

How are WE supposed to know or figure out the reason God allows so much suffering?

David Lewis brings up Plantinga:

theodicy—bold claim to know God’s mind with confidence or certainty

defense—some claim, any claim, no matter how plausible, about how God could allow evil.

Lewis wants something reasonably plausible.

Strategy 2 in general terms (we will look at 2 particular implementations)

Universe is overall better with the pain and suffering.

Leibniz — late 1600’s

This is the best of all possible worlds.

W1 only good W2 good and bad/pain etc.

Possible w2 is better than w1

2a) Universe is better with all the pain and suffering that it would be without because it permits certain kinds of good that couldn’t otherwise exist.

_Second order goods_ — arise in reaction to 1st order bads

empathy

courage

charity

communities coming together

relief

learning from mistakes

W1:1st order goods

W2: 1st order goods, 1st order bads, 2nd order goods -> danger hunger pain

W2 better than W1

W3: 1st order goods, 1st order bads, 2nd order goods, 2nd order bads, 3rd order goods?

Infinite regress? Arms race?

If there are 1st order bads, they are “excused” (made worthwhile) by 2nd order goods.

But aren’t there 2nd order bads too? Are they excused by 3rd order goods?

Does this have an end?

_Problems_

Echo the objections to solution #1

* escalating orders??

* are the 2nd order goods worth the 1st order bads?

Are pediatric oncologists worth childhood cancer?

Are migraines worth relief?

Are displays of bravery in battle worth the deaths?

* Why so much 1st order bad (pain and suffering)? Is God even out minimize 1st order bad?

* How can one square the idea that our world is better than a world with no pain with the idea of heaven?

2b) Evil/Pain/Suffering is due to human free will — and universe is overall better with free will. It’s worth it.

It’s better that we have free will and cause pain and suffering than that we not have free will.

Two important preliminaries —

* we have to HAVE free will for this to have a chance

* doesn’t obviously handle “natural evil” — bad stuff not caused by people

The badness of murder, rape, war, etc. is outweighed by the goodness/value of free will.

_Problems/Questions_

* can we be truly free compatibly with God’s omnipotence?

-> side issue: paradox of omnipotence

Better to say God DOESN’T control us than that he CAN’T

Sure. ——(can we be truly….omnipotence)

* playpen objection (Lewis)

Why doesn’t God insulate choices from consequences? Cut off causal chains from _free choice to what happens_? Free will without harmful outcomes.

* why didn’t God make us free, but such that we always choose the good? (Or at least never choose to kill etc.) why not make us have good characters?

He’s omnipotent — he could have made us that way. Voilà!

We have free will, AND no war/murder etc.

Reply 1 to this objection:

That’s not genuine freedom!

Reply to reply: why not? All options are available, we just wouldn’t pick the horrendous ones, just as you don’t choose murder. Not true that free will requires awful choices.

Reply 2: OK fine, God COULD have made us free and always choose good, but he purposely _didn’t_.

-learning from mistakes

-growing

-rederuption, forgiveness

Reply A (person who thinks free will response fails):

Why not _skip all that_ and put us directly “at the finish line”??

He is omnipotent /omnibenevolent

How is ANY reply of the form — the world is better for the pain, struggles, journey — compatible with the claim that Heaven is better than this world?

/Marilyn Adams/

— It’s a mistake to try to find the reason God permits suffering

—outside our abilities/capacities