lOMoARcPSD|21126671
PHIL 201 Lesson 19 THE Problem WITH
EVIL
Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas (Liberty University)
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
STUDY GUIDE: LESSON 19
The Problem of Evil
Lesson Overview:
Throughout the history of religion, the primary and most challenging argument
presented against belief in God has been the problem of evil. Many philosophers
have concluded that belief in an all-powerful and all-loving God is incompatible
with the suffering and evil in the world. If God is good and loving, then he would
want to eliminate suffering and evil. If God was all-powerful, then he is able to
eliminate suffering and evil. Yet, suffering and evil remain.
Therefore, they conclude there must not be a God. In our final lesson of this unit,
we turn to this challenging problem of evil. We begin by looking at the different
types of evil. We then look at the 2 versions of the problem in detail and offer some
responses to them. We continue with a discussion of horrendous evils and the
problem of hell. Finally, we discuss the issue of divine hiddenness.
Tasks:
View and take notes of the presentation, <The Problem of Evil.=
1. What is evil? (a working definition)
a. You can define evil based on good.
b. Some things we have moral and intellectual knowledge of good and
evil, but to actually put it into words is not possible or is very
difficult. (We know it when we see it).
2. Why is evil a problem for theists?
a. Because of the way we look at God. We say God is all good, morally
perfect.
b. God can get rid of evil, should want to get rid of it, yet still there is evil
here.
c. Omnipotent: has all ability
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
d. Omniscient: knows all things
3. What are some proposed solutions to the problem?
a. Free will
b. Soul-making: suffering produces other important attributes.
Perseverance to character
c. Laws of Nature: know how things are going to react.
Predictable.
4. What is gratuitous evil and how do theists answer that?
a. When we are not sure how God can have a morally sufficient reason
in order to allow this type of evil.
b. Gods knowledge is greater than our own and we are just not
given all of the information.
c. Jesus was the pattern for us. He lived a sinless life and didn’t deserve
the suffering he endured in his death. That suffering was worthwhile.
(saved all God’s people)
Read Chapter 7 of Philosophy of Religion: Thanking about Faith,
<The
Problem of Evil.= As you read, make sure you understand
and can answer
the following points and questions:
5. Explain the distinction between moral and natural (or nonmoral) evil.
a. Moral Evil: all evil which is due to the actions of free, morally
responsible beings. (murders, rapes, hunger caused by social injustice)
b. Natural Evil (nonmoral): all the evil that is not (or at least does not
appear to be) due to the actions of morally responsible beings. (pain
and suffering caused by natural disasters and many diseases)
6. Explain the distinction between the logical form of the problem and the
evidential form.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
a. Logical form: it is a contradiction to claim both that a perfectly good,
all-knowing, all-powerful being exists and that evil exists.
b. Evidential form: willing to admit God’s existence is logically
compatible with the occurrence of evil; they concede that it is
possible that a perfectly good,
all-knowing, all-powerful being might have reasons for allowing evil.
However, they allege that, given the actual types and quantity of evil
that we find in the world, it is unlikely or improbable that this is so in
every case. Hence, the occurrence of evil, though it does not prove
that God does not exist, renders his existence unlikely or improbable.
7. Explain the difference between a theodicy and a defense.
a. Theodicy: tries to show that God is justified in allowing evil; it lays out
the reasons why God allows evil and tries to show that those reasons
are good ones.
b. Defense: tried to argue that God may have reasons for allowing evil
that we do not or cannot know. A defense does not try to explain why
God actually allows evil but argues that it is reasonable to believe that
God has good reasons, even if we are not in a position to discern what
they are.
a. A defense may give various explanations as possible reasons
why God allows evil, but without claiming that those reasons are
necessarily Gods’ actual ones.
8. What are 2 inadequate ways of resolving the problem?
a. To deny the reality of evil, to view evil as an illusion.
b. Regard God as limited in either power or knowledge or goodness or all
three.
9. What is Mackie’s form of the logical problem of evil?
a. The proposition that God exists, combined with his additional
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
premises. Logically implies that evil does not exist, which contradicts
the (obviously true) proposition that evil does exist.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
10.Explain the <greater good= response to Mackie’s argument.
a. A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can without the loss
of a greater good or the allowance of a worse evil.
b. The evil that God permits is justified because allowing that evil
makes possible the achievement of a greater good or the prevention
of a worse evil.
11.
Explain the <logically impossible= response to the criticism of the
<greater good=
argument.
a. Even God cannot do what is broadly logically impossible. Cannot
create a square circle or make 2+2=5. They are not genuine
possibilities.
12. How does the existence of certain <second-order goods= require the
possibility of evil?
a. Second-order good: a good that literally requires the existence (or
at least the possibility) of some evil in order to be realized.
a. Courage seems inconceivable without the possibility of harm
b. Sympathy would be impossible apart form the suffering of others.
13. What is the soul-making theodicy and what are some problems with it?
a. The world has been designed by God to be, first and foremost, an
environment that enables and facilitates each individual’s moral and
spiritual development.
a. Not all natural evils seem to contribute to any greater good.
i. Ex) lightning strikes a forest and burns an animal alive – why
would God allow that?
b. In addition to making possible various second-order goods, such as
courage and sympathy – evil such as pain and suffering also make
possible second order evils such as cowardice and maliciousness.
**The same making theodicy seems unable to identify any
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
greater good that could justify God’s allowance of these
second-order evils.
14. How does the free-will theodicy support the soul-making theodicy?
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
a. Free-will theodicy: the reasons second-order evils occur is that
human beings make bad use of their freedom. Resulting evil is due
to human wickedness, not God
. a. Freedom involves great risk, but also the possibility of a great
good which can be achieved no other way.
15.Explain Mackie’s objection that God could have created a world where
creatures freely choose to always do good.
a. If God is omnipotent, then it is possible that he can create/actualize
any possible world. It is within God’s power to create a world
containing free creatures but no evil. So, the presence of evil entails
that an omnipotent, perfectly good God does not exist.
16. Explain Plantinga’s libertarian free will in response to Mackie’s objection.
a. If a person has a genuinely free choice, what the person will do in
that situation is solely up to the person and not up to God.
a. Ex)
person takes a bribe for $20K
i. Offered $20K and accepted the bribe
ii. Offered $20K and rejects the bribe
b. Both are logically possible. One of them must be true, then there
are logically possible worlds which even an omnipotent being
cannot bring into existence.
17. How is Plantinga’s argument a defense and not a theodicy?
a. He is claiming only that it is possible that God faced this scenario.
(Mackie has asserted that God and evil are logically incompatible) so
all Plantinga needs to do is state that evil could be.
18.Explain the 3 ways a free-will theodicy can account for natural evil.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
a. Combine it with another theodicy, such as soul-making which
accounts for natural evil
b. To see natural evil as the work of superhuman free beings, such as
Satan and his angels.
c. To see natural evil as in some way a consequence of moral evil
(interpreting it as divine judgment on a fallen race)
19. Explain why a defense is all one needs to defeat the logical form of the
problem of evil.
a. It is not necessary to know God’s actual reasons for allowing evil or
be able to explain why God allows the evil he does. It is sufficient to
know that there are possible reasons.
20.Contrast the logical form of the problem with the evidential form of the
problem4what is the difference?
a. Evidential form: the kinds and quantity of evil in the world renders it
unlikely God exists and provides good reason for not believing in God.
a. Logical says it is contradictory that both exist; evil and God.
21.Explain the evidential problem in terms of pointless evil.
a. Atheist will contend that much of the actual evil that we observe in
the world is pointless, it does not lead to any greater good. A good
God would not allow pointless evil. (there is still a probability factor
where we cannot prove this, however)
22.How does CORNEA (aka the cognitive limitation defense) address the
evidential problem?
a. CORNEA: one is justified in making a claim like, <it appears there
are no X’s= only if one is justified in believing that, if there were
X’s, one would be in a position to perceive the.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
b. Given that God is both omniscient and transcendent, there is every
reason to believe that God is privy to a vast amount of knowledge
about the relations between good and evil of which we are ignorant.
We have reason to believe that for any pointless evil, if there were
some justifying reason that God had for it, we very likely would not be
in a position to perceive it.
23.How does one’s belief in the existence of a benevolent and loving God
answer the evidential problem?
a. If one has good reasons for believing in a benevolent and loving God,
then one is justified in believing God has good reasons for allowing
evil. a. If god exists, he does not allow any pointless evil
b. Probably God exists.
c. Therefore, probably, there is no pointless evil in the world.
24.Explain the balance between faith and reason in applying the GE Moore
shift to the evidential problem.
a. If faith is to be reasonable, there must be some basis for belief in
God. The occurrence of evil is seen as a test of one’s faith.
25.Explain Adams’s theodicy concerning horrendous evils, why it requires an
afterlife to work, and specifically why it requires universalism.
a.
Only a solution in which the horrendous evil is <engulfed= and
<defeated= in the
life of the individual who suffers it will suffice.
b. Evils are engulfed when their quantity in the life of a person is vastly
outweighed by the quantity of good in that same persons life.
c.
Many victims of horrendous evils die before such <engulfing= and
<defeat= of evil
are achieved in their lives, so requires the existence
of an afterlife where such things come to completion. a. Universalism:
the view that no one is eternally consigned to hell. This would be an
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
example of an undefeated horrendous evil.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
26.Why is hell a problem? a. If hell is a possibility, it constitutes that most
severe version of the problem of horrendous evil.
27. Explain the annihilation solution to the problem of hell and possible problems
with it.
a. The view that God in his mercy simply annihilates those who
make a final decision to reject him.
b. Possible Problem: certain evils remain finally undefeated. But other
say there might be other ways these evils are defeated or that
annihilation is the defeat for an eternity of suffering would be worse.
28. Explain the mild-hell solution and how it is a version of the free will theodicy.
a. Hell is something freely chosen by its inhabitants rather than
something God consigns the damned against their wills.
29.What is the main criticism of the <free will= aspect of the mild-hell
solution and how do supporters of the solution respond to the criticism?
a. Criticism: places too high a premium on human freedom. We are
finite beings and to place this large of a decision on free will is like
placing a poison candy in the middle of the room and telling a 3
year-old not to eat any of it.
b. Supporters support: people possess all they need to make this
decision. They know what they are doing, are not being coerced,
they understand the consequences.
c. God takes into account the factors of the person's
understanding and responsibility when making the final
judgment.
30. What is the problem of divine hiddenness and how is it an argument for
atheism?
a. God’s existence is not clearly manifest (displayed). Why doesn’t
God reveal himself to those who truly seek him?
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
b. Argument for atheism: a perfectly loving God, were he to exist,
would reveal himself to every one who earnestly seeks him; but not
everyone who earnestly seeks God finds him; therefore, a perfectly
loving God does not exist.
31. What are 2 solutions to the problem of divine hiddenness?
a. God has good reasons for not revealing himself to everyone who seeks
him.
Perhaps it is a necessary condition for God’s evoking form a free and
loving – rather than coerced – response of obedience and trust.
b. God does reveal himself, it’s those that are seeking who are not
doing so in earnest.
lOMoARcPSD|21126671
