the problem of evil and suffering

The Problem of Evil and The Problem of Evil and SufferingSuffering

Here we consider an argument as Here we consider an argument as to why God might not existto why God might not exist

EvilEvil

A prime argument against there being a A prime argument against there being a GodGod

Term ‘evil’ usually refers to something Term ‘evil’ usually refers to something morally wrongmorally wrong

Philosophers distinguish between ‘moral Philosophers distinguish between ‘moral evil’ and ‘natural evil’evil’ and ‘natural evil’

Consequence of evil is ‘suffering’Consequence of evil is ‘suffering’

The problem of evilThe problem of evil

God is described as:God is described as: All-knowingAll-knowing All-powerfulAll-powerful All-lovingAll-loving

If all-knowing he knows we sufferIf all-knowing he knows we suffer If all-powerful he can stop sufferingIf all-powerful he can stop suffering If all-loving he would want to stop sufferingIf all-loving he would want to stop suffering

We do sufferWe do suffer Therefore God is either not as described or simply Therefore God is either not as described or simply

does not existdoes not exist

Different godsDifferent gods

The problem of evil is specific to religions The problem of evil is specific to religions following classic theism e.g. Christianity, following classic theism e.g. Christianity, JudaismJudaism

Other religions allow for more that one Other religions allow for more that one god, one of which could be responsible for god, one of which could be responsible for our sufferingour suffering

David HumeDavid Hume

Hume considers that the problem of evil is Hume considers that the problem of evil is too great to be dismissedtoo great to be dismissed

Therefore to accept that evil exists means Therefore to accept that evil exists means accepting that God is either impotent or accepting that God is either impotent or maliciousmalicious

This leads to the death of the God of This leads to the death of the God of classical theismclassical theism

Therefore God does not existTherefore God does not exist

Thomas AquinasThomas Aquinas

Aquinas agreed, the presence of evil Aquinas agreed, the presence of evil logically leads to the absence of a Godlogically leads to the absence of a God

However, whilst Hume was an atheist However, whilst Hume was an atheist Aquinas was a believerAquinas was a believer

This is because:This is because:The logical argument only works if we acceptThe logical argument only works if we accept

That the concept of infinite goodness is part of the That the concept of infinite goodness is part of the definition of Goddefinition of God

In talking about God’s goodness we are referring In talking about God’s goodness we are referring to the same thing as human goodnessto the same thing as human goodness

Augustine’s TheodicyAugustine’s TheodicyThe origin of evilThe origin of evil

God is perfectGod is perfectGod made the world perfectGod made the world perfectEvil is a deprivationEvil is a deprivationA deprivation cannot be createdA deprivation cannot be createdTherefore God cannot be blamed for evilTherefore God cannot be blamed for evil

Augustine’s TheodicyAugustine’s TheodicyThe possibility of evilThe possibility of evil

Evil comes from angels and humans who Evil comes from angels and humans who choose to turn away from Godchoose to turn away from God

The The possibilitypossibility of evil is necessary of evil is necessaryOnly God is perfect, created beings are Only God is perfect, created beings are

susceptible to changesusceptible to changeEveryone is guilty as everyone was Everyone is guilty as everyone was

seminally present in Adamseminally present in AdamTherefore we all deserve punishmentTherefore we all deserve punishment

Augustine’s TheodicyAugustine’s TheodicyPunishment for evilPunishment for evil

Human action destroyed natural order that Human action destroyed natural order that brought about natural evilbrought about natural evil

Natural evil is a fitting punishmentNatural evil is a fitting punishmentTherefore God is right not to intervene and Therefore God is right not to intervene and

stop the sufferingstop the sufferingHowever, God does show his mercy and However, God does show his mercy and

justice by saving some through Jesus justice by saving some through Jesus ChristChrist

Augustine’s TheodicyAugustine’s TheodicyStrengthsStrengths

Brian Davies supports idea that evil is not a substanceBrian Davies supports idea that evil is not a substance Rather it is a ‘gap between what is and what ought to be.’Rather it is a ‘gap between what is and what ought to be.’ Therefore Augustine right to say God not to blame for creation of Therefore Augustine right to say God not to blame for creation of

evilevil Free will supports idea that humans responsible for evilFree will supports idea that humans responsible for evil

Plantinga argues that if humans created so that they can only Plantinga argues that if humans created so that they can only choose good they would not be free.choose good they would not be free.

Accounts for natural evil which came through moral evilAccounts for natural evil which came through moral evil Reasonable to accept the value of free will being worth Reasonable to accept the value of free will being worth

the risk of evilthe risk of evil Augustine’s account is popular with Christians as it fits Augustine’s account is popular with Christians as it fits

with the creation accountwith the creation account

Augustine’s TheodicyAugustine’s TheodicyWeeknessesWeeknesses

Logical errorsLogical errorsSchleiermacher argued that there is a logical Schleiermacher argued that there is a logical

contradiction in the idea of a perfect world going contradiction in the idea of a perfect world going wrongwrong

Even if evil is a deprivation it is still present in the worldEven if evil is a deprivation it is still present in the world

A further contradiction appears by saying that A further contradiction appears by saying that people with no knowledge of ‘good and evil’ can people with no knowledge of ‘good and evil’ can choose to do evil.choose to do evil.

This implies that knowledge of evil had to be given by This implies that knowledge of evil had to be given by GodGod


Scientific errorsScientific errorsEvolution has shown the difficulties in Evolution has shown the difficulties in

accepting the Genesis story on which accepting the Genesis story on which Augustine reliesAugustine relies

Biological understanding shows that people Biological understanding shows that people cannot have been seminally present in Adamcannot have been seminally present in Adam

Therefore God would be unjust to punish Therefore God would be unjust to punish everyone.everyone.


Moral errorsMoral errorsHell appears to be part of the universe which Hell appears to be part of the universe which

means that God must have created it knowing means that God must have created it knowing the world would go wrongthe world would go wrong

God’s saving of some show an irrational God’s saving of some show an irrational approach to mercy and raises serious approach to mercy and raises serious questions about his goodnessquestions about his goodness

Irenaeus’ TheodicyIrenaeus’ TheodicyA perfectly imperfect creationA perfectly imperfect creation

Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus accepted that Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus accepted that God was at least partly to blame for God was at least partly to blame for presence of evil, but with good reason:presence of evil, but with good reason:God’s aim in creation was to make perfect God’s aim in creation was to make perfect

peoplepeopleHuman perfection cannot be ready made and Human perfection cannot be ready made and

has to develophas to develop

Irenaeus’ TheodicyIrenaeus’ TheodicyThe only choice is free willThe only choice is free will

God had to give free choice and therefore God had to give free choice and therefore freedom to disobeyfreedom to disobey

This leads to the possibility of evilThis leads to the possibility of evilTherefore the natural order had to be Therefore the natural order had to be

designed with the possibility for doing designed with the possibility for doing harmharm

Irenaeus’ TheodicyIrenaeus’ TheodicyEvil is justifiedEvil is justified

Humans used free will to disobey God and Humans used free will to disobey God and brought about sufferingbrought about suffering

God cannot remove evil as that would God cannot remove evil as that would compromise our freedomcompromise our freedom

Eventually everyone will develop into the Eventually everyone will develop into the likeness of God overcoming all evil.likeness of God overcoming all evil.

Therefore temporal evil is justifiedTherefore temporal evil is justified

Irenaeus’ TheodicyIrenaeus’ TheodicyStrengthsStrengths

John Hick agreed that free will was John Hick agreed that free will was necessarynecessaryThe love of a robot has no valueThe love of a robot has no value

Peter Vardy also agreesPeter Vardy also agreesOnly love that is offered freely is of valueOnly love that is offered freely is of value


If we accept that human perfection has to If we accept that human perfection has to be developed, then:be developed, then:We had to be created imperfectWe had to be created imperfect

Have to be free to be able to go against GodHave to be free to be able to go against God

We had to be distanced from GodWe had to be distanced from GodJ Hick refers to this as J Hick refers to this as epistemic distanceepistemic distance

The natural world could not be a paradiseThe natural world could not be a paradiseTrue freedom demands that we can cause harmTrue freedom demands that we can cause harm


The counterfactual hypothesis considers the The counterfactual hypothesis considers the consequences of a situation being brought about consequences of a situation being brought about in a different way to what in fact happens.in a different way to what in fact happens.

The counterfactual hypothesis shows that the The counterfactual hypothesis shows that the purposes of God could not be achieve without purposes of God could not be achieve without the presence of evil and sufferingthe presence of evil and suffering

Hick concludes that while our world is not:Hick concludes that while our world is not:

““designed for the maximisation of human pleasure and the designed for the maximisation of human pleasure and the minimisation of human pain, it may nevertheless be rather minimisation of human pain, it may nevertheless be rather well adapted to the quite different purpose of ‘soul-making’”well adapted to the quite different purpose of ‘soul-making’”

John Hick, John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Religion, 44thth edn, 1990 edn, 1990


Life does not always end in human Life does not always end in human developmentdevelopment

Many suffer badly throughout lifeMany suffer badly throughout lifeTherefore only a supreme life in heaven Therefore only a supreme life in heaven

can justify the present sufferingcan justify the present sufferingEven evil people are victims are deserve Even evil people are victims are deserve

the mercy and justice of Godthe mercy and justice of God

Irenaeus’ TheodicyIrenaeus’ TheodicyWeaknessesWeaknesses

Concept of heaven for all is unjustConcept of heaven for all is unjust It does not correspond with biblical view of It does not correspond with biblical view of

eternal punishmenteternal punishment It makes good moral behaviour pointlessIt makes good moral behaviour pointlessTherefore there is no incentive to develop Therefore there is no incentive to develop

which is the point of Irenaeus’ theodicywhich is the point of Irenaeus’ theodicy


Quanity and gravity of suffering is out of Quanity and gravity of suffering is out of proportion to rewardsproportion to rewards

Even if suffering is necessary it could be Even if suffering is necessary it could be restricted.restricted.

If Jews had to die in the Holocaust why not 1 million instead If Jews had to die in the Holocaust why not 1 million instead of 6 millionof 6 million

Suffering cannot be an expression of god’s loveSuffering cannot be an expression of god’s love D Z Phillips agues that it is never justifiable to harm someone D Z Phillips agues that it is never justifiable to harm someone

in order to help themin order to help them Note that this is precisely what the medical profession do Note that this is precisely what the medical profession do

when operating on someonewhen operating on someone


Concept of heaven for all is unjustConcept of heaven for all is unjust It does not correspond with biblical view of It does not correspond with biblical view of

eternal punishmenteternal punishment It makes good moral behaviour pointlessIt makes good moral behaviour pointlessTherefore there is no incentive to develop, Therefore there is no incentive to develop,

which is the point of Irenaeus’ theodicywhich is the point of Irenaeus’ theodicy

ConclusionsConclusions

Both theodicies claim that free will is essentialBoth theodicies claim that free will is essential For Augustine evil is unavoidable for free will to For Augustine evil is unavoidable for free will to

existexist For Irenaeus evil is seen as a necessity in order For Irenaeus evil is seen as a necessity in order

that humans can developthat humans can develop J L Mackie argued that as some people choose J L Mackie argued that as some people choose

what is right, God could have created beings what is right, God could have created beings that always chose to do right.that always chose to do right. This idea is challenged on the basis that to only have This idea is challenged on the basis that to only have

the ability to choose right is the same as no choice at the ability to choose right is the same as no choice at all and amounts to the loss of free will.all and amounts to the loss of free will.

Putting it altogetherPutting it altogether

Write bullet points that show how you Write bullet points that show how you would go about answering the following would go about answering the following exam question:exam question:

a)a) Explain either the theodicy of Augustine or of Explain either the theodicy of Augustine or of Ireneaus. (33)Ireneaus. (33)

b)b) ““Suffering does not make us better people, it Suffering does not make us better people, it just makes us miserable.” Discuss (17)just makes us miserable.” Discuss (17)

the problem of evil and suffering

Documents

knowledge of evil

presence of evil

godterm evil

natural evilnatural

godthe possibility of

necessaryonly god

createdtherefore god

suffertherefore god