Evil and Suffering

Question 1

3 definitions of evil

Answer 1

these definitions concern PHILOSOPHICAL definitions of evil
- natural evil: negative impact from nature: people find it hard to reconcile with God due to this, as humans cannot cause this
- moral evil: caused human actions or inaction, due to their possession of moral agency
- beyond the physical: simply because you are alive, you will suffer (illness, pain and death)

Question 2

definitions of evil

broad and narrow concept, what is the problem of evil

Answer 2

Broad concept:
- any bad state of affairs, wrongful action or character flaw
- natural evils: bad states of affairs that do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents
- moral evils: result from the intentions or negligence of morals agents
- the problem of evil: problem of accounting for evil in a world created by an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god

narrow concept:
- worst possible thing imagined
- appropriately ascribed to moral agents and their actions as Narrow concept involved moral condemnation

Question 3

peter vardy, evil and suffering

Answer 3

argued there are five types
- suffering caused by natural disasters, diseases, human body, mental health and animals
- 5 types of suffering are not accountable by human actions as they occur naturally –> not free will, but natural origins

Question 4

Hebblethwaite’s natural and morla evil

Answer 4

• argued that what we call moral E and S is in fact natural ES

1. moral decisions to cause suffering occurs naturally within us
2. our physiology that allows us to feel moral suffering is a natural physiology
   - therefore, moral evil = natural evil and is not due to free will

Question 5

evil sceptics vs opposition

should the problem of evil be considered?

Answer 5

SCEPTICS: the problem of evil should be abandoned as it is a harmful concept
- lacks explanatory power
- dangerous and harmful in legal, moral and political contexts

OPPOSITION: needed for society
- can capture moral significance of acts
- need a concept to assign to the extreme
- prevents future evils by acknowledging it
- helps focus our limited energy and resources by quantify what is more evil than another
- can set limits to responses to evil –> do not answer evil with evil

Question 6

evil in a christian context

Answer 6

• single greatest challenge to God
• believed to be created by him as it is believed everything is in God’s control –> free will means the devil is free to tempt
• adam and eve committed moral evil, while the flood is a natural evil
• this problem with God and evil can be overcome by belief in Jesus’ miracles –> why does God prevent disaster here?

Question 7

the LOGICAL problem of evil

Answer 7

the inconsistent triad contain an inconsistent statement –> not all three can be true

1. god is all loving
2. god is all powerful
3. evil exists

Question 8

2 arguments which support the fact that all three statements in the inconsistent triad can be true

Answer 8

1. the FREE WILL DEFENSE
   - god has to allow evil to preserve free will, as good has to be freely chosen
   - to bring about the best goods, we must be free to choose/experience the best evils
   - if God controlled evil there would be no freedom
   - humans are therefore morally responsible for moral evil and not God
2. Hicks Eschatological solution
   - Eschatology is the theology of what will happen at the end of the universe (death, judgement, heaven and hell)
   - Hick says God has all the time he wants in which to bring people to freely love the Good, so in the end everyone will reach God’s kingdom
   - evil is a necessary process by which we become fit for heaven

Question 9

the EVIDENTIAL problem of evil

how do we make this argument, linking with God

Answer 9

this problem argues that evil is: ARBRITARY (doesnt achieve anything), GRATUITOUS (no benefit), and has PLENITUDE (abundance)

• it uses evidence to conclude that evil is overwhelming in quality and quantity, and is pointless because it serves no useful purpose –> IT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A GREATER GOOD
• the evidence tells us that evil is the defined characteristic of existence, and the plenitude observed does not lead to belief in a God of love who created the world
• the evidential problem of evil is made worse by God’s omniscience

Question 10

arguments showing the evidential problem of evil

Answer 10

• the great dying where 90% of the population of marine species and 70% of land animals dissapeared due to catastrophic events –> natural evil
• mount Vesuvius eruption in pompeii
• Dostoyevsky: the brothers Karamazov –> a little girl who experiences horrors but still prays to God for protection yet it continues –> God allows such horrors upon innocents when there is no greater good achieved

Question 11

Rowe’s evidential problem of evil

Answer 11

conerns intense human and animal suffering –> great plentitude and a clear case of intrinsic evil

1. there are moments of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient god could have prevented
2. an omniscient wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering
3. therefore an omniscient, wholly good, omnipotent being does not exist

since the premises are rational and can be accepted, so can athiest the conclusion

CONCERNS THE INTENSITY/SCALE OF THE EVIL

Question 12

Rowe’s examples evidential problem of evil

Answer 12

• deer dying in a forest fire: arbitrary and disproportionate evil, extends beyond human suffering
• 5 year old raped killed and beaten: gross amount of suffering, what is the point of this moral evil, such plentitude and it is arbitrary
• demonstrates Gods Love? who is learning, did the 5 year old/deer have to experience all of it

Question 13

similarities and differences between the logical and evidential problem of evil

Answer 13

S:
- Questions gods qualities and existence

D:
- E: takes into account the plenitude and arbitrary nature of evil due to EXPERIENCE –> no greater good, God’s omniscience? omnibenevolence?

Question 14

David hume and the logical problem of evil

what does he call it

Answer 14

saw the problem of evil as ‘the rock of athiesm’

• Gods omnipotence is incompatible with evil, and so is his omniscience –> creates an a priori argument
• philo claims the logical problem is unanswerable and is more concerned with the evidential problem

Question 15

david hume and the evidential problem of evil (prior probability)

Answer 15

prior probability
- would anyone conclude that God make the universe if they were observing it for the first time and werent already religious? (house full of imperfections made supposedly by a great architect)
- the stranger would conclude it was not made by a good God –> a good creator god has a low prior prob

Question 16

hume, E problem and natural evil

Answer 16

pain: physical abilities = god so feeling pain is against god
- pain is not necessary as living creatures are just as motivated by pleasure
- being created with the purpose of feeling pain = not a good god

laws of nature
- laws needed for science and reason but produce misery (gravity = falling to your death)

nature is cheap:
- given only basic necessities for survival when god could give us more –> more than the baseline, as if any of these things fail we die
- nature is parsimonious –> why are we morally, intellectually and physically handicapped

poor workmanship of nature
- deviation from the norm causes misery –> natures laws demonstrates misery, parsimony and disorganisation (dysteleological argument)

Question 17

humes solutions to the problem of evil

Answer 17

1. sceptical theism –> god is good in ways we dont understand; hume: must abandon religion therefore as you cannot worship a being too different from you
   - we could accept bc of our numinous experience
2. house –> hume thinks that the flaws preventing a larger atrocity isnt good enough and a perfect being should reduce the flaws/our suffering bc he is able to –> focus on the empirical
3. philo concludes that a morally neutral deity best explains the universe —> too much evil for a good deity, too much good for an evil deity and too much regularity for multiple gods —> single god who does not care (DEISM)

Question 18

has hume solved the problem of evil

Answer 18

YES:
- establishes the L problem is a priori proof god doesnt exist bc his characteristics contradict: cannot exist when evil does
- evidential p: if God can exist, the potential that he does is low –> stranger model concludes it is not apparent that God created the world through evidence and the universe could have less suffering and not have any logical contradiction/loss of goodness

NO:
- asserts the L prob and does not defend it –> proposes deism but without his religious moral perfection: many theodicies explain why God may permit evil
- hume deliberately ignores doctrine based theodicies and doesnt consider the afterlife , the fall or satan even though they are important theodicies to religious believers
- concentrates exclusively on happiness (lack of physical suffering) but a good God might be more concerned with other things (free will or soul making)