What is the problem of evil?
Traditionally the Problem of Evil (hereafter POE) has been advanced in what is now called the logically POE. This argument is the claim that there is a logical inconsistency between the existence of evil on the one hand and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent being (hereafter when I refer to God, I will be referring to a being with these attributes) on the other. However, this argument is rather hard to motivate. For this reason many advocates have retreated to the logically weaker, but still sufficiently strong, evidential POE. The evidential POE claims that the existence of evil provides good evidence that there is no God. How does this argument go?
It is granted that God, if he exists, might permit evil, as long as he had a good reason for it. God, given the attributes that he has, has the power and inclination to stop evil, therefore, he would only allow evil if there was some overriding reason for it. God, given the attributes that he has, has the power and inclination to stop evil, therefore, he would only allow evil if there was some overriding reason for it.
1. Evil exists
2. There is no good reason for allowing the evil that we in fact see to exist
3. There, God does not exist
The claim is that the greater the amount of evil there is, then the harder it is to imagine that there might be a reason for it. If the evil that was in the world was limited to there always existing a single person with an itch they could not scratch, it would not be hard to imagine that there was some outweighing good that permitted this. However, our observations reveal that there is in fact a lot of evil.
Responses to the POE?
There are four types of response to this argument:
A. The first, and most popular response, is to deny 2 and to provide the reason for the amount of evil in the world. These reasons are called theodicies, and include examples such as the free-will defence and the soul-making defence.
B. The second response is to claim that the POE is a real problem for the classical theist. That the amount of evil in the world really is good evidence that God does not exist. However, there is other evidence that outweighs the evidence provided by the POE. Perhaps the cosmological argument, argument from morality or the argument from design.
C. The third sort of response is that the existence of evil is not very well explained by the existence of God, however, it is also not very well explained by its rivals, and naturalism in particular. This response is probably the most uncommon of the four.
D. The fourth and final type of response is to deny the justification for 2. That is the person who advances the POE seems to be inferring that ‘there is no reason for the evil we see’, from ‘I see no reason for the evil we see’. The claim is that this is a very bad inference because it is unlikely that we would be able to see why God would allow evil. This response is called ‘Sceptical Theism’.
I wish to consider each of these responses in turn to see what their merits are and if they do in fact provide an adequate response to the POE.
Traditionally the Problem of Evil (hereafter POE) has been advanced in what is now called the logically POE. This argument is the claim that there is a logical inconsistency between the existence of evil on the one hand and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent being (hereafter when I refer to God, I will be referring to a being with these attributes) on the other. However, this argument is rather hard to motivate. For this reason many advocates have retreated to the logically weaker, but still sufficiently strong, evidential POE. The evidential POE claims that the existence of evil provides good evidence that there is no God. How does this argument go?
It is granted that God, if he exists, might permit evil, as long as he had a good reason for it. God, given the attributes that he has, has the power and inclination to stop evil, therefore, he would only allow evil if there was some overriding reason for it. God, given the attributes that he has, has the power and inclination to stop evil, therefore, he would only allow evil if there was some overriding reason for it.
1. Evil exists
2. There is no good reason for allowing the evil that we in fact see to exist
3. There, God does not exist
The claim is that the greater the amount of evil there is, then the harder it is to imagine that there might be a reason for it. If the evil that was in the world was limited to there always existing a single person with an itch they could not scratch, it would not be hard to imagine that there was some outweighing good that permitted this. However, our observations reveal that there is in fact a lot of evil.
Responses to the POE?
There are four types of response to this argument:
A. The first, and most popular response, is to deny 2 and to provide the reason for the amount of evil in the world. These reasons are called theodicies, and include examples such as the free-will defence and the soul-making defence.
B. The second response is to claim that the POE is a real problem for the classical theist. That the amount of evil in the world really is good evidence that God does not exist. However, there is other evidence that outweighs the evidence provided by the POE. Perhaps the cosmological argument, argument from morality or the argument from design.
C. The third sort of response is that the existence of evil is not very well explained by the existence of God, however, it is also not very well explained by its rivals, and naturalism in particular. This response is probably the most uncommon of the four.
D. The fourth and final type of response is to deny the justification for 2. That is the person who advances the POE seems to be inferring that ‘there is no reason for the evil we see’, from ‘I see no reason for the evil we see’. The claim is that this is a very bad inference because it is unlikely that we would be able to see why God would allow evil. This response is called ‘Sceptical Theism’.
I wish to consider each of these responses in turn to see what their merits are and if they do in fact provide an adequate response to the POE.
3 comments:
I look forward to this and hope that it generates some good discussion!
It seems to me that the most promising response from the theist perspective is D, which is akin to the 'Book of Job' defense. However, it incurs a considerable cost in the sense that variants of this 'mysterious ways' move can defend any notion of god whatsoever and hence its usefulness as a defense is debatable.
I'm slowly reading through N.T. Wright's Evil and the Justice of God. I look forward to your study Kyle!
Post a Comment