The Problem of Evil and Suffering

1
The Problem of Evil and Suffering

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

2
Evil

• A prime argument against there being a God
• Term evil usually refers to something morally
  wrong
• Philosophers distinguish between moral evil and
  natural evil
• Consequence of evil is suffering

3
The problem of evil

• God is described as
• All-knowing
• All-powerful
• All-loving
• If all-knowing he knows we suffer
• If all-powerful he can stop suffering
• If all-loving he would want to stop suffering
• We do suffer
• Therefore God is either not as described or
  simply does not exist

4
Different gods

• The problem of evil is specific to religions
  following classic theism e.g. Christianity,
  Judaism
• Other religions allow for more that one god, one
  of which could be responsible for our suffering

5
David Hume

• Hume considers that the problem of evil is too
  great to be dismissed
• Therefore to accept that evil exists means
  accepting that God is either impotent or
  malicious
• This leads to the death of the God of classical
  theism
• Therefore God does not exist

6
Thomas Aquinas

• Aquinas agreed, the presence of evil logically
  leads to the absence of a God
• However, whilst Hume was an atheist Aquinas was a
  believer
• This is because
• The logical argument only works if we accept
• That the concept of infinite goodness is part of
  the definition of God
• In talking about Gods goodness we are referring
  to the same thing as human goodness

7
Augustines TheodicyThe origin of evil

• God is perfect
• God made the world perfect
• Evil is a deprivation
• A deprivation cannot be created
• Therefore God cannot be blamed for evil

8
Augustines TheodicyThe possibility of evil

• Evil comes from angels and humans who choose to
  turn away from God
• The possibility of evil is necessary
• Only God is perfect, created beings are
  susceptible to change
• Everyone is guilty as everyone was seminally
  present in Adam
• Therefore we all deserve punishment

9
Augustines TheodicyPunishment for evil

• Human action destroyed natural order that brought
  about natural evil
• Natural evil is a fitting punishment
• Therefore God is right not to intervene and stop
  the suffering
• However, God does show his mercy and justice by
  saving some through Jesus Christ

10
Augustines TheodicyStrengths

• Brian Davies supports idea that evil is not a
  substance
• 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 evil
• Free will supports idea that humans responsible
  for evil
• Plantinga argues that if humans created so that
  they can only choose good they would not be free.
• Accounts for natural evil which came through
  moral evil
• Reasonable to accept the value of free will being
  worth the risk of evil
• Augustines account is popular with Christians as
  it fits with the creation account

11
Augustines TheodicyWeeknesses

• Logical errors
• Schleiermacher argued that there is a logical
  contradiction in the idea of a perfect world
  going wrong
• Even if evil is a deprivation it is still present
  in the world
• A further contradiction appears by saying that
  people with no knowledge of good and evil can
  choose to do evil.
• This implies that knowledge of evil had to be
  given by God

12
Augustines TheodicyWeeknesses

• Scientific errors
• Evolution has shown the difficulties in accepting
  the Genesis story on which Augustine relies
• Biological understanding shows that people cannot
  have been seminally present in Adam
• Therefore God would be unjust to punish everyone.

13
Augustines TheodicyWeeknesses

• Moral errors
• Hell appears to be part of the universe which
  means that God must have created it knowing the
  world would go wrong
• Gods saving of some show an irrational approach
  to mercy and raises serious questions about his
  goodness

14
Irenaeus TheodicyA perfectly imperfect creation

• Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus accepted that God was
  at least partly to blame for presence of evil,
  but with good reason
• Gods aim in creation was to make perfect people
• Human perfection cannot be ready made and has to
  develop

15
Irenaeus TheodicyThe only choice is free will

• God had to give free choice and therefore freedom
  to disobey
• This leads to the possibility of evil
• Therefore the natural order had to be designed
  with the possibility for doing harm

16
Irenaeus TheodicyEvil is justified

• Humans used free will to disobey God and brought
  about suffering
• God cannot remove evil as that would compromise
  our freedom
• Eventually everyone will develop into the
  likeness of God overcoming all evil.
• Therefore temporal evil is justified

17
Irenaeus TheodicyStrengths

• John Hick agreed that free will was necessary
• The love of a robot has no value
• Peter Vardy also agrees
• Only love that is offered freely is of value

18
Irenaeus TheodicyStrengths

• If we accept that human perfection has to be
  developed, then
• We had to be created imperfect
• Have to be free to be able to go against God
• We had to be distanced from God
• J Hick refers to this as epistemic distance
• The natural world could not be a paradise
• True freedom demands that we can cause harm

19
Irenaeus TheodicyStrengths

• The counterfactual hypothesis considers the
  consequences of a situation being brought about
  in a different way to what in fact happens.
• The counterfactual hypothesis shows that the
  purposes of God could not be achieve without the
  presence of evil and suffering
• Hick concludes that while our world is not
• designed for the maximisation of human pleasure
  and the minimisation of human pain, it may
  nevertheless be rather well adapted to the quite
  different purpose of soul-making
• John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4th edn, 1990

20
Irenaeus TheodicyStrengths

• Life does not always end in human development
• Many suffer badly throughout life
• Therefore only a supreme life in heaven can
  justify the present suffering
• Even evil people are victims are deserve the
  mercy and justice of God

21
Irenaeus TheodicyWeaknesses

• Concept of heaven for all is unjust
• It does not correspond with biblical view of
  eternal punishment
• It makes good moral behaviour pointless
• Therefore there is no incentive to develop which
  is the point of Irenaeus theodicy

22
Irenaeus TheodicyWeaknesses

• Quanity and gravity of suffering is out of
  proportion to rewards
• Even if suffering is necessary it could be
  restricted.
• If Jews had to die in the Holocaust why not 1
  million instead of 6 million
• Suffering cannot be an expression of gods love
• D Z Phillips agues that it is never justifiable
  to harm someone in order to help them
• Note that this is precisely what the medical
  profession do when operating on someone

23
Irenaeus TheodicyWeaknesses

• Concept of heaven for all is unjust
• It does not correspond with biblical view of
  eternal punishment
• It makes good moral behaviour pointless
• Therefore there is no incentive to develop, which
  is the point of Irenaeus theodicy

24
Conclusions

• Both theodicies claim that free will is essential
• For Augustine evil is unavoidable for free will
  to exist
• For Irenaeus evil is seen as a necessity in order
  that humans can develop
• J L Mackie argued that as some people choose what
  is right, God could have created beings that
  always chose to do right.
• This idea is challenged on the basis that to only
  have the ability to choose right is the same as
  no choice at all and amounts to the loss of free
  will.

25
Putting it altogether

• Write bullet points that show how you would go
  about answering the following exam question
• Explain either the theodicy of Augustine or of
  Ireneaus. (33)
• Suffering does not make us better people, it
  just makes us miserable. Discuss (17)