The Problem of Evil
description
Transcript of The Problem of Evil
![Page 1: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Problem of Evil
![Page 2: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Our Question
• Our question is: Does God Exist?
• Theism: God exists.
• Atheism: God does not exist.
• Agnosticism: “I don’t know.”Weak: I happen not to know. Maybe someone
else does.Strong: No one knows (despite what they might
think).Super-Strong: It is impossible for anyone to know.
![Page 3: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Agenda
• The (supposed) nature of God
• The nature of evil
• Incompatibilism and the atheistic argument from evil
• An argument for Incompatibilism
![Page 4: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
We Need Ground Rules
• To clarify the question: What sort of thing is God supposed to be?
• Both atheists and theists should be able to agree on the answer.
![Page 5: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
What Sort of Thing is God?
God is supposed to be: Powerful (Omnipotent, Almighty): God can do anything that can
be done; Knowledgeable (Omniscient): God can know anything that can
be known; and Good (Omnibenevolent): God loves and cares about all his
creatures.
Set aside: The paradox of the stone.
![Page 6: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
God is a Person
• Conclusion from our reflections: If God exists,
he can do things, he knows things, and he cares about things.
• If God exists, he is a person.
![Page 7: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Mere Monotheism
• Mere Monotheism: the doctrine that there exists a person who is almighty, all-knowing, and all-good.
God doesn’t have to look like this
![Page 8: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Remarks on What Needs to be Shown
Theists need to show that a certain kind of person exists.
God, if He exists is not a paperweight is not the Big Bang is not an idea is not an emotion
![Page 9: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Agenda
• The (supposed) nature of God
• The nature of evil
• Incompatibilism and the atheistic argument from evil
• An argument for Incompatibilism
![Page 10: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
There is Evil in this world (or at least bad)
The problem of evil revolves around the claim that…
… there is evil in this world. cruelty, jealousy, pain, depression, torture, injustice, disease, natural calamity of all sorts, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
![Page 11: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Two Kinds of Evil
Natural Evil Artificial Evil
What is it?
Examples
Evil not caused by human actions
Evil caused by human actions
cutting in line (injustice)Making fun of your aunt for her weird dye-job (cruelty)stealing a nickel from your Mom for candy (theft)
hurricanesepidemicstsunamisearthquakes
![Page 12: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Complicating the Distinction I:Natural Evil and Human Action
• Note: natural evil seems to require animal suffering.
• No suffering means no evil – examples: paleozoic volcanic eruptionsthat huge storm on Jupiter
![Page 13: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Complicating the Distinction I:Natural Evil and Human Action
(cont.)• An upshot: some natural evils are made
worse by human action.• Examples:
building a city below the level of an adjoining lake
living at the base of a volcanoraising chickens or other livestock in great
numbers
![Page 14: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Complicating the Distinction II:Artificial Evil and Nature
• Artificial evil almost always requires the cooperation of nature.
• Examples: the villain’s gunThe villain’s radio
![Page 15: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Summary of the complications
i. Some natural evils are bad (or made worse) because of human action.
ii. Almost any artificial evil is bad because of the operation of natural laws.
iii. Some cases are hard to classify. Examples:
global warming the Dust Bowl using bioweapons
![Page 16: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Agenda
• The (supposed) nature of God
• The nature of evil
• Incompatibilism and the atheistic argument from evil
• An argument for Incompatibilism
![Page 17: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Existence of God, Existence of Evil
• Incompatibilism: the doctrine that, if God exists, then bad things do not happen.
• Four positions:
Does God exist?
Do bad things happen?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No No
Compatibilist Theism
Polyanna Theism
Incompatibilist Atheism
Polyanna Atheism
Implausible!
Implausible!
These are the only positions we will be considering
![Page 18: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
The Atheist Argument from Evil
1) Incompatibilism: If God exists, then bad things do not happen.
2) Our Assumption: Bad things happen
(C) Atheism: God does not exist.
We can generate an argument for atheism, if we can establish Incompatibilism:
But why think Incompatibilismis true?
![Page 19: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Agenda
• The (supposed) nature of God
• The nature of evil
• Incompatibilism and the atheistic argument from evil
• An argument for Incompatibilism
![Page 20: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism
1) The Antidote Principle: If God exists, then:
a) He knows when bad things are going to happen;
b) He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from happening;
and
c) He wants bad things not to happen.
2) The Bystander Limitations: If a person P does not prevent something from happening, then either:
a) She didn’t know it would happen;
b) She wasn’t powerful enough to prevent it; or
c) She didn’t want it not to happen.
(C) Incompatibilism: If God exists, then bad things do not happen.
“God is the antidote to
evil”
“There are limits on what
you’ll fail to prevent.”
![Page 21: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism
1) The Antidote Principle: If God exists, then:
a) He knows when bad things are going to happen;
b) He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from happening; and
c) He wants bad things not to happen.
2) The Bystander Limitations: If a person P does not prevent something from happening, then either:
1) She didn’t know it would happen;
2) She wasn’t powerful enough to prevent it; or
3) She didn’t want it not to happen.
(C) Incompatibilism: If God exists, then bad things do not happen.
All-loving
Omnipotent
Omniscient
![Page 22: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Why Think the Bystander Limitations are true?
• The Bystander Limitations admit only three excuses:
• Ignorance: Encyclopedia Brown
• Powerlessness: Coyote
• Indifference: You let your mother give your child a cookie
How could you fail to prevent that from happening?
I didn’t know
I couldn’t do anything
I didn’t care
![Page 23: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism
1) The Antidote Principle: If God exists, then:
a) He knows when bad things are going to happen;
b) He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from happening; and
c) He wants bad things not to happen.
2) The Bystander Limitations: If a person P fails to prevent something from happening, then either:
1) She didn’t know it would happen;
2) She wasn’t powerful enough to prevent it; or
3) She didn’t want it not to happen.
(C) Incompatibilism: If God exists, then bad things do not happen.Indifference
Powerlessness
Ignorance
![Page 24: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Leibniz
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 – 1716)
Leibniz was a mathematician, physicist, and philosopher.
Leibniz is a compatibilist theist.
![Page 25: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Agenda
• Leibniz’s Thesis
• The New Antidote Argument
• The Burden of Theodicy
• Three Objections
![Page 26: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
This is the best of all possible worlds
1) Whoever does not choose the best among several possible alternatives is lacking in power, in knowledge, or in goodness.
2) God is not lacking in power, knowledge or goodness.
3) God chose to create this world out of all of the possible worlds he could have created.
Leibniz argues: this world is the best of all possible worlds.
(C) This world is the best out of all possible worlds.
![Page 27: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Leibniz’s Argument seems a lot like the Antidote Argument
1) Whoever does not choose the best among several possible alternatives is lacking in power, in knowledge, or in goodness.
2) God is not lacking in power, knowledge or goodness.
3) God chose to create this world out of all of the possible worlds he could have created.
(C) This world is the best out of all possible worlds.
… the Antidote Principle
Reminds me of…
… the Bystander Limitations
![Page 28: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Leibniz: Bad Things Happen
“[T]he best plan is not always that which seeks to avoid evil, since it may happen that the evil is accompanied by a greater good. For example, a general of an army will prefer a great victory with a slight wound to a condition without wound and without victory.” (p. 92, col. 1)
• Leibniz: I will tolerate “necessary evils.”• Examples:
the wound is necessary for the victory flu shots high criminal burden of proof
• Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 29: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Agenda
• Leibniz’s Thesis
• The New Antidote Argument
• The Burden of Theodicy
• Three Objections
![Page 30: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
How does this help with the Antidote Argument?
• How does the idea of a necessary evil help with the Antidote Argument?
• Necessary evils present counter-examples to Bystander Limitations:The general allows the wound to happen, even
though he knows it will happen, he could prevent it, and wants it not to happen.
I allow the prick to happen, even though, etc.We allow the guilty to go free, even though, etc.
![Page 31: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Bystander Limitations is False
The Bystander Limitations: If a person P does not prevent something from happening, then either:
a) She didn’t know it would happen;
b) She wasn’t powerful enough to prevent it;
c) She didn’t want it not to happen; OR
d) Allowing it is necessary for her to secure some greater good.
• Leibniz holds that Bystander Limitations is simply false.
• There is a missing condition: we need to allow for necessary evils.
• Once you add this condition, Incompatibilism no longer follows.
![Page 32: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
The New Antidote Argument1) The Antidote Principle: If God exists, then:
a) He knows when bad things are going to happen;
b) He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from happening; and
c) He wants bad things not to happen.
2) The Bystander Limitations: If a person P does not prevent something from happening, then either:
a) She didn’t know it would happen;
b) She wasn’t powerful enough to prevent it;
c) She didn’t want it not to happen;
d) Allowing it is necessary for her to secure some greater good.
(C) Incompatibilism: If God exists, then bad things do not happen.
Here’s the old Antidote Argument:
Here’s the new Bystander Limitations:
(C) “Necessary Evil” Compatibilism: If God exists, then bad things do not happen, unless allowing them to happen is required in order to secure a greater good.
The new argument gets a new conclusion:
OR
![Page 33: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Agenda
• Leibniz’s Thesis
• The New Antidote Argument
• The Burden of Theodicy
• Three Objections
![Page 34: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Leibniz’s Thesis, Amplified
• Theodicy: an argument that the existence of evil is justified.
• Theist strategy: for any given evil, show that it is necessary to achieve a greater good.
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 35: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
How could evil be required to secure a greater good?
• The Free Will Theodicy: a world in which some crabbiness, cruelty, etc., is allowed, but in which some people choose goodness, kindness, sweetness and light is better than any world without crabbiness, cruelty, etc., but in which God forces his creatures to goodness, kindness, sweetness, and light.
• The Appreciation Theodicy: a world in which some misery is allowed, but in which people appreciate what contentment they may find is better than any world full of spoiled but contented ingrates.
![Page 36: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Compatibilism, Weak and Strong
• Weak Compatibilism: God’s existence is compatible in principle with the occurrence of some bad things.
• Strong Compatibilism: God’s existence is compatible with the occurrence of all the bad things that there actually are.
"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." (Charles Darwin, Letter to American botanist Asa Gray, source: wikipedia entry for “Ichneumon”)
source: http://iris.biosci.ohio-state.edu/catalogs/ichneumonids/
![Page 37: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
The Burden of Theodicy
Make a list of all the bad things that have ever actually happened:• B1: Hurricane Katrina, • B2: the Haitian Earthquake, • B3: World War II, …
Strong Compatibilism says: • God’s existence is compatible with B1; and• God’s existence is compatible with B2; and• God’s existence is compatible with B3; and• …
Strong Compatibilism: God’s existence is compatible with the occurrence of all the bad things that there actually are.
![Page 38: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
The Burden of Theodicy
The Theist needs strong compatibilism.
An theodicy is inadequate if a single instance of actual evil is incompatible with the existence of God.
Strong Compatibilism: God’s existence is compatible with the occurrence of all the bad things that there actually are.
![Page 39: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Agenda
• Leibniz’s Thesis
• The New Antidote Argument
• The Burden of Theodicy
• Three Objections
![Page 40: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Three Objections: Agenda
• Pointless Suffering
• Why is All This Evil Necessary?
• The Distribution of Evil
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 41: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Each and every bad thing?
• Pointless suffering: bad things that do not have compensating good effects.
• Examples (?): 100% fatal prehistoric natural
disasters
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 42: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Each and every bad thing?
There are really two related objections here:
i. Existence: some suffering is pointless.
ii. Extent: God seems to be laying it on a bit thick
Examples: sports injuries headaches
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 43: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Three Objections: Agenda
• Pointless Suffering
• Why is All This Evil Necessary?
• The Distribution of Evil
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 44: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Is that really necessary?
• Who makes the rules around here, anyway?
• God, if He exists, is powerful: The general can’t secure a victory without a
wound, but God can; I can’t give someone an immunity to the flu
without some discomfort, but God can.
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 45: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
• A convenient misfire would have come in handy…•Or a good, stiff cross-breeze.
Is that really necessary? (vs. the Free Will Theodicy)
Action
Cause
Misery
•Free Will: the benefits of free will are secured by the time the agent executes her decision.the misery has yet to be caused – that requires cooperation from nature. a minor miracle could save the benefits and prevent the evil.
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 46: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Is that really necessary? (vs. the Appreciation Theodicy)
• Appreciation Theodicy: If God exists, it seems to
be within his power to make us appreciate how good we have it without seeing (or experiencing) misery.
How about movies, or other fake misery, instead of real misery?
Misery
Causes
Appreciation
Gee Willikers,
am I a lucky
ducky!
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 47: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Three Objections: Agenda
• Pointless Suffering
• Why is All This Evil Necessary?
• The Distribution of Evil
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
![Page 48: The Problem of Evil](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062423/56814dba550346895dbb0f79/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
For the greater good? Whose good?
• The idea here is: some people bear the costs of the evil, and others get to reap the benefits.
• This seems unfair; and • Inconsistent with love.
Leibniz’s Thesis: Each bad thing that happens in this world is necessary to secure a greater good.