The Problem of Evil

1. The Problem of Evil

2. Terminology Theist: Someone who believes in the existence of God. Atheist: Someone who believes that God does not exist. Agnostic: Someone who does not have a belief regarding the existence of God (she neither believes that God exists, nor does she believe that God does not exist).

3. The Logical Problem of Evil Two Claims • God (an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being) exists. • Evil exists. • The logical problem of evil tries to show that these propositions are inconsistent.

4. The Logical Problem of Evil A set of beliefs or propositions are inconsistent when they collectively entail a contradiction. Contradiction: A proposition of the form P&~P. A proposition like this can never be true.

5. The Logical Problem of Evil If this version of the argument is sound, it will show that the theist’s beliefs cannot all be true simultaneously. In other words, it would show that the theist is irrational in holding all of the relevant beliefs.

6. The Logical Problem of Evil • The Logical Problem of Evil • Evil exists. • If God existed, then no evil would exist. • Therefore, God does not exist.

7. The first premise From David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: “Were a stranger to drop on a sudden into this world, I would show him, as a specimen of its ills…

8. The first premise …an hospital full of diseases,

9. The first premise …a prison crawling malefactors and debtors,

10. The first premise …a field of battle strewn with carcasses,

11. The first premise a nation languishing under tyranny,

12. The first premise a nation languishing under tyranny, famine,

13. The first premise a nation languishing under tyranny, famine, or pestilence.”

14. The first premise To Hume’s list we could add other causes of suffering: • Earthquakes • Tsunamis and hurricanes • Genocide • Cruelty to animals • Birth defects • Mental illness

15. announcements • For next time read Norcross’ “Puppies, Pigs, and People” (41-57) • The paper will be handed out at the end of lecture and posted online (under a new tab for “paper prompts”). It is due Monday 21st.

16. The Logical Problem of Evil • Evil exists. • If God existed, then no evil would exist. • Therefore, God does not exist.

17. The Second Premise Why can’t the theist simply maintain that God’s existence is compatible with the existence of evil (in other words, deny premise 2)?

18. The Second Premise • If God exists, then he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. • Since God is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate all evil. • Since God is omniscient, he knows about all the evil. • Since God is perfectly good, he would eliminate all the evil he knows about and has the power to eliminate. • (From 2-4) if God exists, he has the disposition, power and knowledge necessary to eliminate all evil. • Therefore, if God existed, evil would not exist..

19. The Second Premise • If God exists, then he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good. • Since God is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate all evil. • Since God is omniscient, he knows about all the evil. • Since God is perfectly good, he would eliminate all the evil he knows about and has the power to eliminate. • (From 2-4) if God exists, he has the disposition, power and knowledge necessary to eliminate all evil. • Therefore, if God existed, evil would not exist..

20. An objection to the logical problem The argument just sketched relies on the claim that God’s goodness entails that he would seek to eliminate all evil. Is this true? Rowe points out that the theist has very good reasons to reject this claim.

21. An objection to the logical problem • Suppose you have a severe infection in your leg. • A doctor determines that the only way to save your life is to amputate the leg and she does so. • This causes you suffering (both in the recovery, and in your everyday life following the surgery) • Does the doctor causing your suffering in this way impugn her goodness? • Clearly not!

22. An objection to the logical problem • She causes you the suffering of losing a limb in order to avoid the greater evil of your death.

23. An objection to the logical problem • The Theist’s Response to the Logical Problem • An omnibenevolent God could allow evil if allowing that evil prevented a greater evil. • AND • An omnibenevolent God could allow evil if allowing that evil produced a greater good.

24. An objection to the logical problem Recall that we were trying to show that belief in God is inconsistent with the existence of evil. But now all the theist has to show is that it is possible that God could secure greater goods or prevent greater evils by allowing some evil into the world. This is an extraordinarily low bar.

25. The logical problem of evil • Suppose that struggling hard for some accomplishment makes achieving it much more satisfying: • The reward of overcoming the struggles is greater than the suffering. • By allowing us to struggle towards some end, God could be granting us a good that could not be secured in any other way.

26. The logical problem of evil • The logical problem of evil fails because it simply isn’t true that God’s existence is incompatible with the existence of any evil whatsoever.

27. The Evidential problem of evil Rowe acknowledges this point and presents a much more subtle and powerful argument against God’s existence. Rowe’s Question: Is it rational to believe in God given the evil that we actually find in the world.

28. The Evidential problem of evil • The Evidential Problem of Evil • There exist instances of suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. • An omniscient wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting an equally bad or worse evil. • Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

29. The evidential problem • Let’s call an evil that does not prevent some greater evil or allow some greater good an unjustified evil. • We can restate the argument more simply as follows: • Unjustified evil exists. • God, being wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient, would prevent any unjustified evils from existing. • Therefore, God does not exist.

30. The evidential problem of evil • The argument is valid. The theist must therefore argue against one of the premises to avoid the conclusion. • But premise 2 seems undeniably true. If God is wholly good, he must have some sufficient reason for any suffering he allows. • The debate will be over premise 1: that unjustified evils exist.

31. The evidential problem • This version of the argument (unlike the logical problem) is not committed to the claim that God is incompatible with the existence of any evil whatsoever. • The claim is, instead, that there are particular instances of suffering in the world that God could not allow given his perfect goodness.

32. The fawn in the woods

33. The fawn in the woods • Things like this happen. • The fawn’s suffering does not seem to prevent some greater evil or secure some greater good. • An omnipotent being could have easily prevented the fawn from suffering either by whisking it out of the fire or at least allowing it to die earlier.

34. The problem of little evils • The theist is committed to claiming that no suffering is unjustified. • Suppose I stubbed my toe as I wandered sleepily to my bathroom this morning. • That pain accomplished nothing, but to make me angry. • God could have just moved that shoe out of the way or guided my foot around it.

35. The evidential Problem of Evil • Examples of Suffering • Hume’s litany of evils. • The fawn in the woods. (Rowe) • The problem of little evils. The theist must claim that all evils are justified by either preventing some greater evil, or allowing some greater good. How?

36. Free Will A world in which I have free will is vastly better for me than any world in which I don’t have free will. Having free will entails having the ability to choose to do evil. Therefore, God allows the existence of evil because the positives (free will) outweigh the negatives (suffering).

37. Free Will There are at least three significant problems with this explanation.

38. Free Will Problem #1 • For this response to work it must be the case that the good of possessing free will outweighs the suffering one might have because of this freedom. • We can suffer a lot.

39. Free Will Problem #2 Couldn’t God have brought it about that we are simply unable to severely harm one another? We don’t think that we lack free will because we cannot harm people using only our minds. Why should it be an imposition on our free will if we could not harm other people at all?

40. Free Will Problem #3 Even if we grant the argument’s conclusion, it is only capable of explaining evil of human origin. There is lots of this, but there is also suffering that decisions of humans are not the cause of.

41. Free Will Problem #3 • Hurricanes, diseases, old age, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, famine, drought, floods, deadly animals, spiders, etc. • This explanation also doesn’t help with the fawn in the woods.

42. Natural Law Another way to argue that all the evil in the world we observe is justified has to do with the need for natural laws.

43. Natural Law • Events in the world must take place in a regular and predictable way in order for effective actions to be possible. • Events will exhibit regular patterns only if they are constrained by natural laws. • If events are governed by natural laws, then necessarily those laws will give rise to disasters that will harm individuals. • Therefore, a benevolent God could allow suffering insofar as it resulted from the necessary natural laws.

44. Natural Law One problem with this explanation is that it does not account for the suffering that is caused by humans.

45. Natural Law How about this strategy: • Use the existence of free will to explain evil caused by humans. • Use the need for natural laws to explain naturally cause evils.

46. Natural Law • Natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, drought, famine) • Pernicious organisms (poisonous spiders, snakes, crocodiles, hippos, etc.) • Diseases (HIV, Ebola, influenza, the bubonic plague, malaria, etc.) • Birth defects • Aging effects • Mental Illness

47. Natural Law It is not at all clear why the existence of regularities entails any of these things. • The natural laws could have been different in such a way that one or all of these things did not arise. • The starting conditions of the universe could have been different, so that one or all of these things did not arise. • There could have been divine tinkering (miracles) to insure that one or all of these things did not arise.

48. Final Stand The theist can acknowledge that she does not have any good explanation for the evil of the world. But God is a being so far beyond our understanding that his reasons could never be known by us.

49. Final Stand The evidential problem of evil looks like this: • Unjustified evil exists. • If God existed, then no unjustified evil would exist. • Therefore, God does not exist.

50. Final Stand But this argument is also valid: • God exists. • If God exists, then no unjustified evil would exist. • Therefore, no unjustified evils exist.