The Problem of Evil

1. The Problem of Evil The Theistic Problem

2. Why a Problem? • Suffering simply happens; why is this a problem? • Any compassionate being (human or otherwise) would like to see suffering relieved, or at least explained • Theistic doctrines do not seem to offer either present relief from, or consistent explanation of, suffering.

3. Epicurus’ famous formulation of the problem • Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. • Is God able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. • Is he both able and willing? Whence then evil?

4. The Data of Experience There is personal and historical evidence of massive suffering The Definition of God “God” is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. OOG = this definition The Suffering Dilemma

5. Simple Solutions to the Problem of Evil The problem is presented as a polarity of opposites. Hence, denying the truth or accuracy of one of the poles will easily resolve the problem in the abstract. 1. If God is indifferent or malevolent, evil makes positive sense. 2. If there is no evil (that is, if suffering can be explained), then the existence of the OOG God is not challenged.

6. Beyond the Simple Solutions Doctrinal and common-sense considerations work against simple solutions of this problem. Theodicy: A justification of the ways of God to humans, by offering explanations of both kinds of suffering in light of the existence of an all-powerful God.

7. Thinking about “evil” • There are different kinds of suffering: • Natural (caused by natural laws) • Earthquakes, droughts, etc • Moral (causes by moral agents) • War, murder, rape

8. On the Relativity of Defining “Evil” It can be argued that suffering is not evil. If so, suffering requires no particular explanation. Example 1: Evil is not a positive reality which opposes good, but is rather a privation or lack of good. Example 2: Suffering is a part of, or a means to, a greater good.

9. Responses to the idea that Evil is a Privation of Good • ■ Assumes that “goodness” is a metaphysical rather than moral idea: • “Good” = “complete,” full being • “Evil” = “incomplete,” deviation from fully developed nature • ■May assume the OOG God: • To most humans, certain kinds of suffering just are morally unacceptable.

10. The Logical v. the Evidential Problem of Evil Just how strong is this claimed incompatibility between God and evil? • It is insurmountable (the logical assertion) • It is strongly persuasive (the evidential problem)

11. The Logical Problem of Evil The logical problem focuses on the compatibility of the following two claims: 1. “God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving.” 2. “Suffering exists, and is evil.” • Alternately put: • It is claimed that the “evil” of suffering is logically incompatible with the “good” of God, much as the claim that “this is red” is logically incompatible with the claim that “this is not colored.

12. Assumptions of the Logical Problem 1. A good thing always eliminates evil, as far as it can. 2. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

13. Response to the Logical Problem – Assumption 1 It may not be true that a good thing always eliminates evil. ■ It is possible that some evil (suffering) is necessary to some end or some state of reality. Necessary suffering is suffering which is proportionate to a particular goal/state of reality, and which is apportioned justly to suffering beings.

14. Response to the Logical Problem – Assumption 2 “Omnipotence” does not necessarily entail the power to do what is logically impossible. Creating a square circle Controlling a free being • Counter-Response: • If logic itself is created by God, then God is not bound by logical possibility or impossibility.

15. The Evidential Problem of Evil The evidential problem questions the likelihood of God’s existence (as described), given the quantity and quality of human suffering that has existed throughout history. This problem defines such suffering as gratuitous (unnecessary). Most responses to the problem of evil address this evidential issue.

16. On suffering as a means to an end • If suffering is necessary to the achievement of a good, it is not evil. • Kinds of unnecessary evil: • That which produces no good • That which produces a good – but this good could have come into existence without the suffering, or this good is insufficiently valuable to outweigh the evil • That which is inflicted unjustly

17. Examples of Responses to the Evidential Problem of Evil Evil is necessary as a means to good. ■ Evil builds character ■ Good cannot be recognized/appreciated without the recognition/perception of evil. Evil is due to human free will.

18. Responses to the explanations of evil from the evidential perspective • The necessity argument exhibits bias in favor of the preferred solution • Character is destroyed as well as built • If good and evil are mutually dependent, either one could be offered as a foil to highlight the other • Assuming the value of free will outweighs the evil it “necessitates”: • Divine intervention is possible in the outcomes of free actions without interfering with the commission of those free actions.

19. A Final Thought • It cannot be presumed that suffering is justified. The point of argument is to demonstrate from objective data and principles, that one’s conclusion is supported. • This raises a troublesome question: if joy and suffering is ambiguous in life, why assume that God prefers the former (other than, of course, the assumption that this is what He would prefer)?

20. Evil and Karma Moral Chance in a Just Universe

21. Two principles of karmic justice • Universal Justice: • “Each person should have an equal opportunity to achieve happiness and liberation” • The Moral Law • “unless there is a necessary connection between an action’s morality and pain or pleasure, there is no reason to be moral”

22. The necessity of multiple lives • The two principles of karmic justice necessitate more than one life • An absolute response to evil and good is a necessity of justice • pleasure and pain is the mechanism through which this necessity is enabled • an equitable distribution of pleasure and pain doesn’t occur in one life • This is similar to saying that the goodness and power of the OOG God necessitates a way to show that our suffering is not gratuitous

23. Karma and responsibility • Karma refers to that (morally) causal force which ensures universal justice through the working of the moral law. • Karma is an “action-reaction” model, not a “punishment-reward” model • Since your karma emanates from your own freely chosen behavior, your subsequent life is both: • Deserved • A motivation to self-improvement

24. Some Questions about Karma • What is the mechanism (a real explanation) through which a personal action/event affects the future? • How does a subjective event cause an objective event to occur? • How do we know that experienced suffering/happiness is in fact a just response to prior actions?