The Logical Problem of Evil in Religious Belief

The logical problem of evil questions how a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent could allow evil and suffering to exist in the world. Epicurus' formulation challenges the traditional views on God's attributes and raises questions about why such suffering exists despite the belief in a perfect creator.

• Religion
• Evil
• God
• Philosophy
• Epicurus

tcarc Follow

Uploaded on Oct 07, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Challenges to religious belief The logical problem of evil and suffering

2. What is the logical problem of evil identified by Epicurus? Page 4 Evil creates a challenge to those who have a belief in the God of classical theism This includes the belief that God is: Omnipotent (all powerful) Omnibenevolent (all loving) Omniscient (all knowing)

3. It is argued that if God created the universe and everything within it then He could have made the world in any way He chose. He could have chosen to make a world where natural disasters never happen and where people are incapable of hurting each other. He could have made a world where animals were able to survive without killing each other, or where death was painless and people felt no grief. But He didn t. He created the world we live in and experience every day. How could an omnipotent God fail at the task of creating a perfect world and keeping it perfect? If the world was created perfect and has since gone wrong , why has He not used His omnipotence to make it right again? Similarly, if God is omniscient then He must have known what the world was going to be like when He made it; and He must have known how we would behave (as He is responsible for our creation also). If this is the way God intended the world to be, then He cannot be omnibenevolent. Why did God not anticipate genocide, hurricanes or cancer? Or if He did, why did He not change it? Discussion Point The problem of evil isn t a problem for everyone. Why do you think this is?

4. Epicurean formulation Epicurus (341-270 BCE) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and founder of a school of philosophy known as Epicureanism. His works are not well preserved, and most of our knowledge of him comes from later commentators and followers. Epicureanism afforded a role to the gods but they were not thought to be involved in the universe in any way; a huge contrast to the later Christian idea of an involved and personal creator God. His formulation of the inconsistent triad is sometimes referred to the classic formulation. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

5. The problem continued If God is omni benevolent then he would wish to end all evil and suffering No all loving God would allow His creation to suffer physical and mental pain If God is omnipotent then he can do anything. He created our universe so he could have created a world free from evil and suffering He could end all evil

6. However, evil and suffering do exist in the world, so either God is not omnipotent or omnibenevolent OR he does not exist!

7. The result of evil Suffering Evil E.g. over 6 million suffered and died in the Nazi Holocaust

8. The problem of suffering page 5 Read page 5 Complete tasks 4 and 5 ? ?

9. Mackies reformulation of the logical problem page 6 J.L Mackie claims the problem of evil as a simple case of logical inconsistency logically impossible that there can be a God Mackie argued that the existence of evil and the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God are logically incompatible. And since we know evil exists, therefore God must not exist. Mackie said: If you are prepared to say that God is not wholly good, or not quite omnipotent, or that evil does not exist, or that good is not opposed to the kind of evil that exists, or that there are limits to what an omnipotent thing can do, then the problem of evil will not arise for you

10. Mackie presents a simple form of the argument: 1.God is omnipotent. 2.God is wholly good. 3.Evil exists. Your Task Read through, complete the tasks and make notes on, the additional premises and conclusion of Mackie s argument on page 6-7 of your booklets . Mackie s additional premises 1. Good is opposed to evil 2. Good always eliminates evil as far as it can 3. There are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. 4. Unqualified omnipotence cannot be ascribed to a being that continues through time

11. The inconsistent triad page 3 The problem of evil is often expressed as the inconsistent triad

12. Task Epicurus and Rowe Split an A4 page in two and create a summary of both formulations of the inconsistent triad. Mackie concludes that unqualified omnipotence cannot be ascribed to any being that continues through time . What do you think he meant by this and why did he reach that conclusion? Do you agree with the additional premises? Does good always eliminate evil, or is it sometimes better to allow evil to remain?

13. William Rowe (intense human and animal suffering) Evidence of evil and suffering What is Rowe s argument?

14. William Rowe Intense Suffering Rowe s argument is an evidential argument; evidential arguments from evil seek to show that the presence of evil in the world inductively supports or makes likely the claim that God does not exist. Rowe focused on a particular kind of evil that is found in our world in abundance intense human and animal suffering. This occur on a daily basis, and is a case of intrinsic evil: it is bad in and of itself. He put forward his argument as: There exist instances of intense suffering which an omniscient, omnipotent 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 intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

15. Rowe recap What does evidential mean? What type of argument did he develop to challenge the existence of God?

16. Rowe His argument rests on one key premise: that a wholly good God would not permit any gratuitous evil that is evil that is avoidable, pointless or unnecessary according to God s ultimate plan. He offered a factual premise to support his argument (premises taken from what he believed were examples that represented common occurrences).

17. Rowe Fawn example Hypothetical Read the Rowe example on page 9 1. Write a brief summary in your notes. 2. What point do you think Rowe is trying to make with his fawn example?

18. Rowe An example of innocent suffering The case of Sue This is an actual event in which a five-year-old girl in Flint, Michigan was severely beaten, raped and then strangled to death early on New Year s Day in 1986. 1. Write a brief summary of the Sue s suffering from page 9 2. What is this example attempting to show? There cannot be a God So much evil in the world

19. Gregory Paul Premature Deaths Read the summary sheet and add it to your booklet Paul challenges belief in the God of Classical Theism 1. What does this mean? His argument, very simply, is that if a creator exists, He has made an environment with huge amounts of suffering, that is beyond humans control. The extent of this evil does not allow for an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent creator God.

20. There have been around 100bn humans born to date. The majority of conceptions do not run to full term. As such, there have been around 300bn natural prenatal deaths. c.1900 the juvenile mortality rate in England and the United States was more than 25%. c.1900 in the United States around 13% of infants died and 20% of under-5 year olds. Pre-1800 around 50% of people died before maturity. There have probably been around 50bn infants and children that have died around 50% of total born. Total combined deceased = 350bn Total lived to maturity = 50bn 2. Choose (at least) three of these statistics and incorporate them into a paragraph that you could use to explain and exemplify Paul s ideas in an essay

21. Pauls additional arguments 1. There is no historical evidence that the prayer of Christians has reduced suffering by children in areas of Christian majorities, which one might expect in the case of the existence of a Christian God. Paul believes this fact further challenges belief in the existence of God. 2. Finally, Paul makes reference to Christian ideas of heaven and the afterlife. In order to be prepared for heaven, imperfect humans must undergo experiences that render us perfect . We need a level of maturity to truly enjoy and exercise our free will in order to reach perfection; children do not have this level of maturity and therefore cannot truly exercise free will. This either means that those who die before maturity are incapable of entering heaven (a), or that they go to heaven without choosing (b). a) If those that can t choose freely to be with God are sent to Hell or held in limbo, this seems unfair. They are in that position because of the world that God created. b) If they go to heaven without choosing then they are not being allowed to truly exercise their free will, and the point of earthly experience has been negated.

22. Your Task 1.What is Paul s main challenge? 2.What evidence does he use to support his challenge? 3.Explain why Paul makes reference to prayer and Heaven and Hell. Extension 1.Which do you think is the strongest argument? Remember to give reasons for your views. 2. Create a revision aid for Rowe and Paul s arguments.

23. Explain the nature of evil and why it challenges belief in a Creator God. Nature of Evil: Natural/Moral. Expect examples to be given, ie Natural: Evil which occurs outside of the direct control of humans, eg earthquakes, tsunami, flooding, volcanic eruption, etc. Moral: Evil which is a direct result of human action: e.g. murder, theft, rape, child abuse, etc. Credit may also be given to candidates who make reference to the concept of metaphysical evil (as outlined by Aristotle/Aquinas). Reference must also be made to how the nature of evil presents a challenge to the concept of a Creator God, ie If God created ex nihilo then he must be responsible for the existence of evil, both natural and moral. Candidates may address this as per the consistent triad, (also permit inconsistent quadrilateral - with added quality of omniscience), inconsistency of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and existence of evil and how removing any of these criteria can offer a solution to the Problem of Evil but in doing so creates further problems, e.g. denies either the concept of the God of classical theism or the existence of evil - neither of which is a satisfactory explanation. (Some candidates may also interrogate the notion that evil does not pose a challenge to belief in the existence if a Creator God but does to a good creator God), etc.

24. Explain why the issue of evil poses a challenge to a belief in the existence of God Q.3 (a) Reference must be made to what the problem of evil is as per the inconsistent triad (also permit inconsistent quadrilateral with added quality of omniscience) inconsistency of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and existence of evil and how removing any of these criteria can offer a solution to the Problem of Evil but in doing so, creates further problems, e.g. denies either the concept of the God of classical theism or the existence of evil neither of which is a satisfactory explanation. (Some candidates may also interrogate the notion that evil does not pose a challenge to belief in the existence of God but does to a good God). Reference may also be made to the types of evil and their relevance to the debate, i.e. Natural. Evil which occurs outside of the direct control of humans, e.g. earthquakes, tsunami, flooding, volcanic eruption, etc. Moral: Evil which is a direct result of human action, e.g. murder, theft, rape, child abuse, etc. Candidates may also make reference to problems of animal suffering incompatible with majority of theodicies. Therefore, no explanation as to why they suffer questions God's benevolence. Immensity of suffering questions all of God's characteristics, etc. AO1 [30]