If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
The nature of moral evil and natural evil
- Natural evil is the pain and suffering of sentient beings that occurs
independently of human actions and is caused by natural events and
processes.
- So, humans are not responsible for natural evil
- Natural evil examples: earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, cancer, animal
suffering and birth defects.
- God designed and created the natural world which seems to make God
responsible for the evil and suffering that occurs as a result of nature
- Moral evil is the pain and suffering of sentient beings that occurs because of
human actions. A human chooses to carry out evil actions towards others.
- Moral evil is connected to human free will, because humans have the ability
to choose between right and wrong actions.
- Moral evil examples: murder, torture, war, theft, abuse and discrimination.
The logical problem of evil
- The logical problem of evil is the argument that God’s omnipotence,
omniscience and supreme goodness and the existence of evil are logically
inconsistent
- It is an attempt at a deductive argument. If the premises are true they
guarantee the truth of the conclusion
- P1: If God exists, then God is omnipotent.
- P2: An omnipotent being would be able to prevent/eliminate evil.
, - Aquinas argues that God is capable of applying his perfection to do
anything which is possible to do. There is nothing logically impossible
about removing evil, so God could do it
- P3: If God exists then God is wholly good (omnibenevolent).
- P4: A wholly good being would be opposed to evil and so would
prevent/eliminate evil as far as it could.
- God is supremely good - God does not do or command anything that is
morally wrong. Evil is morally wrong. So, God would be opposed to evil
and so would prevent/eliminate evil as far as it could
- P5: If God exists then God is omniscient.
- P6: An omniscient being would know that evil exists and/or that it is about to
come into existence.
- This is because God is perfectly knowledgeable of all true propositions
and he is capable of applying this perfection to know everything which
is possible to know. So, he would know the propositions that evil exists
and/or that it is about to come into existence
- P7: Therefore, if God exists then evil would not (and could not) exist.
- P8: Evil exists.
- C: Therefore, God does not exist.
The evidential problem of evil
- This is the argument that the existence of evil, though not logically
incompatible with God’s existence, nonetheless makes the existence of God
unlikely/improbable.
- The evidential problem of evil is a non-deductive (ie inductive/abductive)
argument where the conclusion (that God does not exist) is not guaranteed
but is, nonetheless, well-supported by the reasoning. So, the truth of the
premises establishes that the conclusion is likely true - though not
guaranteed.
- P1: If God exists then God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.
- God is perfectly knowledgeable, loving and powerful. He is capable of
applying this perfection to do, know, do good in anything which is
logically possible
, - P2: If such a being exists, then any evil that exists must exist for a morally
good reason
- Given God’s knowledge of and capacity to stop/remove evil
- P3: We do not know of any morally good reason that would justify the
existence of the quantity, quality, distribution and pointlessness of some evil
events that exist.
- Rowe gives two vivid examples: the extensive, intense suffering of a
child (moral evil) and the suffering of a fawn (natural evil). The (actual)
case of the child concerns Sue: 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. The hypothetical case of the fawn is described thus:
far away in a forest, lightning strikes a dead tree and sparks a wildfire.
During the blaze, a young deer becomes trapped and suffers severe
burns. It remains in intense pain for several days before finally dying
and being released from its suffering.
- Moreover, God created a world where evil is seemingly distributed
based on arbitrary factors such as income, religion or borders.
- P4: If we do not know of any morally good reason for many evil events (such
as the ones exemplified above), then there probably isn’t a morally good
reason for at least some of these events
- C1: Therefore, for at least some evil events, there isn’t a morally good reason
that would justify them.
- C2: Therefore, God probably doesn’t exist
The Free Will Defence (including Alvin Plantinga)
- A defense against the problem of evil is a logical argument that shows that
the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God does
not logically contradict the existence of evil in the world
- The Free Will defense attempts to show this by arguing that the ‘gift’ of free
will is worth the consequent unavoidable risk of moral evil that may result
from it (ie that P4 above is false)
- Moral evil is therefore our fault, rather than God’s.
- P1: A world with free creatures is more valuable than a world made with no
free creatures at all
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
The nature of moral evil and natural evil
- Natural evil is the pain and suffering of sentient beings that occurs
independently of human actions and is caused by natural events and
processes.
- So, humans are not responsible for natural evil
- Natural evil examples: earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, cancer, animal
suffering and birth defects.
- God designed and created the natural world which seems to make God
responsible for the evil and suffering that occurs as a result of nature
- Moral evil is the pain and suffering of sentient beings that occurs because of
human actions. A human chooses to carry out evil actions towards others.
- Moral evil is connected to human free will, because humans have the ability
to choose between right and wrong actions.
- Moral evil examples: murder, torture, war, theft, abuse and discrimination.
The logical problem of evil
- The logical problem of evil is the argument that God’s omnipotence,
omniscience and supreme goodness and the existence of evil are logically
inconsistent
- It is an attempt at a deductive argument. If the premises are true they
guarantee the truth of the conclusion
- P1: If God exists, then God is omnipotent.
- P2: An omnipotent being would be able to prevent/eliminate evil.
, - Aquinas argues that God is capable of applying his perfection to do
anything which is possible to do. There is nothing logically impossible
about removing evil, so God could do it
- P3: If God exists then God is wholly good (omnibenevolent).
- P4: A wholly good being would be opposed to evil and so would
prevent/eliminate evil as far as it could.
- God is supremely good - God does not do or command anything that is
morally wrong. Evil is morally wrong. So, God would be opposed to evil
and so would prevent/eliminate evil as far as it could
- P5: If God exists then God is omniscient.
- P6: An omniscient being would know that evil exists and/or that it is about to
come into existence.
- This is because God is perfectly knowledgeable of all true propositions
and he is capable of applying this perfection to know everything which
is possible to know. So, he would know the propositions that evil exists
and/or that it is about to come into existence
- P7: Therefore, if God exists then evil would not (and could not) exist.
- P8: Evil exists.
- C: Therefore, God does not exist.
The evidential problem of evil
- This is the argument that the existence of evil, though not logically
incompatible with God’s existence, nonetheless makes the existence of God
unlikely/improbable.
- The evidential problem of evil is a non-deductive (ie inductive/abductive)
argument where the conclusion (that God does not exist) is not guaranteed
but is, nonetheless, well-supported by the reasoning. So, the truth of the
premises establishes that the conclusion is likely true - though not
guaranteed.
- P1: If God exists then God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.
- God is perfectly knowledgeable, loving and powerful. He is capable of
applying this perfection to do, know, do good in anything which is
logically possible
, - P2: If such a being exists, then any evil that exists must exist for a morally
good reason
- Given God’s knowledge of and capacity to stop/remove evil
- P3: We do not know of any morally good reason that would justify the
existence of the quantity, quality, distribution and pointlessness of some evil
events that exist.
- Rowe gives two vivid examples: the extensive, intense suffering of a
child (moral evil) and the suffering of a fawn (natural evil). The (actual)
case of the child concerns Sue: 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. The hypothetical case of the fawn is described thus:
far away in a forest, lightning strikes a dead tree and sparks a wildfire.
During the blaze, a young deer becomes trapped and suffers severe
burns. It remains in intense pain for several days before finally dying
and being released from its suffering.
- Moreover, God created a world where evil is seemingly distributed
based on arbitrary factors such as income, religion or borders.
- P4: If we do not know of any morally good reason for many evil events (such
as the ones exemplified above), then there probably isn’t a morally good
reason for at least some of these events
- C1: Therefore, for at least some evil events, there isn’t a morally good reason
that would justify them.
- C2: Therefore, God probably doesn’t exist
The Free Will Defence (including Alvin Plantinga)
- A defense against the problem of evil is a logical argument that shows that
the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God does
not logically contradict the existence of evil in the world
- The Free Will defense attempts to show this by arguing that the ‘gift’ of free
will is worth the consequent unavoidable risk of moral evil that may result
from it (ie that P4 above is false)
- Moral evil is therefore our fault, rather than God’s.
- P1: A world with free creatures is more valuable than a world made with no
free creatures at all
