the problem of evil (god and the world)

Outline the logical problem of evil as a deductive argument, numbering the premises.

The logical problem of evil argument states that the mere existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God and his traditional attributes, such as benevolence. It is argued as follows: God is perfectly good, therefore he has the desire to eliminate evil, evil still exists in the world, therefore God cannot exist. The conclusion is logically supported by the premises, therefore supporting the argument against the existence of God.

Explain and illustrate one challenge to the logical problem of evil.

In the defence of the existence of God, it could be argued that some evil is necessary for the greater good. For example, love wouldn't be the same without our capacity to feel sadness when we lose someone we love. The proverb ''Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all' explains this view - we can't fully appreciate what is good unless we have experienced something bad or evil to contrast with it. Therefore, some evil is necessary to make the world a better place, which still supports the fact that God is good, as if he were to eliminate all evil then he would also be eliminating a lot of good, thus the existence of God is logically compatible with the existence of God.

Compare and contrast the evidential and logical problems of evil.

The evidential problem of evil claims that evil is unfairly distributed and even if evil is necessary for certain goods, is the amount there actually is necessary for this? For example, many children die from terrible diseases, or are brutally treated - it is clear that a benevolent, omnipotent God would want to eradicate this kind of evil. This argument is understood inductively (the conclusion is supported by the premise): the way that evil exists is evidence for thinking that God doesn't exist

The logical problem of evil agrees that God cannot exist, but understands this in deductive terms (the conclusion is logically supported by the premises) - it argues that God is perfectly good, therefore he has the desire to eliminate evil, evil still exists in the world, therefore God cannot exist.

Explain and illustrate the difference between moral evil and natural evil.

Moral evil refers to the morally wrong actions or motives of human beings, for example, Hitler was morally evil for trying to eradicate the Jews; ethnic cleansing is a morally evil policy. Whereas natural evil refers to suffering caused by natural events and processes, for example, suffering caused by earthquakes or tsunamis.

Outline the free will defence against the problem of evil.

The free will argument defends the view that evil can exist in the world, even if God exists. It is believed that, because God is good, he gave us free will (because free will is good), however, sometimes we don't use our free will for the good i.e. we are morally imperfect, which can bring about evil. However, God can't make people with free will act good, because having free will and sometimes bringing about evil is thought to be better than having no free will at all. Therefore, evil exists in the world as a result of our own free will.

A problem with this argument is that it only explain moral evil. However, an explanation of this could be that, the other kind of evil, 'natural evil', is a result of an evil supernatural being, for example, the Devil. It is believed that the Devil was originally an angel created by God and that it was, like us, given free will, but then rebelled against God and has since tried to bring evil into the world. Therefore, this explain moral evil and natural evil; it is the effect of the Devil's actions.

Explain Augustine's theory of the Fall.

Augustine argued that natural evil is a result of the moral evil of human beings - to support his argument he refers to the choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God, which then led to 'The Fall'. This meant a change in nature, human beings and the relationship between them. God told Eve that she would give birth in sorrow and pain as her punishment, and Adam was cursed by being made to work to earn his livelihood. Therefore, Augustine argues that this supports the view that all evil, moral and natural, was originally caused by human abuse of free will, thus defending the view that evil can exist in the world, even if God exists.

However, it is now understood that the Fall wasn't an event in actual human history - it could be possible that animals were suffering long before humans existed, therefore this isn't proof that humans are the cause of natural evil. Furthermore, Christians understand the Fall as a myth about the relationship between humans, nature and God, but it isn't taken literally, therefore, human abuse of free will isn't the cause for all natural evil.

Furthermore, it could be argued that even if the story were true, the consequences seem incredibly unfair. Why should every animal and human born after Adam and Eve have to suffer for a decision made many, many years ago? It could be argued that a good God would not hold every single person accountable, but would rather, if anything, punish those directly responsible. Therefore, this argument is flawed as it could be argued that God would be considered unethical if it were true, which defeats the purpose of him being a good God.

Outline and illustrate the soul-making theodicy.

The soul-making theodicy argues that evil is necessary for us to become good people, and for us to grow morally and spiritually. It claims that virtues are impossible unless there is evil in the world to respond to or correct, for example, we can't know forgiveness unless people treat us wrongly and we can't know courage unless there is real danger. Also, because God is good, he wants us to become good ourselves, thus justifying why evil exists whilst God also exists. This theory can be understood through viewing the world - which has evil in it - to be a place of 'soul-making', thus supporting the existence of evil being compatible with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God.

However, it could be argued that, if God is omnipotent, why didn't he just created us to be good in the first place? Why do we have to become good? John Hick replies that the goodness gained through first-hand experience of evil/pain is far more valuable than goodness that has simply been handed to us. Therefore, this justifies that evil is necessary for us become authentically good people.

Another argument against this theodicy is that if evil is justified through the goodness we gain out of it, then this appears to justify all evil, and not all evil provides goodness. For example, there are children who have been abused and never been able to recover, there's brutal murders inflicted on innocent people, there's pre-mature deaths - all of these examples of suffering don't seem to suggest that spiritual growth will be a resulting factor. Furthermore, the distribution of evil doesn't seem to support the idea that the purpose of evil is for people to become morally good - if this were the case, then the scale of evil wouldn't be as large as it is. Therefore, not all kinds of evil can be justified with this theodicy, thus it doesn't explain why God allows all evil.

Furthermore, this argument only seems to acknowledge the suffering of beings who can grow spiritually - it could be argued that animals have souls too, and thus can grow spiritually, therefore, this theodicy ignores the suffering of animals. However, many religious traditions reject this view, thus explaining why it is ignored in the first place.