The Paradox of Epicurus (~300BC) God and the Problem of Evil. "But, the Baby's Going to Heaven" General Problem

Transcription

1 The Paradox of Epicurus (~300BC) God and the Problem of Evil Notes from and 1. Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or God can abolish evil and does want to. 2. If God wants to abolish evil and cannot, then God is impotent. 3. If God can abolish evil and does not want to, then God is evil. 4. If God can abolish evil and God really wants to abolish evil, then why is there evil in the world? 1 2 General Problem "But, the Baby's Going to Heaven" How can an all-good, all-loving God allow evil to exist? Case: A six-month old baby painfully burns to death Can we consider anyone as good who had the power to save this infant from painful death and did not? The baby's potential to go to heaven is irrelevant to whether it was necessary for the baby to suffer If it was not necessary for the baby to suffer, then it was wrong to allow the baby to suffer. If it was necessary for the baby to suffer, then the baby's going to heaven does not explain why it had to suffer There is no reason given for why God failed to act to prevent the suffering 3 4

2 "But, the Baby's Suffering Will Have Good Results in the End" I "But, the Baby's Suffering Will Have Good Results in the End" II If we knew that God would not have permitted the baby's suffering if there were not good results, then we know that every successfully performed action must be for some good in the end and the right thing to do, or else God would not have permitted it to happen. But this reasoning justifies all sorts of harmful acts and even makes these actions one's duty: setting houses ablaze, killing innocent people, etc. "A defense of God's goodness which takes as its foundation duties known only after the fact would result in a morality unworthy of the name." In addition, this argument fails to explain why God allowed this evil to happen The claim that there is some reason for evil rests on the assumption that "God is good" is true. But, the assumption that God is good conflicts with the evidence at hand Example of the lawyer: no jury would accept a defense in which the lawyer argued his client is innocent, the evidence is misleading, and the truth will be known at some indefinite time in the future 5 6 "But, if God Interferes in Disasters, Then There Would Be No Moral Urgency to Make Things Right" If moral urgency is best, then humans should get rid of medical care, fire departments and any other forms of human aid and assistance In fact, the implication is that moral urgency is worthwhile and good So, promoting moral urgency is good But this would justify doing evil in order to bring about good Helping others undermines the need for moral urgency If God Tolerates Disasters, Then God Appears to Approve of Evil to Encourage Moral Urgency God not only appears to approve of evil in order to encourage moral urgency, it appears God would require that evil occur in order to guarantee moral urgency If moral urgency is important, then whenever maximum moral urgency is not maintained it would become necessary for God to create some disasters thinks it absurd to think that we should maximize moral urgency--hence the claim that "there'd be no moral urgency to make things right" is false 7 8

3 "But, Without Suffering There Would be No Motivation to Produce Virtuous Characters" "But, Without Evil There Would be No Good" Without suffering and disasters, there would be no events to help us become better people is not demanding a world without suffering, simply a world without excessive suffering One can build virtuous characters in a world without excessive suffering In fact, we value a world without suffering and thus without opportunities for building virtuous characters Should we attempt to end our efforts to wipe out wars, disease, famine, and other suffering? A conceptual argument that one has to know evil as part of knowing good But, one does not need Hitler or burning babies to see evil Relatively minor pains will be enough to teach one about a life without excessive suffering and evil If yes, then we admit that virtue-building is not a reason for God to allow evil If no, then we should all start wars and encourage evil 9 10 But, God Has a 'Higher Morality'" "But, Humans Have Free Will and There is No One to Blame But the Human" God's actions are judged based on this higher morality and humans simply cannot comprehend this higher morality If this is true, then this higher morality is meaningless to us What humans call evil is really good, and the good is really evil God's "higher morality" cannot be a basis for humans deciding that God is good But, if it is in one's power to save one from unnecessary evil, then not helping is grounds for thinking that person is not good If we think a human of this sort is not good, then on what basis can we claim that God is all good or all loving? 11 12

4 Existence of God Deeper Goods says he is not assuming God exists Rather, if God exists, what might this God allow? wants to argue that if God were to exist, then God would have to allow certain evils to exist So, existence of evil is not evidence against God's existence asks us to imagine what good things "a generous and everlasting God [might] give to human beings" God will give us deeper goods than pleasure and contentment God will give us: Great responsibility for ourselves, others, and the world A share in the "creative activity" of shaping the world we live in God will try to make our lives valuable Deeper Goods and Evil Two Evils Moral Evil: evil caused by humans doing "what they ought not to do" Evil is necessary for these goods "The problem is that God cannot give us these goods in full measure without allowing much evil on the way." Natural Evil: all evils not deliberately caused or allowed by humans What kind of evil is it when a baby suffers in an accidental house fire? 15 16

5 Free Will Defense Nature of Free Will Human's "free and responsible choice" is a great good A consequence of having free and responsible choice is the possibility of moral evil Once God grants free will, then God no longer has control over the occurrence of evil This implies (i) that God is not all-powerful once free will given to humans, (ii) that God will not enter into the natural world to change the course of events "Free and responsible choice is...free will (of the kind discussed) to make significant choices between good and evil, which make a big difference to the agent, to others, and to the world." Humans can give pleasure and pain affect others change the world build personal relationships form their own characters through their actions What God Gave Preventing Evil God is like a father The father who gives a son responsibility over another but watches his son's every move has not given his son much freedom Likewise, a God which has given limited powers has not given much A good God delegates responsibilities The price of sharing in creation brings the choice of helping or hurting others 19 also seems to think that God does not limit human freedom because any limits would undermine the great good given to us. Should humans limit evil, if God doesn t? By analogy, a serial rapist lives next door and I know this Surely, I am justified in trying to prevent the rapist from acting But, according to, if I restrict the rapist, then I have kept him from thinking he's in control of his actions and a free agent--i have prevented him from expressing the possibility of great good If this is true, then I have harmed the rapist by restricting his God-given freedom and his opportunity to act in the right way Should we all sit passively and watch evil and suffering in the world and do nothing? Should we all rejoice in our suffering and the suffering of others? Why is it undesirable to prevent evil, harm, and suffering? Should we follow God s example and do nothing? 20

6 Victims of Free Will Victimization as a Moral Good thinks that being a victim of moral evil is good "And now note another great good--the good of our life serving a purpose, of being of use to ourselves and others...being allowed to suffer to make possible a great good is a privilege, even if the privilege is forced upon you." "I am fortunate if the natural possibility of my suffering if you choose to hurt me is the vehicle which makes your choice really matter." "Likewise, the belief that I am vulnerable to suffering at your hands, and that that is a good thing, can only be a good thing if being vulnerable to suffering at your hands is itself a good thing (independently of whether I believe it or not)." argues that we should rejoice in our suffering and victimization God allows our suffering and victimization ultimately to benefit the one who caused you harm The victim of rape suffers to benefit the rapist "Here is the point to recall that it is an additional benefit to the sufferer that his suffering is the means whereby the one who hurt him had the opportunity to make a significant choice between good and evil which otherwise he would not have had." God's Limits to Admitting Suffering and Harm Free Will and Natural Evil "And there are limits even to the moral right of God, our creator and sustainer, to use free sentient beings as pawns in a greater game. Yet, if these limits were too narrow, God would be unable to give humans much real responsibility; he would be able to allow them only to play a toy game. Still, limits there must be to God's rights to allow humans to hurt each other; and limits there are in the world to the extent to which they can hurt each other, provided above all by the short finite life enjoyed by humans and other creatures..." God as father has a right to let his children suffer and suffering was the possible outcome to allowing free will But, God created us with finite lives so that our suffering would not be infinite This is the limit God placed on himself and his right to allow evil and suffering Assume 's free will argument is correct It still does not explain natural evil, or evil that arises independent of human agency (e.g., hurricane Katrina) recognizes this and asserts that natural evil exists to be an example for human's moral evil "Its [natural evil's] main role, I suggest, is to make it possible for humans to have the kind of choice which the free-will defence extols, and to make available to humans specially worthwhile kinds of choice." 23 24

7 Natural Evil and Choice Analysis Conception of God 1. Natural evil provides humans with knowledge of how to bring about evil God could not give us the required knowledge independent of natural evil because then humans would know God exists and would not make significant choices Knowledge of God's existence would make it hard for someone to do evil because "we all have a natural inclination to wish to be thought well of by everyone...without which we would be less than human." If we had an inclination to act for good, then our wills would not be free from determining factors. Natural evil is a way to protect us from knowledge which might determine our actions, thus making us not metaphysically free. 2. Natural evil gives humans a certain choice with respect to the evil Natural evil "increases the range of significant choice"--either "endure it with patience, or to bemoan his lot" The solutions to the problem of evil may be plausible in the abstract, but not when applied to particular cases When applied to particular cases, God either must be seen as making excuses for its inaction or very limited and not as powerful as humans thinks that such a limited, excuse-making God strains the very meaning of God Analysis Evil God God's Moral Character Given facts about the actual world, what might we believe? a) God is more likely to be all evil than all good Every excuse making the actual world consistent with a good God also applies to an evil God An evil God allows free will so we can freely do evil and we act against God when we do good An evil God allows natural disasters to make us more bitter and selfish 27 b) God is less likely to be all evil than all good c) God is equally likely to be all evil as all good Given the arguments and evidence, it is not likely that God is all good (support for (a)) Given the arguments and evidence, (b) is false since God being evil can be justified just as well as God being good If (c) is true, then we have no reason to think a good God permits evil. If (c) were true, then facts of the actual world would make it as likely that God is all good as all evil. But, this is just to admit that actualworld facts do not support the evidence for thinking a good God permits evil. So, the excuses are no more likely to be true as false. 28

8 Conclusion Christian Paradox of Predestination thinks (a) (c) are the only options. (b) is false (a) makes it unlikely that God is all good since (c) makes the excuses that God is all good no more likely to be true as false, then (c) makes it unlikely that God is all good concludes that, "there is no escape from the conclusion that it is unlikely that God is all good. Thus the problem of evil triumphs over traditional theism." argues that free will is a great good given by God But, Christian tradition speaks of God s predestination According to many NT passages, humans goals and actions are predestined by God before creation. If God predestined human actions, then humans are not the authors of their own destiny. Biblical predestination conflicts with biblical conceptions of free will and moral responsibility The paradox of predestination has been a highly debated issue in Christian theology, with Augustine and Calvin being two of the key figures 29 30