Transcript AS Philosophy God and the World

AS Philosophy
God and the World
Resolving the problem of evil
stox apl 12
objectives
• Possible solutions
• Wittgenstein, Augustine, A.N. Whitehead
(1861-1947) & Charles Hartshorne (18972000)Darwin, Hick, Mackie, Leibniz (16461716), Swinburne, St Irenaeus (2nd century
AD), Anthony Flew (1922-2010)
stox apl 12
5 main types of solutions to resolving
the problem of evil
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The view that traditional theism should be abandoned
Evil is necessary for good
Evil needs to be seen in a wider context (life after death)
Evil is a means to a greater good (soul making, the best of
all possible worlds)
Evils is the responsibility of humans (free will defence)
These last four suggestions preserve a religious system, and
have become known as the theodicies
A strong theodicy provides an explanation/justification of
why God permits evil in creation
A weak theodicy (or defence) may not explain why evil
exists, but does offer a defence of theism and shows the
existence of God is not incompatible with the existence of
evil, as the atheist claims
stox apl 12
Solution 1: traditional theism should
be abandoned
• Revisionist theory 1 theological anti-realism an exponent was
Wittgenstein – claim that religious beliefs do not refer to anything
in the real world. E.g. belief being who is ‘out-there’ within the real
world. Differences within anti-realism as to what it does imply, but
it might include a commitment to moral life, a cultural tradition,
approach or attitude to the world. So it gets round the problem of
evil, as god isn’t a being existing independently of out minds, so
could not have made the world differently, or intervened to prevent
evil happening.
• Revisionist theory 2 Process theology (A N Whitehead & C
Hartshorne) suggested God is not actually omnipotent – Whitehead
states god is ‘the great companion, a fellow sufferer who
understands’, so is part of creation, developing with it, influencing
but not determining it. This gets round the problem of evil but
surrendering omnipotence – can affect creation but not eradicate
nor prevent evil
stox apl 12
Solution 1: traditional theism should
be abandoned (2)
• Zoroastrians, Manicheans propose that a
benevolent god vies with a malicious devil
for control of the world. So evil exists
because of the evil deity, so it’s not the
responsibility of God. But this dualist
perspective undermines the absolute
power of God, and is at variance with much
of the bible. (exception is Job, as devil
seems to be doing work for god)
• CRITICISM – far away from Christian
teachings, so not acceptable to many
believers. But for those outside traditional
•
theism may be plausible and reasonable.
stox apl 12
Solution 2: Evil is necessary for good St
Augustine’s ‘aesthetic theodicy’ (Contrast
theory)
• St Augustine states God is all good; evil was introduced into the
world through the fall of the angel Satan via Adam and Eve’s failure
to resist temptation – original sin.
• This act of free will caused all moral and natural evil
• Also this aesthetic argument is based on the natural balance of the
universe. He draws on the analogy of a painter using light and dark
shades to create harmony in a painting.
• So how does this perfect balance idea fit in with the idea of original
sin?
• It’s a question of perspective – our sinful acts will ultimately be
judged, and sinner atone for their sins by being punished.
• St Augustine is talking about a kind of ‘moral beauty’ where
ultimately justice is done, and the moral balance of the universe is
restored
stox apl 12
Activity 1
1) In a world where everything is red, would it be possible
to appreciate, or even recognise, the redness of the
universe? If it is possible, how might it be possible?
2) How might you go about teaching someone the
meaning of the following terms without referring to the
words in brackets?
a) Down (up)
b) Hard (soft)
c) Sad (happy)
d) Tall (short)
e) Good (evil)
stox apl 12
Criticism of St Augustine’s aesthetic
theodicy
• Criticism 1 – Darwin – unnecessary suffering
of animals – St Augustine doesn’t have a lot to
say about this 2) how do we justify eternal
pain of humans who are being punished in
hell?
stox apl 12
Contrast theory
• This idea is that good only makes sense in contrast to evil – but if this is
right we couldn't have a concept of good without evil (although Hick does
state this isn’t a central theme of this argument)
• Mackie points out that this sets limits about what God can do (i.e. if he
can’t create good without creating then evil then he can’t be omnipotent)
• But a stronger argument is that the two concepts don't actually trade off
against each other in the way they’d have to do for a contrast theory to
work. Augustine and Aquinas suggest they are logical opposites – evil is a
lack of goodness
• But our more common interpretation – as Hick states – pain is not the
opposite of pleasure
• Moreover, if we imagine heaven as a place where no-one does any wrong,
there is nothing inconsistent in this idea. It may be true that the people in
it would not have the concepts of good and evil, but this isn’t the same as
saying that this world would not be better than our world.
stox apl 12
Solution 3: Evil needs to be seen in a
wider context
• Broader theological context – most religions believe in
life after death. Plato, alongside Buddhism & Hinduism
believed our souls existed before we were born –
Judaism, Islam & Christianity believe our souls created
at conception. Hume & Freud both interpreted fear of
death as one of the causes of belief in God.
• Life after death is key tenet of Christianity. Hick argues
that an omnipotent, personal creator would not allow
his human creations to cease to exist whilst his
purpose for them hadn’t been met. How does life after
death help resolve the problem of evil. See graphs
(pain in life is infinitesimal compared to potential for
unhappiness)
stox apl 12
Solution 3: Evil needs to be seen in a
wider context- heaven and hell
• Jesus invites us to a joyous banquet(Luke 14:15) -the wicked will perish in
a fiery furnace Matt (13:50) Also Plato/Hades so - this helps us resolve the
moral problem of evil – we can see that good will eventually be rewarded,
and the wicked will be punished
• CRITICSM – Hell just defers the problem of dealing with evil – If God’s
benevolent, and we can’t reconcile (limited) amount of evil in this life –
how does positing the question of eternal damnation help the situation. If
God is benevolent, then how could he crate creatures of free will, knowing
they’d disobey?
• Some (Catholics mainly) believe in a sort of ‘half-way house’ – Purgatory might help some problems – or maybe Hell is a metaphor – just a place
where God is absent – (But Jesus is clear some will be invited, and some
not)
• CRITICSM – Descartes dualism – how do we distinguish for the
mind/body? Not clear how w would resolve
• the problem of separating the mental/spiritual from the physical
• Also a problem of Personal identity - as seen in John Hick’s parable of the
Celestial City – (we look at this in the religious POV)
stox apl 12
John Hick’s parable of the Celestial City
• Two men are travelling together along a road. One of
them believes that it leads to the Celestial city, the other
that it leads nowhere; but since this is the only road there
is, both must travel it….during the journey they meet with
moments of refreshment and delight, and with moments
of hardship and danger. All the time one of them thinks of
his journey as a pilgrimage to the Celestial City. He
interprets the pleasant parts of the journey as
encouragement and the obstacles as trials as his
purpose…the other, however, believes none of this….since
he has no choice in the matter he enjoys the good and
endures the bad….when the do turn the last corner it will
be apparent that one of them has been right all the time
and the other wrong.
stox apl 12
The celestial city and the river of Bliss Leicester
Art Gallery JOHN MARTIN (1789-1854)
Solution 4: Evil is a means to a greater
good.
• It’s very appealing to think that we could resolve
some of the problems of evil by thinking that evil
must have some greater purpose and contributes
in some way to the greater or higher good.
• This could mean that evil is an enabler for other
goods which couldn’t exist without evil. Or it
could mean that the universe is in some way a
better place because of the existence of evil.
stox apl 12
Activity 2 – Worlds ‘R’ us
• You have a summer job as a shop assistant in Worlds ‘R’ us – the Ultimate
in Universe Shopping. One day God walks in and says he wants to buy a
universe. Moe specifically he wants to buy the best possible universe
(which in e can easily do, given he is God). He browses through the billions
of shelves, which contain every possible universe, and then asks you for
more details of their specification: the quantity of pain and suffering, the
extent of free will, the level of determinism, the degree of order and
regularity, the balance and beauty in each universe. Eventually, after
examining all the billions of universes in the shop, God come up to the
counter and says “I’ll take this one”, and this is the universe we now live in.
1) What ‘health warning’ or ‘unique selling points’ would you have told God
about when selling this universe?
2) Do you think God made a good choice? Why/why not?
3) Was there a better universe on offer? In what way would it have been
better?
4) What do you think God was looking for in a universe (what specifications)?
stox apl 12
Gottfreid Leibniz’s theodicy
•
•
•
Gottfreid considers that God, all powerful & good, whose task is to select from
amongst all possible universes he could select. God knows all the histories of al
possible universes, he is wholly good – so the one he’s selected must be the very
possible best one. So despite how it may appear, it MUST be the best universe
going – therefore every feature is an essential part of the divine plan. SO pain and
suffering are some of the many essential features to make the best possible world.
If any pain/suffering was missing ultimately the world would be worse off – so
therefore every single piece of evil (e.g. starving children, horrible deaths,
murders, suicide) this MUST be the possible, best. Augustine also argued this
before him – we don’t have God’s perspective – and we can’t understand the other
universe option he didn’t select
CRITICISM – Voltaire(1694-1778) in his novel Candide, uses Dr Pangloss, who
regularly states ‘this is the best possible of all world’s; then is subsequently
tortured and hanged by religious fanatics. Candide observes this, and asks ‘if this is
the best possible world, what are the others like’? This doesn’t refute Leibniz’s
argument, but it the concrete evidence of pain and suffering make it hard to
support it .
stox apl 12
Richard Swinburne’s theodicy (1934•
•
•
•
•
•
God is omnipotent and could stop evil, but this is t the price of sacrificing the
virtuous acts which are the noble human response to its presence. So existence of
suffering makes higher order goods possible – e.g. courage and charity wouldn’t
exist if no-one was in danger or need.
Swinburne went so far as to say Nazi concentration camps can be justified – more
sympathy, co-operation, benevolence in the world – so now we live in a better
world. Better than a ‘toy world’ where there are no obstacles to our desires, no
possibility of suffering – our actions would be devoid of moral dimension. –
Therefore we need to live in a world where out actions matter, and there are real
challenges
Swinburne’s conclusion is that God created a ‘half-finished’ universe (neither free
from nor full of evil) which gives humans the opportunity to improve from within –
(this does rely on an assumption that humans are free)
Swinburne’s solution also goes some way to solving the problem of moral evil. If
human acts have consequences we can learn from, the worlds needs to be be law
abiding. If God intervened in cases of minor problems then humans wouldn't learn
the consequences of actions or formulate the general laws of nature.
Only in a law-abiding universe will contain the natural disasters – so all the pain
and suffering is a fight for survival.
St. Irenaeus (130-202) and John Hick along with Swinburne argue that God allows
evil for a reason – we can make a journey toward the good.
stox apl 12
St Irenaeus’ theodicy
• Unlike St Augustine, St
Irenaeus didn’t think that
‘free will’ through Adam &
Eve caused evil to ‘seep into’ a
perfect world. Irenaeus
argues we must use free will
to work towards a moral and
spiritual understand, to
achieve perfection in the next
life. (So for Augustine
perfection existed in the past
at creation, but for Irenaeus
perfection comes at the end
of time)
stox apl 12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
St Irenaeus’ theodicy
See diagram
John Hick also takes teleological approach and states that imperfections and suffering
will EVENTUALLY lead to a better state. Hick says the world is a ‘vale of soul making’
where our souls are strengthened and matured by the struggle and suffering of this
life.
God maintains an ‘epistemic distance’ (i.e. He doesn’t provide knowledge of what our
destiny or purpose in this life is so we must organise our genuine free will in order to
approach the good (a state of holiness)
CRITICISM this approach is bitterly contested; Hick acknowledges misery distribution
is random and meaningless, so can be inflicted on the seemingly undeserving. But it is
hard to see what good can come from such evil. Dostoyevsky, in ‘The Brothers
Karamazov’ – the pointless cruelty, especially to children. Ivan doesn’t deny the
existence of God – just rejects God as a being worthy of examples
Activity 3
CRITICISM Dostoyevsky poses the question is the outcome justified by the method?
For any theodicy this a means to an end – is the end worth it?
? Is God justified in creating a world that offers so much pointless and gratuitous evil
in order reach certain goals? Karamazov says no – no goal that includes torturing
children can be worth it.
stox apl 12
Activity 3 – is the outcome worth the
method?
• Read through the following two examples given by Ivan
Karamazov and consider the questions below:
1) A young girl, abused by her parents, wets her bed and
is forced by her mother to eat her own excrement, before
she is made to sleep in a freezing cold shed
2) A boy throws a stone and injures a genera’s dog. The
boy is stripped and sent out as quarry for a hung. He is
eventually caught and torn to pieces by dogs in front of e
is mother
a)how might these examples of evil be explained within
Swinburne’s theodicy and St Irenaeus’ theodicy?
b)Do you find these explanations satisfactory?
stox apl 12
Solution 5: Evil is the responsibility of
humans – the free will defence
• Augustine & Irenaeus thought that evil came into our world
through Adam and Eve, who had free will to make the
choice to disobey God.
• Irenaeus (and later Swinburne and Hick) state that free will
is necessary if we are to improve ourselves and the world,
and to work towards spiritual maturing and noble actions.
• With this type of theodicy, evil is an unfortunate side effect
of God giving us free will. But it is a price worth paying, as
free will can lead to salvation and redemption.
• Augustinian and Irenaean ‘free will defences’ view moral
evil as stemming from the free choices of humans – but
also as a positive quality that is a gift from God to humans
stox apl 12
Solution 5: Evil is the responsibility of
humans – the free will defence
•
•
•
•
Peter Vardy summarises the free will defence:1 the highest good for humans is a loving relationship with God
2 love must be freely chosen
3 so God, who is all-powerful and loving, gave humans free will (in
order to achieve 1)
• 4 genuine free will means that humans will sometimes choose
good, and sometimes evil
• 5 therefore evil exists in order that humans may choose a loving
relationship with God
• Both Hick & Swinburne state that God didn’t want a cosy ‘toyworld’ for his ‘pets’. So we shouldn’t look at the world and wonder
why it’s not more pleasant – a far greater good than pleasure is the
relationship humans can have with God, and this can only be freely
chosen.
stox apl 12
Solution 5: Criticisms of Evil is the responsibility
of humans – the free will defence
• Many believers do not believe that the accounts of
Adam & Eve, and also the angel Satan turning away in
the bible are literal interpretations Flew criticises the
meaning of ‘free will’ – he suggests that God could
have created a world where all humans had the nature
to do the good thing – and this would surely be better
than this world
• But we can object to this criticism by saying that these
‘naturally good’ people would be merely puppets, and
compares it to the actions of a person under hypnosis.
So we might question the value of love felt for God in
the naturally good person. Is a God who manipulates
the end- results worthy of worship?
stox apl 12
Solution 5: Criticisms of Evil is the responsibility
of humans – the free will defence
J.L. Mackie offers another version of Flew’s criticism
1. It is logically possible for me to choose to do good on any one
occasion
2. It is logically possible for any individual to choose to do good on
every occasion
3. It is logically possible for any individual to choose to do good
throughout their life
4. God is omnipotent and can create any logically possible world.
5. Therefore God could have created a world in which we were all
genuinely free, yet we all chose to do good
6. God did not create such a world
7. Therefore either God is not omnipotent, or he is not wholly good
So Mackie’s attack on the free will defence leads to a restatement of
the logical problem of evil
stox apl 12
Solution 5: Evil is the responsibility of humans –
the free will defence response to criticisms
•
•
•
•
•
•
The free will defence is fiercely argued. Plantinga rejects the idea that God can
create an infinite number of possible worlds, and even within the worlds he can
create there are limitations.
For example, Curly Smith has such a corrupt nature that for every possible world
that God could create, he would always do one evil thing. In this case, it is not
possible for God (even an all-powerful and loving one) to create a world in which
Curly is free yet always does good actions.
This is a weak theodicy, showing the existence of evil is compatible with a wholly
good and all-powerful God.
Evil does not prove the non-existence of God, merely that the non-existence of
God may be rational.
From a believers point of view, the existence of evil is a live and agonising problem.
The book of Job in the bible underpins this. Job keeps faith with God throughout
his trials. This doesn’t solve the problem of evil, but it does show how for many
believers tells us how to live with evil and still believe in God.
The story reassures believers, but frustrates atheists who continue to ask how such
a juggling act is possible.
stox apl 12
Links and bibliography
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus
http://www.adherents.com/people/pf/Anthony_Flew.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0618.htm (Manicheans)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/beliefs/dualism.shtml
(Zoroastrians)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pacher
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A50&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2014:15&version=NIV
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/169765/Fyodor-Dostoyevsky
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=beslan+2004&docid=4592080790749217
&mid=ABEE1E0F29FF09F5D08EABEE1E0F29FF09F5D08E&view=detail&FORM=VIR
E1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Vardy_(theologian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
stox apl 12