Responses, defences and theodicies Problem of evil

1 responses, defences , theodicies

1.1 skeptical theism

1.1.1 greater responses
1.1.2 free will


1.2 soul-making or irenaean theodicy
1.3 afterlife
1.4 deny evil exists

1.4.1 evil absence of (privation theory)
1.4.2 evil illusory


1.5 turning tables
1.6 hidden reasons
1.7 previous lives , karma
1.8 pandeism

responses, defences , theodicies

responses problem of evil have been classified defences or theodicies; however, authors disagree on exact definitions. generally, defense against problem of evil may refer attempts defuse logical problem of evil showing there no logical incompatibility between existence of evil , existence of god. task not require identification of plausible explanation of evil, , successful if explanation provided shows existence of god , existence of evil logically compatible. need not true, since false though coherent explanation sufficient show logical compatibility.

a theodicy, on other hand, more ambitious, since attempts provide plausible justification—a morally or philosophically sufficient reason—for existence of evil , thereby rebut evidential argument evil. richard swinburne maintains not make sense assume there greater goods justify evil s presence in world unless know are—without knowledge of greater goods be, 1 cannot have successful theodicy. thus, authors see arguments appealing demons or fall of man indeed logically possible, not plausible given our knowledge world, , see arguments providing defences not theodicies.

the above argument set against numerous versions of problem of evil have been formulated. these versions have included philosophical , theological formulations.

skeptical theism

skeptical theism defends problem of evil asserting god allows evil happen in order prevent greater evil or encourage response lead greater good. rape or murder of innocent child defended having god s purpose human being may not comprehend, may lead lesser evil or greater good. called skeptical theism because argument aims encourage self-skepticism, either trying rationalize god s possible hidden motives, or trying explain limitation of human ability know. greater defense more argued in religious studies in response evidential version of problem of evil, while free defense discussed in context of logical version. scholars criticize skeptical theism defense devaluing suffering , not addressing premise god all-benevolent , should able stop suffering , evil, rather play balancing act.

greater responses

the omnipotence paradoxes, evil persists in presence of powerful god, raise questions nature of god s omnipotence. although excluding idea of how interference negate , subjugate concept of free will, or in other words result in totalitarian system creates lack of freedom. solutions propose omnipotence not require ability actualize logically impossible. greater responses problem make use of insight arguing existence of goods of great value god cannot actualize without permitting evil, , there evils cannot expected prevent despite being omnipotent. among popular versions of greater response appeals apologetics of free will. theologians argue since no 1 can understand god s ultimate plan, no 1 can assume evil actions not have sort of greater purpose. therefore, nature of evil has necessary role play in god s plan better world.

free will

the problem of evil explained consequence of free will, ability granted god. free both source of , of evil, , free comes potential abuse, when individuals act immorally. people free decide cause suffering , act in other evil ways , states boyd, , make choice, not god. further, free argument asserts logically inconsistent god prevent evil coercion , curtailing free will, because no longer free will. explanation not address problem of evil, because suffering , evil not result of conscious choice, result of ignorance or natural causes (e.g. child suffering disease), , all-powerful , all-benevolent god create world free beings , stop suffering , evil.

alvin plantinga has suggested expanded version of free defense. first part of defense accounts moral evil result of human action free will. second part of defense suggests logical possibility of mighty non-human spirit (non-god supernatural beings , fallen angels) free responsible natural evils , including earthquakes, floods, , virulent diseases. scholars agree plantinga s free of human , non-human spirits (demons) argument solves logical problem of evil, proving god , evil logically compatible other scholars explicitly dissent. dissenters state while explaining infectious diseases, cancer, hurricanes , other nature-caused suffering caused free of supernatural beings solves logical version of problem of evil, highly unlikely these natural evils not have natural causes omnipotent god prevent, instead caused immoral actions of supernatural beings free god created. according michael tooley, defense highly implausible because suffering natural evil localized, rational causes , cures major diseases have been found, , unclear why anyone, including supernatural being god created choose inflict localized evil , suffering innocent children example, , why god fails stop such suffering if omnipotent.

critics of free response have questioned whether accounts degree of evil seen in world. 1 point in regard while value of free may thought sufficient counterbalance minor evils, less obvious outweighs negative attributes of evils such rape , murder. particularly egregious cases known horrendous evils, [constitute] prima facie reason doubt whether participant’s life (given inclusion in it) great him/her on whole, have been focus of recent work in problem of evil. point actions of free beings bring evil diminish freedom of suffer evil; example murder of young child prevents child ever exercising free will. in such case freedom of innocent child pitted against freedom of evil-doer, not clear why god remain unresponsive , passive.

another criticism potential evil inherent in free may limited means not impinge on free will. god accomplish making moral actions pleasurable, or evil action , suffering impossible allowing free not allowing ability enact evil or impose suffering. supporters of free explanation state that no longer free will. critics respond view seems imply wrong try reduce suffering , evil in these ways, position few advocate.

a third challenge free defence natural evil. definition, moral evil results human action, natural evil results natural processes cause natural disasters such volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. advocates of free response evil propose various explanations of natural evils. alvin plantinga, following augustine of hippo, , others have argued natural evils caused free choices of supernatural beings such demons. others have argued

• natural evils result of fall of man, corrupted perfect world created god or
• natural evils result of natural laws or
• natural evils provide knowledge of evil makes our free choices more significant otherwise be, , our free more valuable or
• natural evils mechanism of divine punishment moral evils humans have committed, , natural evil justified.

there debate regarding compatibility of moral free (to select or evil action) absence of evil heaven, god s omniscience , omnibenevolence.

free , animal suffering

one of weaknesses of free defense inapplicability or contradictory applicability respect evils faced animals , consequent animal suffering. scholars, such david griffin, state free will, or assumption of greater through free will, not apply animals. in contrast, few scholars while accepting free applies in human context, have posited alternative free creatures defense, stating animals benefit physical freedom though comes cost of dangers continuously face.

the free creatures defense has been criticized, in case of caged, domesticated , farmed animals not free , many of whom have historically experienced evil , suffering abuse owners. further, animals , living creatures in wild face horrendous evils , suffering—such burn , slow death after natural fires or other natural disasters or predatory injuries—and unclear, state bishop , perszyk, why all-loving god create such free creatures prone intense suffering. line of extended criticism of free defense has been if god powerful, knowing , loving, have actualized world free creatures without moral evil chooses good, full of loving-kindness, compassionate, non-violent , full of joy, earth monotheistic concept of heaven. if god did create heaven love, all-loving , always-loving god have created earth without evil , suffering animals , human beings heaven.

soul-making or irenaean theodicy

the soul-making or irenaean theodicy named after 2nd century french theologian irenaeus, ideas adopted in eastern christianity. has been discussed john hick, , irenaean theodicy asserts evil , suffering necessary spiritual growth, man discover soul, , god allows evil spiritual growth of human beings.

the irenaean theodicy has been challenged assertion many evils not seem promote spiritual growth, , can positively destructive of human spirit. hick acknowledges process fails in our world. second issue concerns distribution of evils suffered: true god permitted evil in order facilitate spiritual growth, expect evil disproportionately befall in poor spiritual health. not seem case, decadent enjoy lives of luxury insulate them evil, whereas many of pious poor, , acquainted worldly evils. thirdly, states kane, human character can developed directly or in constructive , nurturing loving ways, , unclear why god consider or allow evil , suffering necessary or preferred way spiritual growth. further, horrendous suffering leads dehumanization, victims in truth not grow spiritually become vindictive , spiritually worse.

this reconciliation of problem of evil , god, states creegan, fails explain need or rationale evil inflicted on animals , resultant animal suffering, because there no evidence @ suffering improves character of animals, or evidence of soul-making in them .

on more fundamental level, soul-making theodicy assumes virtues developed through suffering intrinsically, opposed instrumentally, good. virtues identified soul-making appear valuable in world evil , suffering exist. willingness sacrifice oneself in order save others persecution, example, virtuous precisely because persecution exists. likewise, value willingness donate 1 s meal starving because starvation exists. if persecution , starvation did not occur, there no reason consider these acts virtuous. if virtues developed through soul-making valuable suffering exists, not clear lose if suffering did not exist.

afterlife

thomas aquinas suggested afterlife theodicy address problem of evil , justifying existence of evil. premise behind theodicy has been afterlife unending, human life short, , god allows evil , suffering in order judge , grant everlasting heaven or hell based on human moral actions , human suffering. aquinas went further , suggested afterlife greater justifies evil , suffering in current life. christian author randy alcorn argues joys of heaven compensate sufferings on earth.

stephen maitzen has called heaven swamps theodicy, , argues false because conflates compensation , justification.

the second failure of afterlife theodicy in inability reconcile suffering faced small babies , innocent children diseases, abuse , injury in war or terror attacks, since human moral actions not expected babies , children. similarly, moral actions , concept of choice not apply problem of evil applied animal suffering natural evil , actions of human beings.

deny evil exists

in second century, christian theologists attempted reconcile problem of evil omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, denying evil exists. among these theologians, clement of alexandria offered several theodicies, of 1 called privation theory of evil adopted thereafter. other more modern version of deny evil , suggested christian science, wherein perception of evil described form of illusion.

evil absence of (privation theory)

the version of deny evil called privation theory of evil , named because described evil form of lack, loss or privation . 1 of earliest proponents of theory 2nd-century clement of alexandria, according joseph kelly, stated since god good, not have created evil; if god did not create evil, cannot exist . evil, according clement, not exist positive, exists negative or lack of . clement s idea criticised inability explain suffering in world, if evil did not exist. pressed gnostics scholars question why god did not create creatures did not lack . clement attempted answer these questions ontologically through dualism, idea found in platonic school, presenting 2 realities, 1 of god , truth, of human , perceived experience.

the fifth-century theologian augustine of hippo adopted privation theory, , in enchiridion on faith, hope , love, maintained evil exists absence of , vices nothing privations of natural good. evil not substance, states augustine, nothing more loss of . god not participate in evil, god perfection, creation perfection, stated augustine. according privation theory, absence of good, explains sin , moral evil.

this view has been criticized merely substituting definition, of evil loss of , of problem of evil , suffering problem of loss of , suffering , neither addresses issue theoretical point of view nor experiential point of view. scholars criticize privation theory state murder, rape, terror, pain , suffering real life events victim, , cannot denied mere lack of . augustine, states pereira, accepted suffering exists , aware privation theory not solution problem of evil.

evil illusory

an alternative modern version of privation theory christian science, asserts evils such suffering , disease appear real, in truth illusions, , in reality evil not exist. theologists of christian science, states stephen gottschalk, posit spirit of infinite might, mortal human beings fail grasp , focus instead on evil , suffering have no real existence power, person or principle opposed god .

the illusion version of privation theory theodicy has been critiqued denying reality of crimes, wars, terror, sickness, injury, death, suffering , pain victim. further, adds millard erickson, illusion argument merely shifts problem new problem, why god create illusion of crimes, wars, terror, sickness, injury, death, suffering , pain; , why doesn t god stop illusion .

turning tables

a different approach problem of evil turn tables suggesting argument evil self-refuting, in conclusion necessitate falsity of 1 of premises. 1 response—called defensive response—has been assert opposite, , point out assertion evil exists implies ethical standard against moral value determined, , argue standard implies existence of god.

the standard criticism of view argument evil not presentation of views of proponent, instead intended show how premises theist inclined believe lead him or conclusion god not exist. second criticism existence of evil can inferred suffering of victims, rather actions of evil actor, no ethical standard implied. argument expounded upon david hume.

hidden reasons

a variant of above defenses problem of evil derived probability judgments since rest on claim that, after careful reflection, 1 can see no reason co-existence of god , of evil. inference claim general statement there exists unnecessary evil inductive in nature , inductive step sets evidential argument apart logical argument.

the hidden reasons defense asserts there exists logical possibility of hidden or unknown reasons existence of evil along existence of almighty, all-knowing, all-benevolent, all-powerful god. not knowing reason not mean reason not exist. argument has been challenged assertion hidden reasons premise plausible premise god not exist or not almighty, all-knowing, all-benevolent, all-powerful . similarly, every hidden argument or partially justifies observed evils equally there hidden argument makes observed evils worse appear without hidden arguments, or hidden reasons may result in additional contradictions. such, inductive viewpoint hidden arguments neutralize 1 another.

a sub-variant of hidden reasons defense called phog —profoundly hidden outweighing goods—defense. phog defense, states bryan frances, not leaves co-existence of god , human suffering unanswered, raises questions why animals , other life forms have suffer natural evil, or abuse (animal slaughter, animal cruelty) human beings, hidden moral lessons, hidden social , such hidden reasons reconcile god problem of evil not apply.

previous lives , karma

the theory of karma refers spiritual principle of cause , effect intent , actions of individual (cause) influence future of individual (effect). problem of evil, in context of karma, has been long discussed in indian religions including buddhism, hinduism , jainism, both in theistic , non-theistic schools; example, in uttara mīmāṃsā sutras book 2 chapter 1; 8th century arguments adi sankara in brahmasutrabhasya posits god cannot reasonably cause of world because there exists moral evil, inequality, cruelty , suffering in world; , 11th century theodicy discussion ramanuja in sribhasya.

many indian religions place greater emphasis on developing karma principle first cause , innate justice man focus, rather developing religious principles nature , powers of god , divine judgment focus. karma theory of buddhism, hinduism , jainism not static, dynamic wherein livings beings intent or without intent, words , actions continuously create new karma, , believe in part source of or evil in world. these religions believe past lives or past actions in current life create current circumstances, contributes either. other scholars suggest nontheistic indian religious traditions not assume omnibenevolent creator, , theistic schools not define or characterize god(s) monotheistic western religions , deities have colorful, complex personalities; indian deities personal , cosmic facilitators, , in schools conceptualized plato’s demiurge. therefore, problem of theodicy in many schools of major indian religions not significant, or @ least of different nature in western religions.

according arthur herman, karma-transmigration theory solves 3 historical formulations problem of evil while acknowledging theodicy insights of sankara , ramanuja.

pandeism

pandeism modern theory unites deism , pantheism, , asserts god created universe during creation became universe. in pandeism, god no superintending, heavenly power, capable of hourly intervention earthly affairs. no longer existing above, god cannot intervene above , cannot blamed failing so. god, in pandeism, omnipotent , omnibenevolent, in form of universe no longer omnipotent, omnibenevolent.