Lecture 08 Notes

Review: The Problem of Evil

Christianity assumes God is omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and loves us.
Massive evil exists.
God and evil are inconsistent.
Therefore, either God or evil doesn't exist.
The existence of evil is indisputable.
Therefore, the God of Christianity does not exist.

First Response: Challenge Premises 2 & 5

Response--One can deny that suffering is real.
Rebuttal
1. Makes God a Deceiver--It sure seems like suffering is real so if it turns out that it isn't real, then God is deceiving us into thinking that it is real.
2. Hard to Take Seriously

Second Response: Challenge Premise 3 (Note: Except for the Parent Analogy, all of these are called "Theodicies" -- i.e., making sense of suffering in a world created by a Christian God)

Parent Analogy
1. Response--Suffering is for reasons we don't understand.
  - Just as a child might not understand the suffering a parent allows when she gets immunizations, we do not understand why God allows us to suffer.
  - Note: Doesn't Explain Suffering; Just Suggests How Suffering May Be Consistent With God's Existence
2. Rebuttals
  - Bad Analogy; Parents Aren't Omnipotent. They are limited in what means they can use to bring about certain ends. God is not so limited. It seems that he could bring about the ends that he desires through painless means.
  - Double Standards--If good events reflect God's nature, then why don't bad events?
Counterpart Theory
1. Response--Just as tallness can't exist without shortness, happiness can't exist without suffering.
  - Note--The issue is metaphysical, not epistemological. The claim is not that we cannot know happiness without suffering; the claim is that there cannot be happiness without suffering.
2. Rebuttals
  - This response suggests that suffering and happiness are related in a way that makes the status of one dependent upon the status of the other. But this doesn't seem right. Instead, the two seem to be mutually independent psychological states the status of which is determined by other facts. For example, to be generally happy, one needn't also experience chronic depression at some point. It seems perfectly intelligible to conceive of a world in which everyone is generally happy -- as is suggested by certain depictions of heaven. People might be less inclined to appreciate their happiness, but that would still be a better world than one with massive suffering.
  - Even if suffering is context dependent, only a small amount of suffering would be needed. If suffering is required for there to be happiness, it seems a small amount of suffering would do the trick. Surely much of the suffering we see and experience is gratuitous. If suffering is only required so that we will appreciate not suffering, then, again, it seems a small amount of suffering would suffice.
Virtue Defense
1. The Response--Virtues like sympathy, compassion, and forgiveness all require suffering. God wanted virtues. So suffering must be permitted.
2. Rebuttals
  - Virtues are not good in themselves; they are only good because they allow us to cope with suffering. It is wrong to allow suffering so people can exhibit compassion. Virtues are like chemotherapy; chemotherapy is good in that it alleviates suffering by curing some cancers but it would be better to not have cancer and thus not have chemotherapy.
  - Virtues are counter-balanced by vices. Suppose this response suffices to explain why God allows first order evil (suffering), namely, so that we might develop second order virtues. This does not explain why he allows second order evils (vices) such as malevolence, cruelty, and cowardice.
Free Will Defense
1. The Response
  - (1) Not possible for humans to be free and incapable of doing moral evil.
  - (2) A world in which we are free is better than one in which we are restricted.
  - (3) God creates the best possible world.
  - (4) Therefore, God created a world in which people sometimes do moral evil.
2. Rebuttals
  - What about natural evil? The free will defense only accounts for evils that stem from free human choices.
  - Challenge (1): We Already Live With Restrictions But Still Consider Ourselves Free. For example, we cannot fly but this fact does not incline us to think that we are not free. So it seems that God could have restricted us by making us incapable of doing moral evil and we could still consider ourselves free.
  - Challenge (2): Why Not Sacrifice Some Freedom For Less Suffering? Look at our normal views of justice--We often imprison someone (restrict his freedom) in order to minimize suffering if we think he might cause more suffering.
  - Challenge Validity of the Argument: The Capacity To Do Moral Evil Needn't Lead to Actual Moral Evil. Why not a world with better characters who freely choose not to harm others?
3. Rebuttals to Rebuttals
  - Rebuttal to Natural Evil--We suffer from natural evil because we freely choose not to avoid dangers. For example, we choose to live in places that hurricanes commonly strike.
  - Rebuttal to Challenge to (1)--What sort of freedom matters? It seems like the freedom to choose between good and evil, right and wrong is one of the most important freedoms. This is in contrast with the freedom to fly.
  - Rebuttal to Challenge to (2)--Many reject morality of preventative restriction. Consider the movie Minority Report. In this movie, people are put into jail for crimes that they would have committed. This sort of restriction strikes many people as wrong, even if it prevents suffering.
  - Rebuttal to Challenge to Validity of the Argument--Creating a world with better characters may not be the best world. Some have suggested that evil plays a role in "making our souls"; making us into the sort of people that God wants us to be. So a world in which everyone freely choose good would lack the evil required for soul-making. The process of us making ourselves into better creatures is more important than the end result of a world with no suffering.

Freedom Problems in Christianity

Foreknowledge and the Problem of Freedom--On the surface, God's foreknowledge appears to preclude human freedom.
1. God knew eons ago about all of our actions.
2. We cannot change the past.
3. We cannot make God wrong.
4. So, we can't do other than what God has always known that we will do.
Reply: Taking God Outside of Time

Citation: Ramsey, W. (2006, September 19). Lecture 08 Notes. Retrieved February 12, 2012, from Notre Dame OpenCourseWare Web site: http://ocw.nd.edu/philosophy/introduction-to-philosophy-1/lectures/lecture-08-notes.