Notes

God and the Problem of Evil

I. The Problem Stated:

A. The problem of evil seems to entail that the Western conception of God results in
contradiction, so at least one of the properties we attribute to him/it must be false.
B. The (apparently) contradictory set of statements:
1. God is perfectly good (omnibenevolent)
2. God’s power is unlimited (omnipotent)
3. God is all knowing (omniscient)
4. God is the sole creator of everything that exists (the world)
5. There is evil in the world.
C. The contradiction appears because:
1. If God were perfectly good, he should want to eradicate evil.
2. If God were all powerful, he should be able to destroy it.
3. If God were all knowing, then it isn’t the case that evil can hide from
him.
4. If God alone created the world, evil must be part of his handiwork.
5. Why, then, does evil exist if those things are true? It seems to contradict
with the rest of the statements, and we thus conclude that at least one
must be false.
D. A ​Theodicy​ is an attempt to reconcile the fact of evil with God’s existence.

II. Theodicy to Exonerate God

A. Arguments attempting to solve the problem and show that the statements are not
contradictory.
1. Must distinguish between ​apparent​ and ​real ​evil.
i. Some things that we call “evil” are simply things that aren’t to our
liking.
ii. We are like a bunch of whiny kids that complain because not
everything goes our way.
iii. Some “evils” are the consequence of our desires outrunning
reasonable limits.
iv. Not ALL evils are like this, though.
2. Evil as an ​Instrumental Good
i. Some things that are intrinsically evil are nonetheless productive of
a good/goods that could not have been produced in any other way.
ii. Like surgery—the good of health cannot be realized without the
“evil” of the pain involved with surgery.
iii. Evil plays an analogous role to “pain” in surgery—there are goods
that wouldn’t be possible in the world ​without​ evil. (Pg. 191)
3. Evil as a Logical Corollary of Good:
i. Some things that are evil are logical corollaries of goods.
ii. Moral virtues like compassion, sympathy, and generosity logically
require the existence of pain, suffering, and want.
 iii. But would the world be “better” if there weren’t these goods and
attendant evils?
4. Evil as a Consequence of Human Actions:
i. Much of the evil in the world is the result of human actions that
could only have been prevented by God if we did not have free
will.
ii. Our misuse of our free will is not God’s problem.
iii. A world with us as free agents is better than a world in which we
don’t have free will.
iv. The whole of creation is “fallen” as a result of our rebellion against
God. (Adam and Eve screwed the world!)
5. This is the “Best of all Possible Worlds”
i. Leibniz’s Theodicy
ii. At creation, God surveys all the possible worlds and chose this
one, because he must choose the best of all ​possible​ worlds to
make ​actual.
iii. This world contains more total good than any other, and the evils
in this world are accompanied by “greater goods.”
iv. Can’t really say we can come up with a better one, because our
perspective is limited—we cannot know the ways in which God
must change things to make the world “better.”
a. We can’t say the world would be better without free will or
with constant divine intervention, b/c we cannot know whether
the change we suggest would amount to being “better” given
the complexities of the “system of the world.”
6. Theodicist says we must be able to describe completely (all its facts,
total goodness, etc.) a better possible world if we are going to hold God
responsible for evil.
i. But this is impossible given our limited perspective.
ii. So, we can’t blame God for evil.

III. A Skeptical Rejoinder—A rejection of the Theodicies.

A. Rejects the supposed “exoneration” of God
B. Arguments:
1. Distinction between ​Moral ​and ​Natural​ evils:
i. Any evil that occurs as the result of deliberate human action is
moral evil, and any that occurs as a result of the “ordinary
workings of natural laws” is “natural evil”
a. Murder = Moral evil
b. Famines = Natural Evil
ii. There may be mixed cases, but there are plenty of examples of
unmixed evils to make the distinction.
2. God and Moral Evil:
i. It seems that God uses evil as a means of moral education/training
for us.
 a. Have free will to choose between good and evil.
b. But if God is all-powerful, why not just create us as “morally
educated?” Then we don’t need the training!
c. If a surgeon ​could ​make a patient healthy ​without s​ urgery,
we’d say he’s a better doctor than one who performed
unnecessary surgery… ​
iii. In response to the claim that we can’t “know” of a world that
would be better than the one as it is, the skeptic points out that the
“moral education” argument ​depends on ​the idea that the world
could be better.
a. Basically, it’s cheating to use our limited perspective against
the skeptic about God if one is going to ​ignore​ the limitation in
crafting one’s own argument.
ii. Why, then, does God act like an irresponsible surgeon who doesn’t
just skip the middle stuff and attain the goods directly? He is
omnipotent, after all!
3. God and Natural Evil:
i. The Natural World seems to be “red in tooth and claw,” as
Tennyson says.
ii. Natural selection and competition/war between species is part of
the natural world—the fit survive over the unfit!
iii. This kind of systemic suffering cannot be explained away by:
a. “Apparent Evil”—in the sense that evil is an overextension of
our desires
b. Does not seem to contribute to humanity’s moral training
c. Hard to show what goods are logical corollaries of this kind of
suffering and evil.
iv. Thus, Theodicist must explain this away as being result of
“fallenness of the world” and that it’s consistent with this being
“the best of all possible worlds.”
a. “Fallenness” won’t work.
● This description is a poet’s imagination.
● Even if true, how does it absolve God of
responsibility? Why should animals suffer b/c people
screwed up? That’s not fair!
b. In light of this massive animal suffering that ​could ​be avoided,
can we really say this is the “best of all possible worlds?”
v. And what about hurricanes, floods, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis,
famine, and so forth? Are these the handiwork of a perfect
creator?
a. Could there be a world without these?
4. Conclusion:
1. We must either conclude that God either lacks some powers or some
knowledge, because we sure wouldn’t want to give up the idea that
he’s good.
2. Otherwise, we must live with a ​contradiction​ deep in our Western
world view.