The Problem of Evil POE

1
The Problem of Evil (POE)

• Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot or
  he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to,
  but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does
  not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say,
  God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do
  it, why is there evil in the world?
• - Epicurus

2
Background
3
What Does Evil Mean?

• Evil usually only a feature of a person, not
  events, etc.
• Evil (in this debate) bad stuff that happens
  (e.g. pain and suffering)
• technical term

4
Types of Evil

• Moral Evil bad stuff that happens because of
  people or other agents
• Ex Rape, genocide, murder, plagiarizing your
  PHIL 1 papers (!), etc.
• Natural Evil bad stuff that happens because of
  nature
• Ex Natural disasters, diseases, genetic
  disorders, etc.

5
Some Natural Evils

• Natural disasters
• Ex Earthquake in China last year (killed around
  10,000, including kids in schools)
• Birth defects
• Ex spina bifida, encephalocele, anencephaly
• Genetic disorders
• Ex Downs, hemophilia, Alzheimer's
• Diseases
• HIV/AIDS, cancer, Ebola, polio (all incurable)

6
A Special Type of Evil

• NN Evil evil that is not logically necessary
  for an adequately compensating good.
• Main idea NN evil is the kind of evil there is
  no sufficient reason to let occur.

7
Kinds of Possibility Necessity

• Physical e.g. its necessary (physically) that
  nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
• Logical e.g. its not possible for it to be
  both raining and not raining outside right now.
• Gods omnipotent he can do anything logically
  possible. (recall stone paradox)

8
The Argument

• (WSAs form of)

9
WSAs Argument from Evil

• If there were a God, then there wouldnt be any
  NN evil. see Epicurus quote
• There is NN evil (lots of it, actually).
• ? There is no God.

10
Support for P1

• P1 If there were a God, then there wouldnt be
  any NN evil.
• God wouldnt allow NN evil.(omni-benevolent)
• God would know about it.(omniscient)
• God could prevent it.(omnipotent)

11
Support for P2

• P2 There is NN evil.
• Consider genetic disorders.
• Not (logically) necessary for some greater good
• Theyre NN evils

12
2 Types of POE Args.

• Logical POE evil is logically inconsistent with
  God.
• Evidential POE evil is evidence that God
  doesnt exist.
• WSAs is evidential.

13
The Upshot

• L-POEs can be defeated by
• Merely showing that evil and God are compatible
• (Can assume God exists for this)
• E-POEs can only be defeated by
• Showing that evil is not evidence against there
  being a God
• (Cant assume God exists for this)

14
Evaluating the Argument
15
Theodicies as Responses

• Theodicy an attempt to reconcile the existence
  of evil with the existence of God.
• Basically, attempts to deny P2
• Concede there is evil
• Deny its NN

16
Some Weak Responses

• Privation Response There really isnt any evil
  b/c evil is just lack of good.
• Criticism No its not. Pain and suffering are
  obviously real things in themsevles.
• Contrast Response We need all this evil to have
  good in the world.
• Criticism We dont need this much evil for the
  contrast! An all-good being wouldnt allow this
  much.

17
Obj. 1 Free Will Response

• Free will is highly valuable in itself
• So wed expect a God to create creatures with
  free will
• Evil exists because of people exercising that
  free will
• So all this evil is not NN

18
Rebuttal 1 Intervention

• Recall God can do anything logically possible
• Its logically possible for a God to create free
  agents but foil the plans of the really bad ones
• If God existed, wed expect the Holocaust (e.g.)
  to be prevented

19
Rebuttal 2 Natural Evil

• Only deals with moral evil
• The natural evils are still NN
• God wouldve created nature allowednatural
  evils to happen

20
Response All Moral Evil

• Invisible spirits (or some other entity) cause
  natural evils
• Theyre responsible, not God.
• There really isnt any natural evil (its all
  moral)

21
Rebuttal No Ghosts

• Need evidence of such entities
• But there aint any
• Would take strongarg. to show naturalevils
  reallyarent natural

22
Obj. 2 Standards Response

• Gods goodness is different from human goodness
• By his standards, its okay to allow all this
  evil

23
Rebuttal Moral Absolutism

• Morality is same for everyone
• Allowing babies (e.g.) to suffer for no good
  reason is immoral
• If an entity thinks it isnt, then that entity
  isnt all-good (and so isnt God)

24
Obj. 3 Modesty Response

• Were just mere little humans
• Maybe alleged NN evils are necessary so
  should be allowed
• They could all be justified

25
Rebuttal Possible ? Plausible

• Sure, its possible theres adequate reason to
  allow such evils
• But theres no evidence for thattheres no
  reason to believe that
• We have to go with the evidenceand it points to
  these evils being NN.

26
Dostoevskys Challenge

• Ivan Imagine, that you are creating a fabric of
  human destiny with the object of making men happy
  in the end, giving them peace and rest at last,
  but that it was essential and inevitable to
  torture to death only one tiny creaturethat baby
  beating its breast with its fist, for
  instanceand to found that edifice on its
  unavenged tears, would you consent to be the
  architect on those conditions?
• Alyosha No, I wouldnt consent.

27
Super Mega Rebuttal

• Even granting
• A god would create free beings and spirits
• All the evil is necessary for good
• This is the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz)
• What we should expect from an omni-being (if it
  existed) is refraining from creating such a
  universe.
• The right thing to do is not create

28
Conclusion

• Maybe E-POE can be resisted by deferring to God
  (he has a plan, etc.)
• But that requires a strong arg. for God already
  in hand