The Problem of Evil

1
The Problem of Evil
2
Our Question

• Our question is Does God Exist?
• Theism God exists.
• Atheism God does not exist.
• Agnosticism I dont know.
• Weak I happen not to know. Maybe someone else
  does.
• Strong No one knows (despite what they might
  think).
• Super-Strong It is impossible for anyone to know.

3
We Need Ground Rules

• To clarify the question What sort of thing is
  God supposed to be?
• Another way of putting it
• What would the world have to be like in order to
  contain God?
• (Compare What would the world have to be like
  in order to contain Pegasus?)
• This is suppose to help lay ground rules for the
  debate we should try to give an answer that
  both atheists and theists can agree on.

4
What Sort of Thing is God?

• God is supposed to be
• Powerful (Omnipotent, Almighty) God can do
  anything that can be done
• Knowledgeable (Omniscient) God can know
  anything that can be known and
• Good (Omnibenevolent) God loves and cares about
  all his creatures.
• Set aside Whether, additionally, if God exists,
  he can do things that cannot be done or whether
  God can know things that cannot be known. (Even
  Theists break their heads on how God could be
  this powerful or knowledgeable.)
• So Theists only assert the existence of a being
  able to do anything that can be done. (Similarly
  for knowledge.)

5
God is a Person

• Conclusion from our reflections If God exists,
  he can do things, he knows things, and there are
  things that he cares about.
• We call individuals who are agents, knowers, and
  carers persons.
• So, both atheists and theists agree if God
  exists, he is a person.

6
Mere Monotheism

• Some other stuff commonly attributed to God the
  creator of the world, the creator of humankind,
  the inspiration and/or source for certain
  religious texts, the source of the moral law, the
  judge of human beings, etc.
• Most of this other stuff is not shared commonly
  among the monotheistic religions, so we will
  ignore it.
• We are asking about what you might call
• mere monotheism the existence of a person who
  is almighty, all-knowing, and all-good.
• This approach attempts to find a lowest common
  denominator among different monotheistic
  religious traditions.
• Our approach neglects the very real differences
  among different monotheistic religious
  traditions. If you want to understand those, you
  should take a course from someone who knows
  something about them.

7
Remarks on What Needs to be Shown

• This notion of God is not entirely bloodless.
• Not just anything will count as God theists
  need to show that a certain kind of person
  exists.
• Trivially, perhaps, showing that there is a
  paperweight will not suffice.
• Less trivially, showing that there was a Big Bang
  does not show that God exists the Big Bang is
  not a person. (In particular, the Big Bang does
  not know things or have concerns.)
• Showing that a certain idea exists does not show
  that God exists. An idea is not a person. (The
  atheist knows very well that religious people
  have an idea of God. What the atheist denies is
  that corresponding to this idea is a perfect
  person.)

8
The Problem of Evil is an Atheistic Argument

• We are now going to look at one atheistic
  argument an argument that God does not exist.
• The argument is often called the problem of evil.
• The argument is that this is only a problem for
  theism you can avoid the problem by becoming an
  atheist.

9
There is Evil in this world (or at least bad)

• The problem of evil revolves around the claim
  that there is evil in this world.
• This seems a truism there is cruelty, jealousy,
  pain, depression, torture, injustice, disease,
  natural calamity of all sorts, etc., etc., ad
  nauseum.
• Note many think that the word evil is endowed
  with supernatural connotations.
• For instance, some think that calling something
  evil requires the existence of some malevolent
  intelligence (i.e. the devil) whose purposes it
  abets.
• (Note you can believe that God exists without
  believing that the devil exists.)
• Even if you think this is true, and you deny the
  existence of the devil, you can still get a
  problem going for theism if you are willing to
  allow that those things in the list above are
  bad.
• The problem of bad has its drawbacks as a label
  for this unit, so Ill just keep using the old
  terminology.

10
Deep BackgroundTwo Kinds of Evil

• Some of the bad things in the world come about as
  the result of human actions.
• Some of the bad things in the world are the
  result of natural forces.
• dist

Natural Evil
Artificial Evil
What is it?
Evil not caused by human actions
Evil caused by human actions

• cutting in line (injustice)
• Making fun of your aunt for her weird dye-job
  (cruelty)
• stealing a nickel from your Mom for candy (theft)

• hurricanes
• epidemics
• tsunamis
• earthquakes

Examples
11
Complicating the Distinction INatural Evil and
Human Action

• It is not obvious how bright a line can be drawn
  between natural and artificial evil.
• Note If there are no human beings (and perhaps
  other animals) involved, then natural disasters
  may not be evil at all.
• Examples
• paleozoic volcanic eruptions
• that huge storm on Jupiter

12
Complicating the Distinction INatural Evil and
Human Action (cont.)

• Apparent Lesson There is no natural evil that
  doesnt result in some sort of suffering for
  someone.
• Homework Is this true? Come up with a case of
  natural evil that involves no suffering for
  anyone.
• An upshot some natural evils are made worse by
  human action.
• Examples
• building a city below the level of an adjoining
  lake
• living at the base of a volcano
• raising chickens or other livestock in great
  numbers
• So there is often a component of human error,
  wrong, willfulness, pride, etc., in natural
  evils.

13
Complicating the Distinction IIArtificial Evil
and Nature

• Artificial evil almost always requires the
  cooperation of nature.
• (Possible purely artificial evils include,
  perhaps, murder in your heart morally bad
  thoughts or feelings that do not get expressed in
  bodily action. But ordinary, run-of-the-mill
  artificial evil requires cooperation from
  nature.)
• Examples
• Hotel Rwanda
• the villains gun
• The effectiveness of ordinary human action
  typically requires that the natural causal laws
  operate in the right (or wrong!) way.
• Bad actions are no different.

14
Summary of the complications

• Some natural evils are bad (or made worse)
  because of human action.
• Almost any artificial evil is bad because of the
  operation of natural laws.
• Some cases are hard to classify. Examples
• global warming
• the Dust Bowl
• using bioweapons

15
Existence of God, Existence of Evil

• Many have held that the existence of evil poses a
  problem for theism.
• Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad things
  do not happen.
• Now, there are two questions on the table
• Is there evil? and
• Does God exist?
• This gives us (technically) four positions

Do bad things happen?
Does God exist?
Compatibilist Theism
Yes
Yes
X
Implausible!
Yes
No
These are the only positions we will be
considering
Polyanna Theism
Incompatibilist Atheism
X
Yes
No
Implausible!
Polyanna Atheism
X
X
No
No
16
The Significance of Incompatibilism

• Heres something that it is very implausible to
  deny bad things happen.
• (Just because it is implausible to deny this,
  doesnt mean that no one ever has. Some
  philosophers (plausibly, Augustine) have claimed
  that evil is not fully real.)
• For the purposes of this discussion, I am just
  going to take for granted that there is evil.
• This assumption implies
• If Incompatibilism is true, then there is no God.
• The Problem of Evil How can bad things happen,
  if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and
  all-loving person?

17
The Atheist Argument from Evil
We can generate an argument for atheism, if we
can establish Incompatibilism

1. Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad things
   do not happen.
2. Our Assumption Bad things happen

(C) Atheism God does not exist.
But why think Incompatibilism is true?
18
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism
God is the antidote to evil

• The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
• He knows when bad things are going to happen
• He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
  happening and
• He wants bad things not to happen.
• The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
  not prevent something from happening, then
  either
• She didnt know it would happen
• She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
• She didnt want it not to happen.

There are limits on what youll fail to prevent.
(C) Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad
things do not happen.
19
Why think the Antidote Principle is true?

• The antidote principle seems to follow from our
  specification of what God is supposed to be like.
• Omniscience God, if He exists, knows everything
  that can be known so (if He exists) He knows
  when bad things are going to happen.
• Omnipotence God, if He exists, can do anything
  that can be done so (if He exists) He can
  prevent bad things from happening.
• Goodness God, if He exists, loves all of His
  creatures so (if He exists) He wants bad things
  not to happen to them.
• The Antidote Principle is supposed to summarize
  these three points.

20
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism

• The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
• He knows when bad things are going to happen
• He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
  happening and
• He wants bad things not to happen.
• The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
  not prevent something from happening, then
  either
• She didnt know it would happen
• She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
• She didnt want it not to happen.

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All-loving
(C) Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad
things do not happen.
21
Why Think the Bystander Limitations are true?

• The bystander limitations are motivated by a
  consideration of cases in which someone allows
  something to happen.
• The Bystander Limitations admit only three
  excuses ignorance, helplessness, and
  indifference.
• Ignorant bystanders
• Sleeping through a burglary
• Encyclopedia Brown
• Helpless bystanders
• Cannonballs
• Coyote
• Indifferent bystanders
• You let your mother give your child a cookie
• Convenient deafness in a teacher

How could you fail to prevent that from happening?
I didnt know
I couldnt do anything
I didnt care
22
The Antidote Argument for Incompatibilism

• The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
• He knows when bad things are going to happen
• He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
  happening and
• He wants bad things not to happen.
• The Bystander Limitations If a person P fails
  to prevent something from happening, then either
• She didnt know it would happen
• She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
• She didnt want it not to happen.

Ignorance
Impotence
Indifference
(C) Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad
things do not happen.
23
Leibniz

• Gottfried Leibniz
• (1646 1716)
• Leibniz was a mathematician, physicist, and
  philosopher.
• Leibniz is a compatibilist theist.

24
This is the best of all possible worlds
Leibniz argues this world is the best of all
possible worlds.

• Whoever does not choose the best among several
  possible alternatives is lacking in power, in
  knowledge, or in goodness.
• God is not lacking in power, knowledge or
  goodness.
• God chose to create this world out of all of the
  possible worlds he could have created.

(C) This world is the best out of all possible
worlds.
25
Leibnizs Argument seems a lot like the Antidote
Argument
Reminds me of

• Whoever does not choose the best among several
  possible alternatives is lacking in power, in
  knowledge, or in goodness.
• God is not lacking in power, knowledge or
  goodness.
• God chose to create this world out of all of the
  possible worlds he could have created.

the Bystander Limitations
the Antidote Principle
(C) This world is the best out of all possible
worlds.
26
Leibniz is not (quite) a Pollyanna

• Leibnizs argument looks a lot like the Antidote
  Argument for Incompatibilism.
• But Leibniz is not an incompatibilist. Hes a
  compatibilist.
• Leibniz is not a Pollyanna who denies that bad
  things happen.
• He sounds like one sometimes. (Voltaires
  Candide is an extended satire of Leibnizs
  Pollyanna-ish tendencies.)
• Its really hard to believe that this world is
  the best that God could have done.
• Leibniz nevertheless admits that bad things do
  happen.

27
Leibniz Bad Things Happen
The best plan is not always that which seeks
to avoid evil, since it may happen that the evil
is accompanied by a greater good. For example, a
general of an army will prefer a great victory
with a slight wound to a condition without wound
and without victory. (p. 92, col. 1)

• Leibniz claims I may allow something bad to
  happen if I think that it is necessary to secure
  a greater good.
• I will tolerate necessary evils.
• Examples
• the wound is necessary for the victory
• flu shots
• high criminal burden of proof
• Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
  this world is necessary to secure a greater good.

28
How does this help with the Antidote Argument?

• Leibniz is a compatibilist, so he must think
  there is some flaw in the Antidote Argument for
  Incompatibilism.
• How does the idea of a necessary evil help with
  the Antidote Argument?
• Leibniz obviously agrees with the Antidote
  Principle God does have the knowledge, power,
  and desire to prevent evil.
• Notice that, in all of our cases of a necessary
  evil, we seem to have a counter-example to the
  Bystander Limitations
• The general allows the wound to happen, even
  though he knows it will happen, he could prevent
  it, and wants it not to happen.
• I allow the prick to happen, even though, etc.
• We allow the guilty to go free, even though, etc.

29
Bystander Limitations is False

• The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
  not prevent something from happening, then
  either
• She didnt know it would happen
• She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
• She didnt want it not to happen OR
• Allowing it is necessary for her to secure some
  greater good.

• Leibniz holds that Bystander Limitations is
  simply false.
• There is a missing condition we need to allow
  for necessary evils.
• Once you add this condition, Incompatibilism no
  longer follows.

Greater than what? Greater than the badness of
the evil avoided.
30
The New Antidote Argument

• The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
• He knows when bad things are going to happen
• He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
  happening and
• He wants bad things not to happen.
• The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
  not prevent something from happening, then
  either
• She didnt know it would happen
• She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
• She didnt want it not to happen.
• Allowing it is necessary for her to secure some
  greater good.

Heres the old Antidote Argument
Heres the new Bystander Limitations
The new argument gets a new conclusion
(C) Incompatibilism If God exists, then bad
things do not happen.
(C) Necessary Evil Compatibilism If God
exists, then bad things do not happen, unless
allowing them to happen is required in order to
secure a greater good.
31
Leibnizs Thesis, Amplified

• Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
  this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
• Notice that this commits Leibniz to idea that
  every single instance of evil is justified
  because it has wonderful effects.
• Theodicy (literally justification of God) a
  theodicy is an argument that the existence of
  evil is justified.
• Leibnizs claim suggests a strategy for theodicy
  for any given evil, show that it is necessary to
  achieve a greater good.
• HOMEWORK Unnecessary Evil Describe an actual
  situation in which
• something bad happens but
• that bad event is NOT necessary to achieve a
  greater good.

32
How could evil be required to secure a greater
good?

• Ideas?
• The Free Will Theodicy a world in which some
  crabbiness, cruelty, etc., is allowed, but in
  which some people choose goodness, kindness,
  sweetness and light is better than any world
  without crabbiness, cruelty, etc., but in which
  God forces his creatures to goodness, kindness,
  sweetness, and light.
• The Appreciation Theodicy a world in which some
  misery is allowed, but in which people appreciate
  what contentment they may find is better than any
  world full of spoiled but contented ingrates.
• Others? (A student once suggested Test of
  Faith)

33
Compatibilism, Weak and Strong

• Notice that a theist has to establish the
  compatibility of Gods existence with the
  occurrence of all the bad things that actually
  happen.
• This is more difficult than just showing that
  Gods existence is compatible with the occurrence
  bad things in general.
• Weak Compatibilism Gods existence is
  compatible in principle with the occurrence of
  some bad things.
• Strong Compatibilism Gods existence is
  compatible with the occurrence of all the bad
  things that there actually are.
• The Strong Compatibilist must show, e.g., that
  Gods existence is compatible with the breeding
  habits of Ichneumonidae wasps.

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and
omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their
feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars,
or that a cat should play with mice." (Charles
Darwin, Letter to American botanist Asa Gray,
source wikipedia entry for Ichneumon)
source http//iris.biosci.ohio-state.edu/catalogs
/ichneumonids/
34
Objections from Actual Evil

• What I am going to do now is offer three
  objections to Leibnizs theodicies.
• Each of these three objections accepts weak
  compatibilism the existence of God is
  consistent in principle with some bad things
  happening.
• But these objections start from the idea that
  there are particular instances of evil that seem
  hard for a theist to handle.
• In effect, each objection poses a challenge to
  the theist account for this kind of evil.
• Our three objections are objections to different
  parts of Leibnizs claim.

35
Each and every bad thing?
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.

• Leibnizs theodicies require that every actual
  instance of evil secures some greater good.
• The problem is that there are some bad things
  that happen that seem to result in no greater
  good theyre totally pointless.
• We need to make sure that none of the good
  effects required by our theodicies applies.
• Free will cannot be involved so we appeal to
  natural evil.
• Appreciation cannot be involved so we appeal to
  evils that no one ever learned anything from.
• Examples
• certain birth defects
• 100 fatal prehistoric natural disasters
• You might call this the problem of pointless
  suffering.

36
Each and every bad thing?
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.

• The theodicy must justify
• The existence of the suffering and
• The extent of the suffering.
• So, there are really two related objections here
• The suffering is pointless the existence of
  these evils are not justified by good
  consequences and
• God seems to be laying it on a bit thick The
  extent of these evils does not seem required to
  secure the benefits. There seems to be no need
  for the suffering to have lasted so long, and
  been so severe.

37
Is all that evil really necessary?
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.

• Who makes the rules around here, anyway?
• It seems that the laws which require trading an
  evil for a greater good are laws that God can
  contravene (if He exists).
• For example
• The general cant secure a victory without a
  wound, but God can
• I cant give someone an immunity to the flu
  without some discomfort, but God can.
• Why cant God secure the benefits without the
  pain?
• Lets see how this goes for both of the
  theodicies we are exploring.

38
Is all that evil really necessary? (vs. the Free
Will Theodicy)
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.

• Free Will
• the benefits of free will are secured by the
  time the agent executes her decision.
• the misery has yet to be caused that requires
  cooperation from nature.
• a minor miracle could save the benefits and
  prevent the evil.

Cause
Misery
Action

• A convenient misfire would have come in handy
• Or a good, stiff cross-breeze.

39
Is all that evil really necessary? (vs. the
Appreciation Theodicy)
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.
Gee Willikers, am I a lucky ducky!

• Appreciation Theodicy
• If God exists, it seems to be within his power to
  make us appreciate how good we have it without
  seeing (or experiencing) misery.
• How about movies, or other fake misery, instead
  of real misery?

Misery
Causes
Appreciation
40
For the greater good? Whose good?
Leibnizs Thesis Each bad thing that happens in
this world is necessary to secure a greater good.

• The idea here is some people bear the costs of
  the evil, and others get to reap the benefits.
• Free Will Theodicy The perpetrator (the
  decider) enjoys the benefits of free will, but
  the victim bears the costs.
• Appreciation Theodicy The sufferer bears the
  costs of, well, suffering, but us lucky folks get
  the benefits of appreciating our luck.
• But this just seems to be unfair its not the
  sort of thing you do to those you love.

41
On Adams

• Adams does not endorse Necessary Evil
  Compatibilism.
• Necessary Evil Compatibilism If God exists,
  then bad things do not happen, unless allowing
  them to happen is required in order to secure a
  greater good.
• Adams This world is NOT the best of all possible
  worlds.
• Since he rejects NE Compatibilism, Adams must
  identify some flaw in the NEW Antidote Argument
  given by Leibniz.

42
The New Antidote Argument

• The Antidote Principle If God exists, then
• He knows when bad things are going to happen
• He is powerful enough to prevent bad things from
  happening and
• He wants bad things not to happen.
• The Bystander Limitations If a person P does
  not prevent something from happening, then
  either
• She didnt know it would happen
• She wasnt powerful enough to prevent it or
• She didnt want it not to happen.
• Allowing it is necessary for her to secure some
  greater good.

(C) Necessary Evil Compatibilism If God
exists, then bad things do not happen, unless
allowing them to happen is required in order to
secure a greater good.
43
Adams vs. the Antidote Principle

• Adams seems to reject the Antidote Principle, the
  first premise of the argument.
• Adams God does not generally mind if bad things
  happen.
• Whats left of the claim that God is perfectly
  good?
• Gods goodness, according to Adams, requires only
  that
• he never be unkind to any of His creatures,
• never wrong one of his creatures, and
• never act in a way that reveals a flaw in His
  character.
• Being good (for us as well as for God) does not
  require that you prevent every bad thing you
  could prevent, even when its not a necessary
  evil.
• Challenge Can you think of a situation in which
  someone reveals a flaw in her character without
  acting wrongly?

44
The Happiness Principle

• People suffer. We are not as happy as we might
  otherwise have been. Does it follow that there
  is no God? The Happiness Principle says, yes!
• The Happiness Principle God would be unkind, act
  wrongly, or reveal a flaw in his character if he
  created something that is less happy that it
  otherwise might have been.
• Terminology
• Someone is maximally happy she is as happy as
  it is possible for her to be.
• An act A is ungodly performing A is unkind,
  wrong, or reveals a flaw in ones character.
• The Happiness Principle 2.0 It would be ungodly
  of God to create someone who is not maximally
  happy.
• Adams rejects the Happiness Principle.
• What reasons can there be for doing so?

45
The Anti-Max Argument
Warning This is a simpler argument that the one
Adams actually gives!

1. Anti-Max If it is not ungodly to create any
   creature at all, then it is not ungodly to create
   a creature who is not maximally happy.
2. Creation is not ungodly it is not ungodly to
   create a creature.

(C) It is not ungodly to create a creature who is
not maximally happy.
There is also a direct argument for this
conclusion from cases. I, for instance, am not as
happy as its possible for me to be, but I
certainly dont think it would be ungodly for
someone to have created me.
This is just the negation of the Happiness
Principle
46
Why believe that creation is not ungodly?

• Why believe the second premise of the Anti-Max
  Argument?
• George Baileys Principle No creature is so
  miserable that it would have been better for that
  creature if it had never existed.
• An upshot creating a creature is doing that
  creature a favor.
• Notice doing someone a favor does not wrong
  them, is not unkind, and does not reveal a flaw
  in your character.

47
Why Think Anti-Max is True?
Anti-Max If it is not ungodly to create any
creature at all, then it is not ungodly to create
a creature who is not maximally happy.

• Suppose that potential happiness knows no
  bounds.
• This means no matter how happy some creature
  is, it is possible that the creature have been
  even happier.
• Compare Could God create a creature who is
  maximally tall (i.e. as tall as it possibly
  could be)?
• If potential happiness knows no bounds, God could
  not create a creature at all without creating a
  creature that is not maximally happy.
• Anti-Max follows.

48
More on George Baileys Principle
George Baileys Principle No creature is so
miserable that it would have been better for that
creature if it had never existed.

• Note George Baileys Principle is independent
  of the anti-euthanasia claim we might call
• Terry Schiavos Principle No creatures life
  becomes so miserable that it would have been
  better for that creature if its life had been
  shorter.
• (I have no opinion about whether Terry Schiavo
  would have endorsed Terry Schiavos Principle.)
• How is George Baileys Principle motivated?
• No Creature, No Goodness for that creature if
  the creature had never existed, then there would
  have been no such thing as how good it was for
  that creature.
• Hence, it would be false to say that it would
  have been better for the creature never to have
  existed.

49
Adamss Optimistic View

• Adamss idea is this
• Each of us endures some measure of suffering.
• But its worth it our lives, on a whole, are
  worth living, even with the suffering.
• In being given our lives, we have been given
  something that is, on balance, a blessing.
• If God has done wrong in giving us lives like
  this, then whom has he wronged? Not any of us,
  who are lucky to have been created.
• If God has been unkind to anyone, then to whom
  was he unkind? Not any of us, to whom he has
  given something that is, on the whole, valuable.
• And where, exactly, has God revealed a flaw in
  His character?
• Compare your parents give you 300, even though
  they know that this may cause you some stress.