by Roger Bourke White Jr., copyright September 2016
Philosophy of Religion Handout 3 -- Arguments against the existence of God
What is the problem of evil in regards to God’s omniscience and/or foreknowledge and what kind of problems does it present for the theist (reader—pp. 178-179)?
The problem is that some things that are well documented and pretty graphically evil have happened in the world. Some of these, such as Auschwitz, have happened in recent times. How can such evil exist in a world that is the product of an omnibenevolent and still in control God?
What is the difference between moral evil and natural evil and give examples of each (reader—pp. 179-180)?
Moral evil springs from the deliberate acts of people who are acting evil. Natural evil springs from natural events which cause a lot of pain and suffering to people, particularly innocent people.
What is the logical problem of evil in formal form and what is it supposed to ‘prove’ in regards to the existence of the God (reader—pp. 180-181)?
The problem is the difficulty in meshing these two concepts:
o God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
o Evil exists in the world
What is the evidential problem of evil in formal form and what is it supposed to ‘prove’ in regards to the existence of God (reader—pp. 184)?
"The evidential problem of evil is essentially a challenge to theists to square their belief in God with the facts of evil in the world." It proves that the theist version of God doesn't exist.
What is the difference between a theodicy and a defense in relation to the problem of evil (reader—pp. 181 and pp. 189-190 and use the glossary definitions of these terms)? Give Plantinga’s Free Will Defense of the logical problem of evil and how he resolves the apparent contradiction between evil and God’s goodness (reader pp. 181-182).
Theodicy is an explanation of why something is happening. A defense is saying that it is possible, but doesn't try to explain the "why".
How does Rowe and other atheists attack the evidential problem of evil (include the factual and theological premise and what the atheist thinks ought to be concluded from these)? Given this argument, what does Rowe think the argument turns upon now (reader pp. 185-186)?
He comes up with a factual premise, a theological premise, and a conclusion.
What are the three types of atheism Rowe thinks exist and how ought the theist respond to each type of theist in regards to ‘the problem of evil and the existence of God’ (https://www.kul.pl/files/57/nauka/Rowe_The_Problem_of_Evil.pdf)?
The three types are unfriendly atheism, indifferent atheism, and friendly atheism. They are as follows:
o unfriendly -- "the atheist may believe that no one is rationally justified in believing that the theistic Cod exists"
o indifferent -- "the atheist may hold no belief concerning whether any theist is or isn't rationally justified in believing that the theistic Cod exists"
o friendly -- "the atheist may believe that some theists are rationally justified in believing that the theistic Cod exists" plus plane crash at sea example
Explain what these “themes in theodicy” mean for the believer in God, i.e., how would they be used to explain evil and give a simple response to them from the non-believer (most are contained in the following readings—reader—pp. 191-202—but I will add to a few of these)?
Punishment: Evil is punishment for wrongdoing. The story of Job's neighbors judging him is an example of this.
Best of all possible worlds: http://www.mesacc.edu/~barsp59601/text/244/notes/unit3/leibniz.html (reproduce the 8 objections and responses from Leibniz to the problem of evil).
Objection 1 - Theism is false because the existence of evil demonstrates that God lacks either power, knowledge or goodness.
Response -- Any instance of evil may be accompanied by a greater good, and since this is the best of all possible worlds, any evil that exists is necessary for the greater good.
Objection 2 - Theism is false because there is more evil than good in the universe.
Response -- First, the good in non-rational beings outweighs the evil in rational beings. Second, good is infinite and evil finite; thus a fewer number of rational beings pursuing good will outweigh a larger number of rational beings pursuing evil.
Objection 3 - Theism is false because God punish us unjustly.
Response -- There are two distinct forms of necessity; one is contrary to freedom of the will, and therefore morality, and one not:
- Absolute Necessity is insuperable and related to the essence of things.
- Conditional Necessity can include the will as a determining factor of future contingent events.
Objection 4 - Theism is false because if God exists, God is as responsible for evil as we are.
Response -- God does not will, but allows certain evil to exist for the greater good of the universe. There is a distinction between two types of divine will:
- Antecedent Will is God's desire for the greatest amount of good possible in the universe.
- Consequent Will is God's permission of certain instances of evil necessary for the achievement of the greatest amount of good possible in the universe.
Objection 5 - Theism is false because if God exists, God is the cause of evil.
Response -- Sin is the by-product of imperfection which in turn arises from finite nature (viz., "privative nature"). Hence, sin is the degeneration of finite perfection which is a possible future contingent state of the best possible universe.
Objection 6 - Theism is false because God punishes unjustly.
Response -- God does not condemn infants or heathens.
Objection 7 - Theism is false because God fails to save all beings.
Response -- The reason for this is hidden from human from human understanding. It is necessary for the "harmony" of the best of all possible worlds.
Objection 8 - Theism is false because God is not free.
Response -- God's actions are solely determined by divine will; there are neither external nor internal forces that constrain God's desire for the good.
Ultimate harmony: All is well in the world from God's perspective... or will be in the long run.
Free will (include the Augustinian theodicy, Irenaean theodicy and process theodicy):
o Augustinian -- Every thing is good, evil is the privation of goodness, it is not part of any thing.
o Irenaean -- Evil is not a decline from a pristine state but part of growing up, an inevitable stage in the gradual evolution of the human race.
o process -- As God's Consequent Nature changes in response to events in the creaturely world, God may also be said to change or be in process.
Divine intimacy theodicy of Adams and Ekstrom (I will provide the Ekstrom theodicy, Adams is on p. 200-201 of the reader):
o Adams -- Any created person who experiences horrendous evils will be able at some point to affirm the value of their own lives.
How is divine hiddenness a version of the problem of evil and what theodicy does Murray give in response to this (http://www.philosophynotes.info/2009/06/murray-coercion-and-the-hiddenness-of-god/)? Reproduce Rea’s critique of the hiddenness question from page 269 of this article https://www3.nd.edu/~mrea/papers/Rea%202011%20Divine%20Hiddenness,%20Divine%20Silence.pdf and what is his response in the pages afterwards.
Murray, "‘Specifically, it appears that one cannot act freely when one is in the condition of compulsion by another in the context of a threat‘. And if God doesn’t remain hidden, this could constitute a threat, thus removing our ability to act in a morally significant manner.
‘My claim here is the hidenness of God is required in order for free beings to be able to exercise their freedom in a morally significant manner given the strength of the threat implied be knowledge of the threat implicit in the traditional theistic story’ (p290)"
Rea:
"o If premises (1–4) really are inconsistent (and I think they are, since our concept of God rules out 4a–4c), then one of them is false. The trick then is to ask about each one, “Is this premise true or false? And if it is false, why is it false?” In the next few minutes, I’ll suggest some reasons for thinking that premises (2) and (3) might be false. My own sym- pathies lie with those who reject premise (3). But I’ll start with some thoughts about premise (2).
o Does it sound like St. Paul would agree with the claim that God is mostly hidden?"
What does Feuerbach mean when he states God is a projection of human nature and/or that theology is anthropology (Reading pp. 400-402 and http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/the-psychogenesis-of-religion/ludwig-feuerbach-theology-as-anthropology/)? And what does Freud mean when he states that religion and God are just ‘wish fulfillment’ (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/the-psychogenesis-of-religion/sigmund-freud-religion-as-wish-fulfilment/)? These are not necessarily versions of the problem of evil, but is used as a common explanation for why theism exists at all)?
Feuerbach argues that humanity is different from other animal species because of how it thinks. He also argues this thinking difference is the root of religion. And because this thinking difference is the root of religion it also the root of how humans see God. And further, at its root, this business of religion and God are wish fulfillment because these are things humans want to believe in.
--The End--