DOCSLIB.ORG

The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism Author(S): William L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism Author(S): William L North American Philosophical Publications The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism Author(s): William L. Rowe Reviewed work(s): Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp. 335-341 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009775 . Accessed: 05/11/2011 14:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org American Philosophical Quarterly Volume 16, Number 4, October 1979 IX. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND SOME VARIETIES OF ATHEISM WILLIAM L. ROWE was an paper is concerned with three interrelated of divine being or divine reality. Tillich not THIS questions. The first is : Is there an argument for atheist in the broad sense. But he was an atheist in atheism based on the existence of evil that may the narrow sense, for he denied that there exists a an rationally justify someone in being atheist? To divine being that is all-knowing, all-powerful and an answer terms this first question I give affirmative and perfectly good. In this paper I will be using the to answer a try support that by setting forth strong "theism," "theist," "atheism," "atheist," "agnos? for atheism on the existence of evil.1 in the narrow not in argument based ticism," and "agnostic" sense, The second question is: How can the theist best the broad sense. defend his position against the argument for atheism based on the existence of evil? In response to this I to describe what be an question try may adequate I rational defense for theism against any argument for atheism based on the existence of evil. The final In developing the argument for atheism based on question is: What position should the informed the existence of evil, it will be useful to focus on some our atheist take concerning the rationality of theistic particular evil that world contains in consider? belief? Three different answers an atheist may give able abundance. Intense human and animal suffer? to this question serve to distinguish three varieties of ing, for example, occurs daily and in great plenitude in our is a case atheism: unfriendly atheism, indifferent atheism, world. Such intense suffering clear of and friendly atheism. In the final part of the paper I evil. Of course, if the intense suffering leads to some discuss and defend the position of friendly atheism. greater good, a good we could not have obtained Before we the we we consider argument from evil, without undergoing the suffering in question, need to distinguish a narrow and a broad sense of the might conclude that the suffering is justified, but it terms a remains an we must not "theist," "atheist," and "agnostic." By evil nevertheless. For "theist" in the narrow sense I mean someone who confuse the intense suffering in and of itself with the believes in the an to or existence of omnipotent, omnis? good things which it sometimes leads of which it a or cient, eternal, supremely good being who created may be necessary part. Intense human animal a sense mean an the world. By "theist" in the broad I suffering is in itself bad, evil, even though itmay someone who believes in the existence of some sort of sometimes be justified by virtue of being a part of, or divine being or divine reality. To be a theist in the leading to, some good which is unobtainable without narrow sense is also to be a theist in the broad sense, it.What is evil in itself may sometimes be good as a but one may be a theist in the broad sense?as was means because it leads to something that is good in a itself. In a an Paul Tillich?without believing that there is such case, while remaining evil in itself, eternal the intense human or animal supremely good, omnipotent, omniscient, suffering is, neverthe? being who created the world. Similar distinctions less, an evil which someone might be morally must be made between a narrow and a broad sense of justified in permitting. the terms "atheist" and To an as a "agnostic." be atheist Taking human and animal suffering clear in the broad sense is to deny the existence of any sort instance of evil which occurs with great frequency in 1 Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I has succeeded in such an a think, establishing extravagant claim. Indeed, granted incompatibilism, there is fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God. (For a lucid statement of this argument see Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (New York, 1974), pp. 29-59.) There remains, however, what we may call the evidential form?as to the form?of the of evil: the view our opposed logical problem that the variety and profusion of evil in world, although not perhaps logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God, provides, nevertheless, rational support for atheism. In this paper I shall be concerned solely with the evidential form of the problem, the form of the problem which, I think, presents a rather severe difficulty for theism. 335 336 AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY on not same as an our world, the argument for atheism based evil the permitting evil greater than s^ a state can be stated as follows : And this because the absence of good of affairs need not itself be an evil state of affairs. It is also i. There exist instances of intense which an suffering to that be such that it is omniscient could have important recognize sxmight omnipotent, being prevented OG G some or preventable by without losing (so condition (i) without thereby losing greater good per? some or is not but also such that if OG did mitting evil equally bad worse.2 satisfied) prevent G would be loss unless OG some evil 2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the it, permitted to or worse than If this were it does not occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it equal s?. so, could not do so without some seem correct to that OG thereby losing greater require prevent sx. Thus, or some or worse. good permitting evil equally bad condition (ii) takes into account an important possibility not encompassed in condition (i). Is it true that if an an omniscient, wholly good being 3. There does not exist omnipotent, omniscient, the occurrence of some intense it wholly good being. permits suffering could have prevented, then either (i) or (ii) or (iii) are we What to say about this argument for atheism, obtains? It seems to me that it is true. But if it is true an based on the of one sort of argument profusion then so is premise (2) of the argument for atheism. our evil in world? The argument is valid ; therefore, more For that merely states in compact form we its premise if have rational grounds for accepting what we must true an have suggested be if omnis? to that extent we have rational for premises, grounds cient, wholly good being fails to prevent some atheism. Do we, have rational accepting however, intense suffering it could prevent. Premise (2) says for the of this grounds accepting premises argument? that an omniscient, wholly good being would Let be an Let's begin with the second premise. occurrence sx prevent the of any intense suffering it instance of intense human or animal which suffering could, unless it could not do so without thereby an omniscient, wholly being could prevent. We some or some evil good losing greater good permitting will also that are such that j will suppose things equally bad or worse. This premise (or something occur unless the prevented by omniscient, wholly not too distant from it) is, I think, held in common We be interested in good (OG) being. might by many atheists and nontheists. Of course, there what would be a condition of determining sufficient may be disagreement about whether something is OG to But, for our here, failing prevent ^. purpose good, and whether, if it is good, one would be we need to state a condition for OG only try necessary morally justified in permitting some intense suffering so seems to to prevent That condition, it to occur to failing sx. in order obtain it. Someone might hold, me, is this: no to for example, that good is great enough justify an to Either (i) there is some greater good, G, such that permitting innocent child suffer terribly.4 someone mere a G is obtainable by OG only if OG permits ^3, Again, might hold that the fact that or some and would be (ii) there is some greater good, G, such that G is given good outweighs suffering were not a obtainable by OG only if OG permits either s1 loss if the suffering prevented, is morally or some or sufficient reason for the But to evil equally bad worse, permitting suffering.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Problem of Evil As a Moral Objection to Theism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AS A MORAL OBJECTION TO THEISM by TOBY GEORGE BETENSON A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. Department of Philosophy School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2014 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract: I argue that the problem of evil can be a moral objection to theistic belief. The thesis has three broad sections, each establishing an element in this argument. Section one establishes the logically binding nature of the problem of evil: The problem of evil must be solved, if you are to believe in God. And yet, I borrow from J. L. Mackie’s criticisms of the moral argument for the existence of God, and argue that the fundamentally evaluative nature of the premises within the problem of evil entails that it cannot be used to argue for the non- existence of God.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil
    The Problem of Evil Leslie Allan Published online: 28 July 2015 Copyright © 2015 Leslie Allan The existence of evil, pain and suffering is considered by many philosophers to be the most vexed question concerning the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect deity. Why would a loving God permit wanton acts of cruelty and misery on the scale witnessed throughout human history? In this essay, Leslie Allan evaluates four common theistic responses to this problem, highlighting the benefits and challenges faced by each approach. He concludes with a critical examination of a theistic defence designed to show that the problem of evil is not a problem at all. To cite this essay: Allan, Leslie 2015. The Problem of Evil, URL = <http://www.RationalRealm.com/philosophy/metaphysics/problem-of-evil.html> To link to this essay: http://www.RationalRealm.com/philosophy/metaphysics/problem-of-evil.html Follow this and additional essays at: http://www.RationalRealm.com This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms and conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.RationalRealm.com/policies/tos.html Leslie Allan The Problem of Evil 1. Introduction The problem of evil, pain and suffering is considered by some philosophers to be the most telling philosophical objection to theistic belief. At its heart is the notion that if God existed, he would be powerful enough to be able to prevent evil, wise enough to know how to prevent it and benevolent enough to want to prevent it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil and the Probity of Theodicy from William Rowe's
    Liberty University Department of Philosophy The Problem of Evil and the Probity of Doing Theodicy from William Rowe’s Evidential Argument from Evil ------------------------------------------- A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Philosophy Department of Liberty University In Partial Fulfilment Of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in Philosophical Studies -------------------------------------------- By Olaoluwa Apata -------------------------------------------- Lynchburg, VA May 2016 Abstract In this research, we discussed the types of evil: moral and natural, which are cited by atheistic philosophers as evidence against the existence of God. The so-called evidence from evil has been used by the atheistic and other non-theistic scholars to raise hypothesis on evaluating the possibility or likelihood that an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God exists in a world that is littered with evil. Moral evil is evil that arise from the misuse of free will by moral agents, while natural evils are natural disasters such as: earthquakes, famine, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. We discussed moral evil and Plantinga’s free will defense. We also discussed the natural evil and how it poses threat to theism. The logical and the evidential arguments from evil are the forms of arguments developed from moral and natural evils. While many scholars have agreed that Plantinga’s free will defense adequately responds to the problem of logical evil, the same consensus does not necessarily apply to the evidential argument from evil. We also examined William Rowe’s evidential argument which he developed from cases of intense animal and human sufferings considered by him to be pointless or gratuitous with no known reasons or goods for which God should have allowed the visceral experience of such sufferings.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Problem of Evil' in the Context of The
    The ‘Problem of Evil’ in the Context of the French Enlightenment: Bayle, Leibniz, Voltaire, de Sade “The very masterpiece of philosophy would be to develop the means Providence employs to arrive at the ends she designs for man, and from this construction to deduce some rules of conduct acquainting this wretched two‐footed individual with the manner wherein he must proceed along life’s thorny way, forewarned of the strange caprices of that fatality they denominate by twenty different titles, and all unavailingly, for it has not yet been scanned nor defined.” ‐Marquis de Sade, Justine, or Good Conduct Well Chastised (1791) “The fact that the world contains neither justice nor meaning threatens our ability both to act in the world and to understand it. The demand that the world be intelligible is a demand of practical and of theoretical reason, the ground of thought that philosophy is called to provide. The question of whether [the problem of evil] is an ethical or metaphysical problem is as unimportant as it is undecidable, for in some moments it’s hard to view as a philosophical problem at all. Stated with the right degree of generality, it is but unhappy description: this is our world. If that isn’t even a question, no wonder philosophy has been unable to give it an answer. Yet for most of its history, philosophy has been moved to try, and its repeated attempts to formulate the problem of evil are as important as its attempts to respond to it.” ‐Susan Neiman, Evil in Modern Thought – An Alternative History of Philosophy (2002) Claudine Lhost (Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy with Honours) This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia in 2012 1 I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work which has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.0 Introduction. John Mackie Argued That God's Perfect Goodness Is
    1 TWO—NO, THREE—DOGMAS OF PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY 1.0 Introduction. John Mackie argued that God's perfect goodness is incompatible with his failing to actualize the best world that he can actualize. And God's omnipotence is incompatible with his being unable to actualize a morally perfect world. As Mackie put it: If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? If there is no logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on one or several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong; there was open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being omnipotent and wholly good.1 I'd like to urge that Mackie was entirely right. Necessarily it is within God's power to predict or to prophesy that every significantly free essence that he instantiates will always go right. God's omnipotence and omniscience ensure that he can predict that every instantiated essence always goes right and that his predictions are necessarily accurate. So 2 God predicts that every significantly free essence always goes right only if every significantly free essence always freely goes right.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil and the Grammar of Goodness
    religions Article The Problem of Evil and the Grammar of Goodness Eric Wiland Department of Philosophy, University of Missouri-St. Louis, One University Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA; [email protected] Received: 5 January 2018; Accepted: 20 January 2018; Published: 31 January 2018 Abstract: I consider the two venerated arguments about the existence of God: the Ontological Argument and the Argument from Evil. The Ontological Argument purports to show that God’s nature guarantees that God exists. The Argument from Evil purports to show that God’s nature, combined with some plausible facts about the way the world is, guarantees (or is very compelling grounds for thinking) that God does not exist. Both presume that it is coherent to predicate goodness (or greatness) of God. But if Peter Geach’s claim that goodness is logically attributive is cogent, then both arguments fall to the ground. Keywords: god; evil; goodness; religion 1. Here I consider two venerated arguments about the existence of God: the Ontological Argument and the Argument from Evil. The Ontological Argument purports to show that God’s nature guarantees that God exists. The Argument from Evil purports to show that God’s nature, combined with some plausible facts about the way the world is, guarantees (or is very compelling grounds for thinking) that God does not exist. Obviously, both arguments cannot be sound. But I argue here that they both are unsound for the very same reason. 2. Consider first the Argument from Evil. There are very many ways the Argument from Evil can be formulated. For the most part, these differences will not affect the issue at hand in this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The Logical Problem of Evil Regained MICHAEL J
    misp_240 163..176 bs_bs_banner MIDWEST STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XXXVI (2012) The Logical Problem of Evil Regained MICHAEL J. ALMEIDA 1. INTRODUCTION John Mackie argued that God’s perfect goodness is incompatible with his failing to actualize the best world that he can actualize. And God’s omnipotence is incom- patible with his being unable to actualize a morally perfect world. As Mackie put it: If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil,why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? If there is no logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on one or several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong; there was open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being omnipotent and wholly good.1 I’d like to suggest that Mackie was entirely right. In section 2 I argue in favor of Mackie’s thesis that, necessarily, God can actualize a morally perfect world in 1. See John Mackie,“Evil and Omnipotent,” in Philosophy of Religion:An Anthology, 5th ed. Michael Rea and Louis Pojman (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2008), 173–80. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of the Epistemological Objection to Divine Command Theory
    In Defence of the Epistemological Objection to Divine Command Theory By John Danaher, NUI Galway Forthcoming in Sophia Abstract: Divine Command Theories (DCTs) comes in several different forms but at their core all of these theories claims that certain moral statuses (most typically the status of being obligatory) exist in virtue of the fact that God has commanded them to exist. Several authors argue that this core version of the DCT is vulnerable to an epistemological objection. According to this objection, DCT is deficient because certain groups of moral agents lack epistemic access to God’s commands. But there is confusion as to the precise nature and significance of this objection, and critiques of its key premises. In this article I try to clear up this confusion and address these critiques. I do so in three ways. First, I offer a simplified general version of the objection. Second, I address the leading criticisms of the premises of this objection, focusing in particular on the role of moral risk/uncertainty in our understanding of God’s commands. And third, I outline four possible interpretations of the argument, each with a differing degree of significance for the proponent of the DCT. 1. Introduction This article critiques Divine Command Theories (DCTs) of metaethics on the grounds that they involve an intimate connection between moral epistemology and moral ontology. More precisely, it argues that all DCTs incorporate an epistemic condition into their account of moral ontology and because of this they are vulnerable to an objection, viz. an important class of moral agents fail to satisfy this epistemic condition.
    [Show full text]
  • James Sterba's New Argument from Evil
    religions Essay James Sterba’s New Argument from Evil William Hasker Department of Philosophy, Huntington University, Huntington, IN 46750, USA; [email protected] Abstract: This article addresses the main argument in James Sterba’s book, an argument which claims that the existence of a good God is logically incompatible with the evil in the world. I claim to show that his main premise, MEPRI, is implausible and is not a secure foundation for such an argument. Keywords: Sterba; problem of evil; John Hick; divine intervention; rights My thanks to James Sterba, and to the editors, for inviting me to reply to his book1 and to his novel argument from evil against the existence of God. Sterba deserves credit for having introduced a new and ingenious argument into a very heavily-worked sector of the philosophical landscape. I shall argue, all the same, that his argument does not succeed.2 My focus will be on what I take to be Sterba’s main argument, an argument that the existence of a good God is logically incompatible with the existence of certain kinds of evils that are prevalent in the world in which we live. In particular, I will criticize the main premise of that argument, the Moral Evil Prevention Requirement I: (MEPRI) Prevent rather than permit the significant and especially the horrendous evil consequences of immoral actions, (a good to which we have a right) when, Citation: Hasker, William. 2021. without violating anyone’s rights, that can easily be done. (p. 126) James Sterba’s New Argument from Evil. Religions 12: 21.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidential Problem of Evil
    To put it simply The Problem of Evil topic but simplified and sometimes a bit chattier than it should be. The Specification The problem of evil • The concept of evil (natural and moral) and the logical and evidential problem of evil • Religious responses to the problem of evil. Credit will be given for relevant knowledge of any theodicy, but candidates are expected to be familiar with the following: – The main themes of theodicies in the Augustinian tradition – The free will defence – John Hick’s ‘vale of soul making’ theodicy (from the Irenaean tradition) – Responses to evil in process thought Issues arising • The success of the theodicies as a response to the problem of evil • What poses the greatest challenge to faith in God – natural evil or moral evil? • Is free will a satisfactory explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by God? • The strengths and weaknesses of these responses to the problem of evil The concept of evil (natural and moral) and the logical and evidential problem of evil Natural (or non-moral) evil refers to evils caused by the natural state of things i.e. they are nothing to do with human intentions and choices. They are evils brought about by the laws of nature and the state of the world. We would include natural disasters and death under this definition. Moral evil refers to evils that have come about as a direct result of human intentions and choices. These are evils that simply wouldn’t have occurred if it hadn’t have been for humans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secular Problem of Evil: an Essay in Analytic Existentialism
    The secular problem of evil: an essay in analytic existentialism PAUL PRESCOTT Department of Philosophy, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 13244, USA e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The existence of evil is often held to pose philosophical problems only for theists. I argue that the existence of evil gives rise to a philosophical problem which confronts theist and atheist alike. The problem is constituted by the following claims: (1) Successful human beings (i.e., those meeting their basic prudential interests) are committed to a good-enough world; (2) the actual world is not a good-enough world (i.e., sufficient evil exists). It follows that human beings must either (3a) maintain a state of epistemic ignorance regarding the nature of the actual world or (3b) abandon their basic prudential interests. Theists resolve this problem by rejecting (2), only to confront the problem of evil as it is traditionally understood. Successful atheists also reject (2), but without adequate grounds for doing so. Something might be true while being harmful and dangerous in the highest degree. Indeed, it might be a basic characteristic of existence that those who would know it completely would perish. NIETZSCHE In the Anglo-American philosophical tradition, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil with the purported existence of God. On some versions of the problem, the existence of evil is held to be logically incompatible with the existence of God; on others, it is held to be evidence against the existence of God. On all versions, the philosophical problem posed by the existence of evil begins and ends with a commitment to theism.
    [Show full text]
  • Is God Morally Obligated to Prevent Evil? a Response to James Sterba
    religions Article Is God Morally Obligated to Prevent Evil? A Response to James Sterba Joseph Brian Huffling Department of Philosophy, Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, NC 28277, USA; bhuffl[email protected] Abstract: James Sterba’s book, Is a Good God Logically Possible?, argues that given the amount of significant and horrendous evil in the world, it is not possible for a (morally) good God to exist. This article draws on the work of Brian Davies’ interpretation of Thomistic metaphysics and theology proper and argues that God is not a moral being, and thus has no obligations to prevent such evil. If such is the case, then the problem of evil as presented by Sterba is not a problem for God’s existence. Keywords: God; moral; morality; evil; James Sterba; Brian Davies; Thomas Aquinas; good 1. Introduction James Sterba argues that a good God is not logically possible.1 It may interest some that as a theist, I agree with him in a way. How on earth could a theist agree with an atheist in saying that a good God does not exist? In his book, Is a Good God Logically Possible?, Sterba makes the argument that given the amount of horrendous evil in the world, there is no justification, even in principle, for an all-good God allowing it.2 While many if not most philosophers today favor a more inductive argument in the vein of William Rowe, Sterba uses a logical, deductive approach to argue against any possibility of God’s existence.3 Citation: Huffling, Joseph Brian. This article will outline Sterba’s main argument, focusing on his point that any such 2021.
    [Show full text]