Content and Exam Tips for OCR A Level Religious Studies
Evil, Suffering, and Theodicies
The Problem of Evil
Content
the problem of evil and suffering:
different presentations
theodicies that propose some justification or reason for divine action or inaction in the face of evil
Key Knowledge
including its logical (the inconsistency between divine attributes and the presence of evil) and evidential (the evidence of so much terrible evil in the world) aspects
Augustine’s use of original perfection and the Fall
Hick’s reworking of the Irenaean theodicy which gives some purpose to natural evil in enabling human beings to reach divine likeness
The Problem of Evil
God is seen as omnipotent and benevolent within scripture and revelation. In the Bible, we can see God's actions and call him powerful and loving, e.g. the creation story is attributed to an omnipotent God and the incarnation of Christ to die for mankind is attributed to a benevolent God.
However, the existence of suffering poses a threat to God and the validity of the attributes mentioned above. If God is all loving and all powerful, why does He allow suffering in the world? Hans Kung describes the existence of suffering as the rock of atheism for this very reason.
Stephen Fry on God
Epicurus
Epicurus formulated the problem of evil in his inconsistent triad. God cannot be all loving and all powerful if there is evil and suffering in the world. Hume uses this quote from Epicurus: 'Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Why is there evil?'
John Stuart Mill
Mill argued that the idea of a benevolent designer God was incompatible with the evidence we have of the world. He commented that the evils that nature commits would be condemnable were they to be committed by human beings. This being the case, we cannot conclude that the world was created by a sane and benevolent designer.
Richard Dawkins
Dawkins supports Mill's attack on God on the basis of the cruelty of nature. He refers to the reproductive habits of digger wasps who paralyse prey in order to inject their larvae inside them to incubate before exploding out. Dawkins argues this cruelty in nature is characteristic of the blind forces of nature and can never be attributed to any foresight by an all loving God.
J. L. Mackie
Mackie argued that there was no rational basis for religious beliefs. He argued that sever aspects were inconsistent with each other. The notion of God being both loving and powerful is testament to this contradiction as God cannot both be willing and able to stop evil and at the same time choose not to do so.
Together with McCloskey, Mackie presented the logical problem of evil where they considered all characteristics of God.
1. God is omnipotent; He could stop suffering
2. God is benevolent; He desires the well-being and happiness of his creation
3. God is omniscient; He is aware of suffering that would occur
They argued that these attributes combined form a logical contradiction with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. By this argument, it is irrational to believe in God as to do so would be to support a logical contradiction.
The evidential problem of evil
The evidential problem of evil is based in empiricism. Observations and experiences of the world are used as evidence against God. The sheer amount of evil and suffering in the world can be observed. W. Rowe asks why an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being would allow 'seemingly pointless human and animal suffering'. Rowe concedes that there may be a reason we cannot understand, but he continues to argue that being in a theistic God seems irrational.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
God cannot be all-powerful because he could have created a world that did not have the possibility to become evil or did not suffer from natural disasters, and he would be able to prevent and end suffering now. Since evil and suffering continue, God cannot be all powerful.
God cannot be benevolent because he would have loved and cared for his creation enough to want to prevent and avoid its suffering.
There is an inconsistency in believing that God knows about evil (because he is omniscient), is wholly good (so acts and desires moral goodness) and is powerful enough to prevent evil (because he is omnipotent).
Hume argues that observations of evil and suffering in the world lead to questioning God's benevolence and power. Hume asks whether God could have created a more hospitable world or allowed humans to learn through pleasure rather than pain.
Could God have made humans to always choose good?
Dostoyevsky argues that a God who allows the extent of innocent suffering is not worth worshipping.
Weaknesses
W. P. Alston argues that we cannot understand God because we are human and our perspectives are limited. We can perceive only part of what may be the full picture, as we cannot argue that this counts either for or against God. Plantinga offers a similar argument whereby God chooses to limit himself in order to allow free will.
There are many good reasons for allowing evil to continue. For example, there may be a good outcome from the result of evil.
Good cannot exist without evil, without evil we would not know what good is.
Peter Vardy
Vardy argued that there were five types of natural evil and suffering:
The suffering caused by natural disasters
The suffering caused by diseases
The suffering caused by the inadequacy of the human body
The suffering caused by mental health
The suffering of animals
These five types of suffering are not accountable by human actions as they occur naturally and so it is not enough to claim free will causes suffering as the vast majority of suffering we endure in the world is caused by natural origins.
Hebblethwaite's natural and moral evil
Hebblethwaite argued that what we call moral evil and suffering is in fact a form of natural evil and suffering. This can be seen in two ways:
The moral decisions to cause suffering occurs naturally within us
Our physiology that allows us to feel moral suffering is a natural physiology
By this argument, Hebblethwaite argued that moral evil was in fact natural evil and cannot be accounted for by free will.