withallyourmind.net

This is the third post in a series examining the problem of evil. In my last post, I borrowed from William Lane Craig an organizational framework with which to approach this problem. Today, I’ll take a brief look at the logical problem of evil.

The logical form of the argument is that which has been espoused by atheists for centuries. The Epicurean quote considered by Hume is a formulation of this argument. The logical argument against God’s existence based on the existence of evil has been widely regarded by philosophers of religion as having been laid to rest. This is largely due to the work of Alvin Plantinga. In his work, Plantinga makes an important distinction between the terms “theodicy” and “defense.” Plantinga defines “theodicy” as the attempt to show why God actually permits evils in the world. A “defense”, however, makes no such attempt, but simply shows that the atheist’s argument is not successful. The argument, then, can be defeated and one may still have no clear answer as to why evil exists.

There is no explicit logical contradiction between the two premises:

1. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists.
2. Evil exists.

For these two statements to be considered contradictory, additional premises must be provided, such as an omnipotent God could create any world that he desires and an omnibenevolent God would desire a world without evil. However, neither of these additional premises is obviously true. Perhaps there are worlds which are logically impossible to create; for even God could not do that which is logically impossible (e.g., creating a round square).

Plantinga proposed the free will defense to oppose the problem of evil. In it he argues that if God grants genuine freedom to his creatures to do as they wish, He cannot guarantee that that person will make the proper choice. Every possible world may contain creatures that freely choose to do evil. Natural evil may also be accounted for the actions of free demonic beings. While this may seem improbable to some, it surely deflects the objection that evil and God’s existence are logically incompatible.

It is equally possible that an omnibenevolent God might have some reason for desiring a world with evil rather than one without evil. A parent may sometimes allow some pain and suffering in a child’s life to bring about some greater good. Similarly, God might have some morally sufficient reason to allow pain and suffering in the world. Consequently, it is clear that neither additional premise is necessarily true, and the logical argument for denying God’s existence fails. To refute the logical problem of evil, the theist must only suggest a possible solution, not a probable or plausible one. To prove that God and evil are logically incompatible, the atheist must show that God could have no morally sufficient reason for permitting evil in the world.

Next, the probabalistic version.

This is the second post in a series examining the problem of evil and how a Christian might approach this challenge. In my last post, I introduced the problem and in this post I will suggest a general way to think about the issue.

William Lane Craig, in his book Hard Questions, Real Answers presents the following organizational approach to this problem: First, differentiate between the intellecutal and the emotional problem of evil. Then, divide the intellectual problem into an external version and an internal version. Lastly, differentiate the internal version of the problem of evil into a logical version and a probabalistic version.

The first distinction which should be made in addressing the problem of evil is between the intellectual problem and the emotional problem. It is the intellectual problem which is tackled by philosophers and theologians by attempting to give a rational explanation for the coexistence of God and evil. On the other hand, the emotional problem is addressed by pastors and counselors as they comfort and care for the person who is in the midst of suffering. Those who are suffering rarely need nor desire a philosophical argument explaining how the intellectual problem is to be solved.

A further distinction can be made when dealing with the intellectual problem of evil between the internal problem of evil and the external problem of evil. The internal problem focuses on premises which are thought to be consistent with the Christian worldview and thus deals with whether the Christian worldview holds to inconsistent beliefs. The external problem questions whether the Christian worldview is adequate and concerns premises to which the Christian would not necessarily be committed.

Lastly, one can further break down the internal problem of evil to a logical version and a probabilistic version. The logical problem deals with the objection that it is logically impossible for both God and evil to exist. Some have argued that it is logically incompatible that they do so. Unlike some religions, the Christian worldview does not deny the existence of evil. Of course, Christians are also strongly committed to the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. The logical problem claims that it is illogical to believe that both exist. The probabilistic version does not argue for the logical incompatibility of the two premises, only that it is highly improbable that God and evil coexist in the world. The existence of either God or evil would make it highly improbable that the other exists.

Next, a look at the logical problem of evil.

Over the next several posts, I hope to provide an overview of the problem of evil and how one might approach this difficult subject. It has been said by others, and seems undoubtedly true, that the greatest intellectual obstacle to belief in God is the so-called problem of evil. How is one to reconcile the existence of an all-powerful, benevolent God with the existence of evil? Philosophers and theologians have formally wrestled with this issue for centuries while suffering individuals likewise have struggled to understand the evil and suffering in their own lives. Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, may have been the first to formulate the problem. David Hume, in his Dialogues Concerning Human Religion, stated:

Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

In beginning to think through this problem, one must clearly define the terms and concepts associated with the question of evil. First of all, there are at least two fundamentally different types of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from the wrong actions of moral agents. Examples might include, murder, torture, rape and abuse. Contrasted with this is natural evil which does not result from the intervention of an agent. One type of natural evil is natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and tornadoes. Diseases, such as cancer and muscular dystrophy, might also be thought of as natural evils. Why do these evils exist if the Christian God exists? As rock musician, Dave Matthews concludes:

If there is a God, a caring God, then we have to figure he’s done an extraordinary job of making a very cruel world.

How is one to reply to such statements? In my next post, I provide an organizational approach to this problem.

A friend of mine, Doug Powell, has posted a video clip on youtube in which he explains the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). The TAG basically argues that logic, science, morality, and even knowledge is only possible if the Christian God exists. I think the TAG is powerful and Doug does a nice job putting forth one form of this argument. The video clip is a little over 8 minutes long. Doug also authored the book, Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics. This book is an excellent apologetic tool for those who have little background in apologetics.

Hi all. I am finally back after a little over 2 weeks. I and my wife were on a Mediterranean cruise in which we visitied Barcelona, Florence, Rome, Naples, Ephesus, Istanbul, Athens, and Venice. We had a wonderful time (althought delayed a couple of days on our return and still missing some baggage). Among the highlights for me was the privilege of standing in the Stanza della Segnatura in the Vatican and gazing on the amazing fresco, The School of Athens, by Raphael. This is the painting which graces the upper right hand corner of our website. I could not have imagined how much more impressive this fresco is in person.

It was also awesome to walk through the ancient ruins of the city of Ephesus and walk the streets walked by the Apostle Paul two millenia ago. We also were thrilled to stand on Mars Hill in Athens - the exact spot where Paul engaged the Greek philosophers, presenting a rational case for the truth of the Christian message.

Being gone for over 2 weeks has resulted in my being very busy catching up with all my responsibilites, but I hope to resume blogging on a regular basis.

This just in: UC Berkeley (where I’m currently studying) has opened their own YouTube page where professors can put up videos of course lectures for anyone to see. There aren’t too many available right now, but hopefully some more professors will take advantage of the technology and spread the knowledge around. One course I think I will start watching is called “Physics for Future Presidents.” Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/ucberkeley