"God either wishes to take away evils and is unable; or he is able and is unwilling; or he is neither willing nor able; or he is both willing and able. If he is willing but unable he is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God. If he is able and unwilling, he is envious, which is equally at variance with God. If he is neither willing nor able, he is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God. If he is both willing and able, which alone is suitable for God, from what source then are evils? Or why does he not remove them? "
--Attributed to Epicurus (ca. 341- 270 B.C)
θέος (theos, god) + δίκη (dikē, justice) = divine justice
Theodicy is a justification or defense of God’s goodness in the face of natural or moral evil. It attempts to account for how God’s attributes (omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience) are compatible with evil.
God is infinitely good (good is opposed to evil, so God will eliminate evil as far as God can)
God is infinitely powerful (no limits on what God can do)
Evil exists
The problem: If any two of these are true, the third one should be false. One cannot hold all three beliefs without contradiction.
Hume’s thesis (what he’s trying to prove):
“But supposing, which is the real case with regard to man, that this creature is not antecedently convinced of a supreme intelligence, benevolent, and powerful, but is left to gather such a belief from the appearance of things – this entirely alters the case, nor will he ever find any reason for such a conclusion.” (p.97)
In other words: Sound a priori arguments for God do not exist, so we have to look to experience for proof of God’s existence. However, since we experience evil, we cannot infer than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God exists. Therefore, it is not rational to believe in God’s existence a posteriori (on the basis of experience alone, which, for Hume, is all we have to go on anyway).
III.a The Argument
P1: God is (def.) the benevolent and omnipotent creator
P2: If such a creator exists, we would not find evil in the world
P3: We do find evil in the world.
C1: A benevolent and omnipotent creator does not exist
C2: God does not exist
Premise 3 is given to us by experience.
Premise 2 is supported by the analogy to the architect.
Premise 1 is what is giving us the problem.
III.b What should God have done?
The Four Circumstances
1. Pain
Pain and pleasures motivate living things equally.
Pain seems in no way necessary. Why not have a reduction in the amount of pleasure rather than the sensation of pain?
Organs for perceiving (sight, hearing) are used for examples of divine providence, thus capacity to feel pain is equally an example.
Therefore, it seems that we were created with the purpose of feeling pain.
2. Laws of Nature
Laws of nature are necessary for reason and science
However, the laws of nature do not always hold, and chance events happen.
It seems possible that God have made every chance event, when the laws of nature fail, turn out for the best instead of the worst. E.g.: Tornados assemble mid-western towns.
If we already believe in God, we will find ways around this. But things often go terribly wrong prevents us from reasoning from the world to God.
3. Nature is Cheap
All animals have only what is absolutely necessary for survival
If any of those things should fail, the animal’s life becomes miserable.
We could have been given more than what we need to survive. E.g.: Why didn’t nature make us all smarter and make us want to work harder?
The world is difficult enough without having to deal with our own inability to overcome those difficulties.
4. Nature is not so well-organized
It seems necessary that everything in the world serve some purpose.
However, the world’s ‘machinery’ has a really hard time keeping its balance – it tends to excess or defect.
It seems possible that the world could have been made a little better.
Everything advantageous in the world quickly becomes a problem with only a little deviation from the norm, and this causes misery.
What is the purpose of the four circumstances?
What is Hume’s final conclusion?
What does he mean by: “The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!” (p.102).
III.c Responses to Hume?
“Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.”
-Leonard Cohen, “Anthem”
Is Evil just an illusion?
What about free will?
The Story of Job?