Skip to main content

Notes on B.C. Johnson on the Problem of Evil

Johnson on the Problem of Evil

0. The setup:
1.1 A 6-month-old baby that dies painfully in a house fire.
1.2 God had the ability to save the baby, but didn’t
1.3 If God is good, then there is a legitimate excusing condition for his not saving the baby

1. First try: The baby will go to heaven.

1.1 First criticism: if it wasn’t necessary for the baby to suffer, then it was wrong to allow it – compensation in the afterlife for being wronged in this life is a separate issue

1.2 Second criticism: was it necessary then for the baby to suffer? If so, then we need an explanation for why it was necessary, as its necessity isn’t apparent

2. Second try: the baby’s painful death will have good results in the long run; so it is permissible to allow it (if it wasn’t, God wouldn’t have allowed it)

2.1 First criticism:
2.1.1 This answer assumes that whatever evils actually occur in the world have result in overall good in the long run
2.1.2 If so, then causing or permitting them is always right (otherwise God will stop them, since he won’t allow things to happen that don’t produce overall good in the long run)
2.1.3 It follows then that if we try to cause a great harm, and we actually succeed, then what we did is thereby good!
2.1.4 But this is absurd
2.2 Second criticism:
2.2.1 In any case, notice that the answer offered here doesn’t explain why God permitted the child to die a painful death.
2.2.2 It only tries to assure us that this horrible thing will result in good overall in the long run
2.2.3 But this only helps if we have some prior assurance that God is good
But notice that we wouldn’t accept this defense for wrongdoing in any other context (e.g., in a court case, where the defendant says that he’s innocent, and that even though the evidence looks to be against him now, the proof that will vindicate him will be discovered in the long run)

3. Third try: God has given us free will so that it’s our responsibility, not his.

3.1 In any other case in which a bystander knowingly allows some horrible thing to happen when he could’ve helped without the risk of injury, we wouldn’t call the bystander ‘good’.
3.2 Why, then, is it right to say that God is good in permitting the infant to burn to death?

4. Fourth try: It’s best to face disasters without help; otherwise we would become dependent on outside help

4.1 First criticism: This would seem to imply that we’re obligated to eliminate, e.g., the police departments, fire departments, etc., which is absurd.
4.2 Second criticism: But if it doesn’t, then notice that such a world doesn’t make everyone independent; rather, it makes the majority dependent upon a small minority of emergency and safety professionals, contrary to the supposed intention of God here.

5. Fifth try: If God interfered in disasters, he would eliminate a lot of the moral urgency we need to motivate us to the point of helping others

5.1 First criticism: emergency professions are a relatively new phenomenon
5.2 Second criticism: such professions function irrespective of whether the rest of us feel any urgency to help.

6. Sixth try: God needs to allow suffering in order to give us the opportunity to develop important virtues (patience, courage, sympathy, etc.).

6.1 First criticism: this may be right; but the amount of suffering in the real world isn’t required to achieve this aim
6.2 Second criticism: The world is constantly striving to make a world without these evils. Are we then making the world worse off for future generations, who will then be unable to cultivate these virtues?

7. Seventh try: God allows evil because without it we wouldn’t know what goodness is.

7.1 This may be true
7.2 However, this only requires that God permit a tiny amount of evil

8. Eighth try: God’s morality isn’t our morality; his is a “higher” morality.

8.1 If so, then it would seem to be an implausibly odd morality – one that calls “good” what we would call “bad”.

9.Ninth try: Maybe God isn’t powerful enough to prevent such evils

9.1 God should at least be as powerful as man, which is often all that’s required to stop a great many horrendous evils that actually occur

10. Tenth try: I don’t know why God permits evil, but I don’t need to have the answer in order to be justified in thinking that there is one. I have faith in God.

10.1 This is only justified if you have good evidence that he is good. Compare: appropriate faith in friends and family vs. faith in strangers or acquaintances.
10.2 But this doesn’t seem to be true of what we’re told of God


Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…