Skip to main content

The 21st Century Monad Solution to the Problem of Evil

This is not the actual world!

Genius lyrics:

I admit I lost my faith
When I felt the shake from a Lisbon quake
And I could not believe
This is how things ought to be
So I wondered from place to place
But the evils of the human race
They made themselves apparent
That they were inherent

My life felt like someone else’s dream
And that’s when it came to me, and I could see

This is not the actual world

Yeah we’re in world 223
And a world like this must in some sense be
For God’s not choosing it to be praiseworthy
And what else could explain
This seeming random distribution of pleasure and pain?
On the just and the unjust alike
Falls the same rain

This theodicy it might seem odd
But it helped me make my peace with God, and now I see

This is not the actual world


You're welcome.

Comments

Scott said…
I think I read a paper in which someone actually made this argument. I don't remember who it was or where the paper was published. But I swear I've seen this argument in print.
exapologist said…
Ha! Please let me know if you remember the name of the paper or author.

Best,
EA
Scott said…
The author is Ken Gemes. The paper is 'The Problem of Evil and its Solution'.
exapologist said…
Excellent. Thanks, Scott!
Rayndeon said…
Well... here's the link if anyone is interested: http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/733/1/K_Gemes_Evil.pdf

I had difficulty believing that the author was able to write that with a straight face. Perhaps this is the philosophical equivalent of "trolling" your audience?

I read a book review about Colin McGinn's book on Disgust. The epithet can be aptly recruited here: "[In philosophy of religion] there is shit and then there is bullshit. [This paper] belongs to the latter category."

Popular posts from this blog

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…