Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
47 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is J. L. Mackie's Logical Argument From Evil (Main Principle), as written in Evil and Omnipotence? Quote: 'In its simplest form the problem is this: God is...' |
'God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions ... But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian ... must adhere and cannot consistency adhere to all three' |
|
|
What are J. L. Mackie's additional premises in his Logical Argument From Evil in Evil and Omnipotence? |
(1) Good is opposed to evil, as a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can (2) God always eliminates evil (3) there is no limit to what an omnipotent thing can do [debate as to whether eliminates/prevents the occurrence of] |
|
|
How does Mackie modify his position in The Miracle of Theism |
Problem of Evil not 'conclusive disproof of traditional theism', but 'a strong presumption that theism cannot be made coherent' "The Evidential argument from evil' |
|
|
What kind of argument does William Rowe take in The Problem with Evil and some Varieties of Atheism, and Mackie take in The Miracle of Theism? |
Evidential argument from evil |
|
|
Outline William Rowe's argument in The Problem with Evil and some Varieties of Atheism? |
1. There exists instances of suffering which an omni-being could have prevented without losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil 2. An omni-being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil 3. There does not exist an omni-being |
|
|
Since William Rowe cannot conclusively prove the first premise of his Evidential Argument from Evil, which is: 1. There exists instances of suffering which an omni-being could have prevented without losing some greater good or permitting some equally bad or worse evil Since there might be a greater good from every instance of pointless suffering, he concludes... |
'In the light of our experience and knowledge ... on the scale of human and animal suffering in our world, the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby LSGGOPSEBOWE seems ... quite beyond our belief' We have rational support for atheism, that it is reasonable to believe that the theistic God does not exist. [Friendly Atheism] |
|
|
(A1) Which response to the problem of evil states that God's existence is already established? |
'We Know That God Exists' argument |
|
|
(A2) Which response to the problem of evil states that evil is permitted by God with a good end in view? |
'Means and Ends' argument |
|
|
(A2) Outline the Free-Will Defense, an example of a 'Means and Ends' argument |
If: (1) It is consistent with perfect goodness to create a world with free agents and: (2) It is possible that a world with free agents is a world where there is evil Then the Mackie's LAFE (Main Principle) is false |
|
|
How does Richard Swinburne use a 'Means and Ends' argument to justify that which is bad but not the product of human agency? |
If men are to have knowledge of the evil which will result from their actions or negligence, laws of nature must operate regularly; and that means there will be ... 'victims of the system' 'If men are to have the opportunity to bring about serious evils for themselves or others by actions or negligence, or to prevent their occurrence, and if all knowledge of the future is obtained by normal induction' then serious natural evils achieve this. |
|
|
How does Richard Swinburne respond to the claim that God should give us verbal information on the way things are, to give us knowledge of the evil which results from actions, instead of naturally occurring evil? |
It would not be a world where men had significant choice of destiny, of what to make of themselves and the world. God would be far too close for them to be able to work things out for themselves and exercise responsibility, therefore limiting Free Will |
|
|
What does John Hick write in Evil and the God of Love, agreeing with Swinburne in how God cannot impart verbal information? |
With God's evident presence, man 'will not be able to choose to worship God, or to turn to Him freely as valuing spirits responding to infinite Value' 'A world without problems ... would be morally static. For moral and spiritual growth comes through response to challenges' - basically 'no pain, no gain' |
|
|
Which response to the problem of evil states that evil does not exist, as it always amounts to a lack of some kind, rather than a property which is created? |
The unreality of evil argument |
|
|
Who is the most well-known proponent of the unreality of evil argument? |
Aquinas (Augustine also supports this) - who sates that 'Evil, cannot signify a certain existing being, or a real shaping or positive kind of thing. Consequently, we are left to infer that it signifies a certain absence of a good' Badness is not the name of an object or a quality |
|
|
Which response to the problem of evil states that there might be a reason that God allows/ brings about evil that we cannot comprehend/understand |
The 'We Can't See All The Picture' argument [Skeptical Theism] |
|
|
What did William Alston/Paul Draper say about the 'We Can't See All The Picture' argument [Skeptical Theism]? |
'Our cognitions of the world ... acquaint us with only some indeterminable fraction of what there is to be known' 'We are in no position to suppose that our inability to find a justifying divine reason is sufficient ground for supposing there is none' |
|
|
Which response to the problem of evil states that we should not suppose that God is good or bad in accordance with the criteria we use to evaluate people morally. |
'We Cannot Judge God in Human Terms' argument |
|
|
What did Aristotle say about God and morality, and what argument does this support? |
We cannot attribute moral virtues to divinity: the praise would be vulgar. Equally, moral blame would be laughable 'We Cannot Judge God in Human Terms' argument? |
|
|
What is the difference between Mackie's 'absorbed' and 'unabsorbed' evil, and what argument would be partially justified by these evils? |
'absorbed' - bit of suffering ... whose goodness outweighs the badness of that suffering itself ... injustices that are ... progressively overcome by a struggle whose nobility is a higher good 'unabsorbed' - No greater good 'absorbed' evil is a slight concession towards the Means and Ends argument - but 'unabsorbed' evils still render it false |
|
|
What is Mackie's response to the Free Will Defense - what apparent contradiction does he posit? |
There was open to God the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right (believed by compatibilists). (A) Omnipotence and omniscience, and the power together entail omnificence: God does everything (including being responsible for all that happens in the world) (B) the Free Will Defence cannot detach evil from God unless it assumes (like Plantinga) that the freedom conferred on men is such that God cannot control their choosing. |
|
|
What does Alvin Plantinga say about the Free Will Defence? |
If he aims to produce moral good, then he must create significantly free creatures upon whose cooperation he must depend. Thus is the power of an omnipotent God limited by the freedom he confers upon his creatures. |
|
|
What is the name of philosophers who argue that an action can be free even if it is already determined |
Compatibilists |
|
|
What do Classical Theists (e.g. Aquinas) say about the Free Will Defence - and which contemporary Philosopher agrees with this? |
They reject the Free Will Defense, as God must be the creative cause of human free actions - there can be no such thing of being independent of God: 'Every operation ... of anything is traced back to him as its cause' Mackie also suggests that Omnipotence and omniscience, and the power together entail omnificence: God does everything (including being responsible for all that happens in the world) |
|
|
What does Aquinas say regarding whether humans have free will |
'Just as his initiative does not prevent natural causes from being natural, so it does not prevent voluntary action from being voluntary, but, rather, makes it precisely this. For God works in each according to its nature.' --- Therefore humans are free |
|
|
What does Stanley Kane (and Eleonore Stump) observe concerning John Hick's Free-Will Defence? |
The character traits valued by Hick (courage, fortitude, patience) do not require the existence of evil Absurdity in Hick saying that evil falls within the scheme of a good God, since it leads to a state (heaven) in which people have no chance to display these virtues acquired in the face of adversity |
|
|
Faults with Richard Swinburne's Free Will Defence |
It is not beyond an omnipotent being to make beings born with the recognition that good and bad things can happen from certain actions Why should being convinced of God's reality render one unable to act freely in significant ways? |
|
|
What does Herbert McCabe say about the unreality of evil argument? |
There is no property common to everything we call 'bad' |
|
|
Which response to the problem of evil is supported by viewing God through a Biblical perspective, and the Classical theism view of God as simple and immutable? |
'We Cannot Judge God in Human Terms' argument - God isn't a moral subject / doesn't have a 'duty' or 'virtue', or things he 'ought to do' -- he also does not have a definite context (such as being 'a nurse') with duties and obligations attached |
|
|
How does Anselm + Aquinas view God's just nature, and what argument does this support? |
Anselm - Not just as people are just, rather, because he acts in accordance with his will - including his commandments Aquinas - Creaturely good springs from what God essentially and simply is, and God is good for just that reason |
|
|
Who are first recorded as arguing the problem of evil, and who are they quoted by? |
The Epicureans, as quoted by Cicero and Lactantius |
|
|
What does Cicero say about the problem of evil? |
The gods ought to have made all men good, if they had the interests of the human race at heart ... they ought at any rate to have provided for the welfare of the good |
|
|
What does Lactantius say about the problem of evil? [The Epicurean paradox] - argument revived by Pierre Bayle (1962) |
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? |
|
|
What is the Stoic response concerning the problem of evil? |
It doesn't pertain to God's nature to concern himself with trivial matters compared to the great cosmic order. |
|
|
What does Augustine say regarding the 'Means and Ends' argument |
God ... being himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among his works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that he can bring good even out of evil |
|
|
What does Gottfried Leibniz say in rejection of the problem of evil? |
This world is the most perfect world that God could create, as God is a perfect being. If another possible world had a certain evil removed, it would result in a lot more evil being generated. Therefore this world is the best of all possible worlds |
|
|
What does David Hume say of the problem of evil in Dialogue 10 [Logical Argument from Evil]? |
His power we allow infinite ... he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite ... tends not to human felicity In what respect, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men? Restatement of the Epicurean paradox |
|
|
What is the difference between Logical and Evidential Arguments from Evil? |
Logical - Shows that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction present in theism and therefore theism cannot all be correct. Evidential - Shows that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism. |
|
|
What does David Hume say of the problem of evil in Dialogue 11 [Evidential Argument from Evil]? |
These are the four possible hypotheses about the moral nature of God: (1) God is perfectly good. (2) God is perfectly malicious. (3) God is both good and malicious. (4) God is amoral (morally indifferent) Given the mixed nature of our world and assuming that God could take away or augment suffering, (1) and (2) are ruled out. Good and evil in our universe follow general laws. There is no indication of any struggle, which would suggest (3), therefore God is beyond good and evil (4) |
|
|
Name two religious movements that believe in dualistic deities that embody good and evil |
Catharism - Christian dualists, and Manichæans |
|
|
What version of Atheism does William Rowe support, and what does it imply? |
His Evidential Argument from Evil supports 'Friendly Atheism', which suggests that Atheism is rational, even if Theism is too. |
|
|
What is Incompatibilism, and what movement opposes this? |
It is not possible to be free and controlled by God simultaneously Opposed by Compatibilists |
|
|
Plantinga believes it is consistent for God to create a world with free agents, provided that... [What does Hume think of this] |
The world already has proportionately more good than evil [Hume doubts this, as there is no way of telling if this world contains more good than evil] |
|
|
(A1) Explain fundamentals of the 'We Know That God Exists' argument |
If I know that P is true, then I am entitled to reject claims to the effect that P is impossible or that there is evidence which shows that it is unlikely to be true |
|
|
(A3) Explain fundamentals of The unreality of evil argument |
Evil's 'reality' is always a case of something missing, it signifies a gap between what is actually there and what could and should be there but is not. |
|
|
What does Skeptical Theism, or The 'We Can't See All the Picture' argument exploit regarding arguments against God, and what other Theistic argument does it employ? |
Skeptical Theism enforces the doubt present in the Evidential argument for evil, and uses the 'Means and Ends argument' to explain how evil could bring about good. |
|
|
(A5) Explain fundamentals of The 'We Cannot Judge God in Human Terms' argument? |
Should we suppose that '------ is good', when predicated of God, has to mean what it does when predicated of agents who can be thought to be morally good and morally bad? Anthony Kenny - 'moral community must be of beings with a common language, roughly equal powers, and roughly similar desires and interests. God can be no more part of a moral community with them than he can be part of a political community with them' |
|
|
What argument is the strongest against Mackie's LAFE? |
The 'We Can't See All the Picture' argument, in tandem with the 'Means and Ends' argument and its Free Will Defence We do not know all there is to be known, so we lack the information to make sense of evil |
