Unformatted text preview: of weakness. A physical world is good but is less good, closer to chaos than it is to order. Disorder and misuse of good things produce what we see as evil. Less good can be used to murder, etc but evil itself does not exist. Soul-Making theodicy (Irenaeus) The problem of evil approach that explains why there is evil in the world. Does not deny evil. Theodicy (act of trying to explain things). This argument is the justification/explanation of evil. What we call evil is actually necessary for the development of human character. The resistance the humans need to become selves. Without resistance they would not have any opportunity to develop. God allows evil so that people or other things can develop character through struggle. This good outweighs the suffering and evil we have to endure. It’s the resistance you need to get strong. Best of all possible worlds theodicy (Leibniz) Said that god show between a numbers of possible worlds. Worlds with more or less evil. God selected the best balance of good over evil. God could actualize any world God wanted to but was working with a fixed number of worlds and selected the best possible world. Take away physical pain, then take away ability to defend themselves like burning from a fire. Trade off with the evils for the goods. (god is a utilitarian) Voltair to Leibniz claim – Cadide Candide and his teacher (Leibniz) encounter a ridiculous amount of evils and teacher taught Candide why these evils have to exist. That they are meant for the best. Exaggerates Leibniz argument and jabs at him. Free will defense (Plantinga) Suggests a possible reason to eliminate the logical inconsistency. God allows suffering to allow human free will. A contemporary argument. Alvin Plantinga. God can eliminate evile but he would violate our free will. Distinction between natural suffering and moral evil Normally only a defense against the logical problem of evil with respect to moral evil For the free will defense to work we have to make a distinction because it only addresses human choice. Does not address illness, disease or other act of suffering. A horrible thing happens and we say that yes god could have intervened, but to do so would be to violate the free will of the human beings who are engaged in that act and God does not intend to engage in that act. So with free will it opens the door to do good, or it opens the door for evil....
View Full Document
- Spring '17
- Philosophy, Problem of evil, Alvin Plantinga, logical problem