This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Premise 2 makes an extreme claim • Traditional theodicy has claimed that some evils have the property of being “soul-building” • Soul-building evils are ones that makes us better people • Sometimes it is suggested that when people are destroyed by the sufferings they endure, the souls of other people are strengthened by watching this happen • No credit if God simply just gave us strong souls • Conclusion: The deeper problem is to explain why there is so much evil, rather than one ounce less. What is the second version of the argument? • (1) If God were to exist, then that being would be all-PKG. (4) If an all-PKG being existed, then the amount of evil would not exceed a soul-building minimum. (5) The amount of evil does exceed a soul-building minimum.------------------------------ Hence, there is no God. • Project of theodicy is to show that premise (4) is mistaken • Conclusion: Shows that being free and always doing what’s right are not incompatible. What is the third version of the argument? • (1) If God were to exist, then that being would be all-PKG. (6) If an all-PKG being existed, then there would be no more evil than the minimum required for a soul-building and as a consequence of human freedom. (7) The quantity of evil found in human history exceeds the minimum required for soul-building and as a consequence of human freedom.------------------------------- Hence, there is no God. What is a criticism of the argument? • If God exists, he is vastly more intelligent then we are. • Conclusion: It therefore is entirely possible that his plan for the world contains elements that we cannot understand or even imagine. (Don’t know if premise 6 is true.) What is another kind of argument---the evidential argument from evil? • If an all-PKG God exists, then evils of kind X will not exist. Evils of kind X do exist.----------------------------- No all-PKG God exists. • Hard to show premise 1 is true • Conclusion: Surprise Principle describes what “strong” evidence means. Pages 293 – 303: What is free will? • What you now believe and the preferences you now have can be traced back to experiences you have had which was caused by items in your physical environment • Your beliefs and desires are caused by things outside your control • Distant Causation Argument: focused on the idea that our behaviors are caused by factors (our genes and early childhood environment) that were beyond our control • Could-Not-Have-Done-Otherwise Argument: focused on the claim that we can’t act other than the way our beliefs and desires cause us to act • People who do what they do because of brainwashing aren’t acting of their own free will • Obsessive compulsive behavior is not free behavior • Kleptomaniacs do not have free will • Idea that we are part of the causal network. Our actions don’t spring from nothing; rather, they trace back to the beliefs, desires, and other mental features we possess. These mental characteristics came from our genes and environment....
View Full Document
- Fall '08
- Problem of evil, deterministic system