Lecture 19

Summary

This video script explores the problem of evil from a philosophical and theological perspective, addressing the logical, evidential, and existential issues surrounding the existence of evil in a world governed by an all-powerful, all-good God. The speaker critiques atheistic arguments, particularly the 'no-see-um' argument, and highlights Alvin Plantinga’s work in resolving the logical problem of evil. By suggesting that even a single plausible reason for God allowing evil can counter the logical inconsistency, the speaker introduces defenses like the soul-making and free will defenses, ultimately setting up a discussion on deeper philosophical challenges regarding evil.

Takeaways

• 😀 The logical problem of evil argues that the existence of evil is incompatible with an all-powerful, all-good God, but it does not conclusively prove that God does not exist.
• 😀 To demonstrate the incompatibility of God and evil as a necessary truth would require infinite knowledge, which humans do not possess.
• 😀 A 'no-see-um' argument, where someone claims they cannot think of a reason for something, is valid for visible things but not for the invisible reasons why God might allow evil.
• 😀 Alvin Plantinga's defense shows that the problem of evil is not logically incompatible with the existence of God.
• 😀 If even one possible reason can be found for why God might allow evil, it rules out the claim that belief in God and evil are necessarily inconsistent.
• 😀 Believers do not have to provide a definitive theodicy (a reason for why God allows evil) but can instead offer a possible defense that is consistent with the idea of an all-good, all-powerful God.
• 😀 The problem of evil has multiple facets, and the logical problem is only one of them. The evidential and existential problems are also significant.
• 😀 The soul-making defense, proposed by Irenaeus, argues that suffering and evil are necessary for humans to develop virtue.
• 😀 The free will defense, often attributed to Plantinga, suggests that moral evil is a necessary possibility in a world where humans have genuine moral freedom.
• 😀 Plantinga's defense is widely accepted among philosophers and resolves the logical problem of evil, allowing for the possibility of God’s existence despite the presence of evil.
• 😀 The problem of evil continues to be a significant topic in philosophy, with various responses to different aspects of the problem, including logical, evidential, and existential challenges.

Q & A

What is the logical problem of evil as presented in the script?

The logical problem of evil argues that the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God is incompatible with the existence of evil. It suggests that if God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, there would be no reason for evil to exist.

What does Alvin Plantinga's defense argue in response to the logical problem of evil?

Alvin Plantinga's defense argues that the logical problem of evil does not necessarily rule out the existence of God. He asserts that to prove the logical inconsistency, one would need infinite knowledge of all possible reasons why God might allow evil, which is impossible for humans to possess.

What is a 'no-see-um' argument, and why does the speaker mention it?

A 'no-see-um' argument is when someone asserts they cannot think of any reason why a particular event or situation could occur. In the context of the problem of evil, it refers to the idea that atheists often claim they can't think of any good reason why God would allow evil. The speaker argues that this type of argument is not valid in this case, as the reasons for God allowing evil might be beyond human comprehension.

What is the significance of Plantinga's assertion that even one possible reason for God allowing evil is enough to eliminate the logical problem?

Plantinga's assertion is significant because it means that if even one plausible reason can be articulated for why God might allow evil, it removes the claim of logical inconsistency. This prevents the conclusion that it is irrational or impossible for an all-good, all-powerful God to exist alongside evil.

What is the difference between a 'theodicy' and a 'defense' in the context of the problem of evil?

A 'theodicy' is an explanation or justification of why God allows evil, offering specific reasons or instances. A 'defense,' on the other hand, is simply an argument that defends the possibility that God could have a good reason for allowing evil, without needing to provide a specific explanation.

What are the two historical defenses against the problem of evil mentioned in the script?

The two historical defenses are the soul-making defense, proposed by Irenaeus of Lyon, which argues that evil and suffering are necessary for forming virtuous people, and the free-will defense, which suggests that the possibility of moral evil is a necessary aspect of a world with free will.

Why is a 'no-see-um' argument considered invalid when applied to the problem of evil?

A 'no-see-um' argument is considered invalid in this context because the reasons why God might allow evil are not necessarily obvious or immediately visible, like a tangible object in one's backyard. The complexity and vastness of God's reasons are beyond human perception.

What is the importance of Plantinga's defense in relation to the problem of evil?

Plantinga's defense is important because it shows that the logical problem of evil does not necessarily prove God's non-existence. By offering even one plausible reason why God might allow evil, he demonstrates that the logical inconsistency often claimed by atheists is not valid.

What are the three problems of evil mentioned in the script, and how do they differ?

The three problems of evil mentioned are the logical problem of evil, the evidential problem of evil, and the existential problem of evil. The logical problem questions whether the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God is compatible with evil. The evidential problem suggests that the existence of evil makes it less likely that such a God exists. The existential problem concerns how evil and suffering affect an individual’s personal experience and relationship with God.

How does the speaker conclude the discussion on the logical problem of evil?

The speaker concludes that Alvin Plantinga's defense successfully removes the logical inconsistency that atheists claim exists between the existence of evil and an all-good, all-powerful God. This defense does not require a full theodicy but merely the possibility of a reason why God might allow evil, thereby refuting the logical problem of evil.