Problem of evil and suffering part 2

  • Created by: _bella_
  • Created on: 28-05-19 13:21
View mindmap
  • Problem of evil and suffering part 2
    • Irenaean theodicy
      • Used Genesis 1 to base his argument on
      • We are made imago dei but God isn't physical therefore we only share similarities
      • But we grow into the likeness of God- thus we develop into moral beings
      • We aren't made perfect because morality developing through hard work is more valuable than it being already w/i us
      • For moral development to occur we must have pain and suffering
      • " a world without problems, difficulties, perils and hardships would be morally static"
    • Free Will Defence- moral evil
      • God created humans to find him so we can chose to worship him or not
      • We are free to make this decision
      • The consequences are that we have good and evil
      • God cannot intervene as it reduces our FW
      • Swinburne- " The less (God) allows men to bring about large scale horrors, the less the freedom and responsibility he gives them
    • Hick
      • Soul making
      • If God intervened it would undermine free will
      • Epistemic distance- knowledge of God's existence is uncertain purposefully so we don't fear the consequences of not doing what is moral
      • Suffering is allowed to cont. in order for there to be moral development
      • But he acknowledges suffering can cause moral degradation , thus fro suffering to be morally justified everyone must attain perfection
      • Universal salvation- everyone will earn their way into heaven eventually
    • Criticisms of FWD
      • Mackie- God had a 3rd choice of if He was omnipotent then he could have both freedom and minimal pain
      • God had 2 options- maximise pleasure, minimise pain and no free will or free will w/ the consequence of pain and suffering
      • Mackie is criticised as he doesn't acknowledge that beings who are made only to do good (God's will) won't have autonomy
    • Criticisms
      • Ends do not justify the means- if it's not acceptable to do something bad to achieve something good, it should not be acceptable for God to allow suffering for a higher goal.
      • Humans do not always develop as a result of suffering, why is suffering a consequence?
      • w/ universal salvation it makes it acceptable to act immorally as we can redeem ourselves in the afterlife as we are all saved
    • Free Will Defence-- natural evil
      • A world w/ death is better than a world w/o it
      • It focuses attention onto the limited time we have "If there is always another chance there is no risk"(Swinburne)
      • Limits the suffering a person takes however if we ask God for less suffering we make him into "an overprotective parent who will not let his child out of sight for a moment" (Swinburne)
      • Hick- our understanding of suffering is subjective to our experiences
      • Hick- if some evils are too much where do we draw the line?


No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Philosophy resources »