theodicies (good vs. evil) part 3

Theodicy is an attempt to reconcile the existence and nature of God with evidence of evil in the world by providing valid explanations for its occurrence. addresses the problem of evil in the world. it means vindication of god. 

what's evil?

evil is bound to human suffering. 

a world without humans in it can't be evil, which bring us back to the problem of free wil (non-human animals are not free, they aren't evil.

there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. they both cause suffering, though natural evil is not caused free will. our reaction to it is very different. there's no one to blame, except ourselves.
natural evil is pure cause/effect.

our problem is MORAL EVIL.  we need a distinction between necessary and unnecessary evil.

necessary evil: is the evil that prevents further evil or brigs forth goodness. how about making someone suffer because they deserve it (as in the state killing a serial killer, or a person killing in self-defense? how about punishing a child for their misdeeds?

unnecessary evil: is evil for its own sake. more of this later.

theodicies must address the problem of evil while attempting to make the existence of an omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of moral evil in the world.

Here comes an argument from evil from evil skeptics:

1. If God exists, then a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good exists.
2. A being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good would not create a world in which there is (avoidable) evil.
3. But there is (avoidable) evil in the world.
Therefore: God does not exist.

Here's another line of argument attacking God's attributes:

* If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.

Counter: Unless God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.

* If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it. 

Counter: Not if doing so undercuts human free-will. What good is there in having humans behave like robots?

two theodicies: Irenaeus and Augustine

Irenaean Theodicy: Second-century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that the creation is still in progress, in the sense that creation is a theater stage that requires humans to develop and grow into the likeness of God. In order to achieve moral perfection, humans must be given free choice, with the actual possibility of choosing to do evil. For free-will to properly operate, God must be at an epistemic distance (or intellectual distance) from humans, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice. This proves that God is NEUTRAL insofar as outcome and yet, close insofar as faith.

Analysis: Free moral choices require that humans experience the results of their own actions. Moral evil has to exist for this to happen. Another way to look at it is that Reason without free will deprives humanity of moral growth, since morality is always a work in progress.   

Agustine theodicy: (background) Agustine tries to respond to the evidential problem of evil, i,e., if  God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there should be no evil in the world.  

1. Evil exists as a corruption of goodness, caused by humanity's abuse of free will.
2. God created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), but God did not create evil and is not responsible for its occurrence.
3. Evil is not attributed existence in its own right, but is described as the privation of good – the corruption of God's good creation.

Moral evil as a category is connected with free will, empathy, humanity, pity, redemption, etc.

Counterargument to the concept of evil: Inga Clendinnen argues that the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification. To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible.

Answer to Clendinnen: Explaining something as repulsive as sexual abuse of an infant, for example, cannot be explain merely by psychological or social concepts which explain, for instance, the abuse the abuser was submitted to. How do you begin to address the insurmountable suffering the abused has been subjected to without using moral evil as a starting point? Applying the concept of evil to sexually abusing a child is not dismissive, it's in fact quite descriptive.