Evil and the Existence of God

1. Using the language of possible worlds, explain what it means to say that ‘p is consistent with q.’
The idea that p is consistent with q is a logical premise that supposes there is a world in which p and q can both be true. This premise contrasts with the premise that p is contradictory of q, which states that if p is true, q must be false and there can be no possible world in which both are true and neither can there be one in which both are false. The idea here is that when p is consistent with q, the world in which such a premise could be true is one in which there may be a conjunctive proposition underlying the concept or there may simply be a nullification of the linguistic theory of necessary truth.
2. What is P.S.R. (The Principle of Sufficient Reason), and how is it important in Leibniz’s thinking about God and evil?
The principle of sufficient reason refers to the idea that everything has to have a reason or cause and that nothing can exist or happen that does not have a cause or logical reason to support its motion or existence. In the case of the universe, this idea presupposes that the world was created by a self-sufficient infinite being (God) because nothing cannot come from something. As for evil, it would imply that the existence of evil is maintained by the same self-sufficient infinite being for the purposes of some benevolent end. The attribute of benevolence is applied to the Christian Triune God, and is used to rationalize the existence of evil as part of God’s plan, as part of the purpose of Redemption, and as part of the consequence of man’s use of free will.[footnoteRef:2] [2: N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 40.]
3. What is George Schlesinger’s main solution to the problem of evil? (Make sure to discuss centrally the role the concept of the ‘DDS’ plays, and how he uses the principle of ‘ought implies can,’ and what that principle means.)
DDS refers to the degree of desirability of state of a being and that the problem of evil disappears when one considers that one’s happiness can be increased without limit. The principle that “ought implies can” refers to the idea that if a being ought to behave a certain way, the means for that being to behave in that manner do exist and can be utilized. Thus, whatever evil or obstacle may appear to be presenting a being from attaining happiness is really only a surface problem for God’s grace is sufficient and does abound more than the evil—indicating that when one desires to work with the grace, the evil can be overcome and the desired happiness achieved.
4. In your own words, what is Rowe’s evidential argument from evil? (Write it down in a valid argument form, with premises that lead to a conclusion.)
Rowe’s evidential argument from evil is an inductive argument. It is based on the premise that evil exists and a good God cannot co-exist or be God in a world where evil exists for a good God would not permit or allow evil.[footnoteRef:3] This could be written in syllogism form from a deductive standpoint as well. The major premise of the argument could thus alternatively be: God is not evil. The minor premise would be: Evil is. The conclusion: Therefore, God is not. This is essentially the rational explanation for Rowe’s argument from evil. The conclusion does not adequately flow from the premises however for it presupposes a further premise, which is that God cannot exist at the same time as evil. But this is where Rowe’s circular reasoning comes into play for his conclusion is the same as his premise. [3: John S. Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil (Crossway Books, 2004), 215.]
5. What is the logical relevance of Rowe’s reasoning in referring to one (1) example of seemingly gratuitous natural evil (E1) in his original paper from 1979?
By referring to an example seemingly gratuitous natural evil, Rowe concludes that God cannot exist or that God cannot be good because a good God would not permit gratuitous natural evil to occur or to happen to innocent good people. Rowe argues that the logic of a good God allowing evil to occur goes against what it means to be good. Since evil does exist and can be seen, the principle that one must arrive at, therefore, is that God does not exist. Thus, evil serves a logical relevance for Rowe in a different manner than it serves for Lewis, who interprets its existence through the lens of faith in Christ.[footnoteRef:4] [4: C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Quebec: Samizdat University Press, 2016), 8.]
6. According to Rowe, what is the theist’s best response to Rowe’s argument from evil? Explain how the “G.E. Moore shift” is supposed to work to the theist’s advantage.
Rowe supposes that the theist’s best response to the argument from evil is that God permits evil for the reason of some greater good. The G. E. Moore shift reverses Rowe’s argument and makes it modus ponens instead of modus tollens. What Rowe uses to propel the argument of skepticism, Moore uses to propel the argument of common sense. Moore in other words does not reject the idea of a good God because evil exists; instead, he argues that God knows evil exists and permits it. The mere existence of evil does not negate the existence of God nor could it since there is as much evidence of God’s existence as there is of evil. Rowe views all suffering as pointless and thus does not embrace Moore’s argument.[footnoteRef:5] [5: Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams, The Problem of Evil (Oxford UP, 1990), 26.]
7. Rowe says that he is a ‘friendly atheist.’ (Notice his definition of this term in section 3 of his famous article, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.”) By extension of Rowe’s definitions, should Christians be friendly or unfriendlytheists? Which one, and why?
A friendly atheist is one who believes one can be justified in being a theist, so by extension a friendly theist would be one who believes that an atheist can be justified in his theism. This logic, however, is contrary to the Christian teaching that the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Such a person cannot be justified according to Christian teaching and therefore a Christian cannot be a friendly theist but must by definition be an unfriendly theist. Thus, though Rowe would like to be a friendly atheist, the same simply cannot be said for a Christian because there is no permission to hold that atheism is justified.
8. Last question: What defense and/or theodicy do you find yourself using most readily when confronted (whether in your own self or that of another) with the problem of evil, suffering, or pain? As you answer, remember to address most if not all of Rowe’s 4 questions about evil: 1. Why is there any evil at all? 2. What are the types and kinds of evil? 3. Why is there the amount of evil that there is? and 4. Why are there the particular evils that there are? Lay out some components that you find helpful when thinking about God, good, and evil. Refer to articles and books you have read during this course as you write your answer, as time and reflection permits. (500 words)
The theodicy that I find myself using to justify the existence of divine goodness in the world in the face of evil is the simple explanation provided by traditional theology. Why is there any evil at all? This is quite simple to answer when one reflects on the existence of the free will. Clearly God has given human beings the ability to exercise their free will in making decisions, in choosing to follow Him or to choose themselves or some passing pleasure in place of exercising a devotion to God. This will was likewise given to the angels, the purely spiritual beings, the head of whom is known as Lucifer, the greatest of the angels—who essentially was given the same chance as man to exercise free will by serving God or exalting himself. Lucifer and the fallen angels exalted themselves and made war on God and His created order. God allowed it all because such is the nature of his love that he wanted His creatures to have the freedom to choose to love Him—otherwise their love would be wooden, hollow, mechanistic—not of their choosing. He gave us life and asks for love in return. When we deny Him that love, we choose evil instead. That is the simple explanation for why evil exists.
As for the various kinds of evil, there is natural and moral evil. The first sin of man sent a false note into the world that corrupted man’s place in nature and made him subject to nature instead of being the ruler of nature that God intended him to be in the Paradise garden. Thus, this is why we suffer natural evils today. Moral evil is the absence of God in our decisions—the loss of good. Thus, when we sin, it is a moral evil.
The reason for the amount of evil that exists today is undoubtedly related to the fact that so many are at war with God, His order, and His love. Like Lucifer, they have refused to serve Him, acknowledge Him, or accept the order of things as He has made it. They want to remake the world in their own image. They are entirely man-centered instead of God-centered, which is why so many turn to evil. They have no love for God within themselves, and evil is the outcome or expression of their souls.
The problem of particular evils or horrors is really the same old problem of pain, as Lewis calls it and it has to be interpreted in the light of faith—the story of Redemption.[footnoteRef:6] This is the history of man: the creation, the love, then the sin, the fall, the exile, the suffering and the waiting for Redemption which came via Christ. Now through faith and works every man is called to be redeemed and to embrace the cross—not use it to invalidate God’s existence and His own suffering which He took upon Himself to pay for the fall of man. [6: C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Quebec: Samizdat University Press, 2016), 8.]



References
Adams, Marily McCord and Robert Merrihew Adams. The Problem of Evil. Oxford
University Press, 1990.
Feinberg, John S. The Many Faces of Evil. Crossway Books, 2004.
Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. Samizdat University Press, 2016.
Wright, N. T. Evil and the Justice of God. InterVarsity Press, 2006.