Key Moments
Does Evil Prove God Does Not Exist? | Michael Tooley
Closer To TruthWant to know something specific about what's covered?
We've already dissected every moment. Ask and we will deliver (with timestamps).
Key Moments
The logical argument from evil, which claims God's existence is incompatible with suffering, faces significant objections, especially after Plantinga's free will defense, but new versions are emerging.
Key Insights
The argument from evil can be framed either as a logical incompatibility (God cannot exist with evil) or an evidential/probabilistic claim (evil makes God's existence unlikely).
Alvin Plantinga's 'free will defense' argues that a world with free beings capable of evil is better than a world without free will, thereby reconciling God with suffering.
A contemporary logical argument from evil suggests God, like humans, could possess free will while having an innate disposition to always do the right thing, thus avoiding evil.
The effectiveness of the argument from evil can depend on the grounding of ethics: deontological (duty-based) or axiological (value-based), with both facing skeptical challenges.
Concrete examples of suffering, such as the Lisbon earthquake, are argued to be stronger starting points for the argument from evil than abstract discussions of evil.
The core tension: God's attributes versus the reality of evil
The central challenge posed by the argument from evil to the existence of God hinges on reconciling an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good deity with the pervasive presence of suffering in the world. The argument from evil can be broadly categorized into two main types: logical and evidential. The logical argument posits that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of such a God, implying a direct contradiction. If a God possesses the power to prevent all evil, the knowledge of how to do so, and the will to prevent it due to perfect goodness, then logically, no evil should exist. Conversely, the evidential argument suggests that while not a strict logical contradiction, the sheer amount and nature of evil in the world make God's existence highly improbable, typically below a 50% likelihood. This distinction is crucial, as the logical argument, if sound, leads to a definitive 'no God,' while the evidential argument points to a low probability of God's existence.
Classical formulations and the 'greater good' response
Early versions of the logical argument from evil asserted that an all-powerful and perfectly good being would prevent all evils, both those caused by conscious beings (moral evils) and those arising from natural processes (natural evils). The argument followed that if such a being could prevent evil without negative consequences, it ought to do so. The absence of this prevention, therefore, implies the non-existence of such a being. A significant response to these arguments emerged with the concept of 'greater goods.' This defense suggests that some evils might be necessary for the existence of certain greater goods, and that eliminating the evil would also eliminate the possibility of the greater good, thus making the situation worse overall. This line of reasoning, explored by philosophers like John Mackie in the mid-20th century, attempts to justify the presence of evil by linking it to a superior, albeit often unknown, good.
Plantinga's free will defense and its impact
Alvin Plantinga's free will defense is widely considered a highly influential response that significantly shifted the landscape of the debate. The core of this defense is the assertion that it is better for beings to possess free will—the ability to choose between good and evil—than to be programmed beings incapable of genuine moral choice. While the existence of free will means that individuals can choose to commit evil acts (exemplified by historical figures like Hitler or Stalin), Plantinga argues that this freedom is a greater good that outweighs the evils committed. Therefore, a world with free beings who sometimes do evil is considered a better world than one devoid of free will but also devoid of evil. This defense, by focusing on the value of free will, effectively undermined many traditional logical arguments by showing that the existence of evil does not necessarily lead to a contradiction with the existence of God.
A refined logical argument challenging free will defenses
Despite the impact of Plantinga's defense, new versions of the logical argument from evil continue to be developed. One such promising argument, put forth by philosopher Shelah Ronbach, uses God's own nature as a prototype. The argument questions why, if God possesses free will and is perfectly good (thus always disposed to do right), He couldn't create finite beings with free will who also possess an innate disposition to always choose the morally right thing. This would seemingly lead to a world with free will but without evil, which proponents argue would be a better state of affairs. The challenge to this argument lies in the potential difference between an uncreated, necessary being like God and created, contingent beings. It's debated whether genuine free will with minimal evil is possible in creatures that are not necessary and are subject to the constraints of their existence.
The role of concrete evils over abstract ones
Philosophers like Michael Tooley advocate for a shift from abstract discussions of evil to arguments grounded in specific, concrete instances of suffering. For example, examining a catastrophic event like the Lisbon earthquake, rather than merely discussing 'evil' in general, offers a more potent basis for argumentation. The strength of this approach lies in its ability to highlight the profound suffering that occurs, and to question how it could be reconciled with a benevolent deity. While proponents of 'skeptical theism' might argue that unknown greater goods could outweigh these evils, the use of concrete examples allows for a more direct challenge, raising the question of whether unseen goods can truly compensate for demonstrable, intense suffering. This has led to debates, with philosophers like Wes Morrison and their critics, exploring the limits of our knowledge regarding such 'greater goods'.
Ethical foundations: Deontology versus Axiology
The formulation of the argument from evil relies on underlying assumptions about ethics and morality, particularly concerning God's moral nature. Two primary frameworks are considered: deontology, which grounds morality in duty and rightness, and axiology, which grounds it in value and goodness. While seemingly similar, they lead to different implications for what a perfectly good God should do. A deontological view might set a higher standard for God's actions than an axiological view, which could potentially allow for maximizing value even if it involves certain evils. However, both ethical frameworks face skeptical challenges. For instance, John Mackie questioned how inherent goodness or badness could be objective, and how rightness or wrongness could be necessitated by these properties. Attempts to establish objective morality, such as Mike Huemer's work on synthetic a priori truths, propose that basic moral claims might be self-evidently true, providing a foundation for arguments from evil.
Pleasure, pain, and the axiological approach
The axiological approach, which focuses on value, finds a natural connection to the experienced realities of pleasure and pain. This connection makes it a tempting framework for constructing arguments from evil. The sheer volume of pain experienced by humans and other sentient beings due to disease, natural disasters, and predation provides a powerful empirical basis for the argument that an all-good God would not permit such extensive suffering if value maximization were the sole criterion. While a deontological framework might also be appealing, particularly for its potential to impose stricter moral obligations on God, the direct experience of pain and pleasure makes the axiological framework compelling for its intuitive link to the problem of evil. Many proponents of evidential arguments from evil do indeed appeal directly to the immense amount of pain in the world.
Mentioned in This Episode
●People Referenced
Common Questions
The logical argument from evil claims that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God, implying a contradiction. The evidential or probabilistic argument suggests that the amount of evil in the world makes God's existence unlikely, reducing its probability to less than 50%.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
Philosopher mentioned for his formulation of challenges to deontological and axiological ethics, and for his earlier arguments concerning evil.
Philosopher known for his influential 'free will defense' which addressed the logical argument from evil by suggesting free will is a greater good that outweighs the evils resulting from its misuse.
Mentioned for responding to Wes Morrison's arguments, and who also had a response from the speaker.
Philosopher who has written extensively on skeptical theism and, with Howard Snyder, found it an unsatisfactory response to certain arguments from evil.
Theist philosopher who, with Michael Bergman, argued that skeptical theism was not a satisfactory response to certain arguments from evil.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 59 summaries
65 minWhat Is the Best Evidence for Life After Death? | Jeffrey Mishlove
21 minCan Science Disprove Free Will? | Richard Swinburne
30 minIs the First Cause Argument the Best Case for God? | Alex O'Connor (Part 7-8)
39 minCan Science Study the Nonphysical? | Jeffrey Mishlove
Ask anything from this episode.
Save it, chat with it, and connect it to Claude or ChatGPT. Get cited answers from the actual content — and build your own knowledge base of every podcast and video you care about.
Get Started Free