Key Moments
The Limits of Theodicies for the Problem of Evil | 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
Theodicies attempting to explain evil through free will, soul-making, natural law, or karma falter when confronted with horrendous suffering and natural disasters, suggesting God's design may not be as benevolent as conventionally believed.
Key Insights
The free will theodicy, a prominent defense against the problem of evil, is significantly undermined if scientific experiments like Libet's suggest our decisions are preceded by unconscious brain activity.
Schellenberg argued God could have created beings with free will and a disposition never to do evil, similar to God's own disposition, posing a challenge to why such beings weren't created.
The soul-making theodicy struggles to justify horrendous suffering, as a world with challenges that don't involve tremendous pain might still be sufficient for character development.
Natural law theodicies are challenged by the idea that an omnipotent God could create natural laws that are more complex and account for foreseen suffering, rather than allowing immense harm.
The doctrine of karma and reincarnation, while ethically superior in some aspects, faces challenges regarding personal identity across lifetimes and may lead to a lack of empathy for those suffering from birth defects.
The concept of an afterlife is presented as essential for many theodicies to succeed, but traditional religious afterlives in Christianity and Islam often involve eternal torment, which raises its own problems of evil.
The free will theodicy faces scientific and philosophical challenges
The free will theodicy, notably formulated by Alvin Plantinga, is a central argument in defending the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God against the problem of evil. It posits that free will is a great good, and the possibility of evil is a necessary byproduct of creating beings with genuine free will. However, this theodicy faces significant challenges. From a scientific perspective, experiments like the Libet experiment suggest that unconscious brain activity precedes conscious awareness of making a decision. If our sense of free will is illusory, then the free will theodicy, as a justification for allowing evil, evaporates. Even if free will is preserved, further philosophical objections arise. For instance, philosopher Schellenberg argued that God could have created beings with free will but with an inherent disposition never to do evil, akin to God's own perfect goodness. This raises the question of why God would not create beings with such a disposition, thereby minimizing evil without sacrificing free will. The core issue remains: even if free will is a good, does its existence justify the allowance of horrendous evils that seem disproportionate to the good of free choice?
Free will may not justify horrendous evil
Even if we grant the existence of free will, the theodicy encounters further difficulties when considering the magnitude of evil. A key objection is that a benevolent, omnipotent being would not remain passive when faced with the potential for horrific atrocities, such as Adolf Hitler's actions leading to the Holocaust. While free will is a good, it does not logically entail that one should *always* permit its exercise, especially when the consequences are millions of deaths. Intervention to prevent such extreme evils would not negate the general good of free will. This suggests that the free will theodicy fails to account for the sheer scale and severity of evil that occurs in the world, as it doesn't adequately explain why God would allow such widespread suffering when intervention could prevent it without eliminating free will entirely.
Natural evil and soul-making extend the problem
The free will theodicy also falters when confronted with natural evils—events not caused by moral agents, such as animal predation, diseases, and natural disasters. The concept of a world 'red in tooth and claw' raises profound questions about why an all-good God would permit immense suffering among sentient beings, including animals, that have no moral agency. Furthermore, the soul-making theodicy, which suggests that suffering and challenges are necessary for spiritual growth and the development of character, also struggles with the scale of these evils. While challenges can foster growth, it's argued that horrendous events involving tremendous pain are not necessarily required for soul-making. One could imagine a world with significant challenges that enable character development without inflicting such extreme suffering, questioning whether the 'better place' generated by soul-making through horrendous events is truly justified.
The limitations of natural law arguments
Another proposed theodicy relies on the concept of natural laws, suggesting that God created the universe to operate according to independent laws, and intervention at every turn would negate this natural order. However, this argument faces a counter-objection: an omnipotent God could design natural laws that are more sophisticated. These laws could potentially incorporate mechanisms to foresee and mitigate harm to sentient beings, thereby preventing great suffering without requiring constant miraculous intervention. The current natural laws seem indifferent to the harm they cause, leading to the question of why God, if omnipotent, would establish such laws that allow for widespread pain and death.
Karma and reincarnation present an alternative framework but with its own issues
Eastern religions, particularly those incorporating karma and reincarnation, offer a different perspective that, in essence, 'self-solves' the problem of evil by positing a system of cosmic justice. Actions in one life determine the circumstances of the next. While ethically superior in its focus on justice, this doctrine faces significant challenges. The concept of an immaterial soul, central to reincarnation, is empirically questionable. Furthermore, the idea of personal identity across lifetimes is problematic; without memories of past lives, one might question whether the 'reincarnated' person is truly the 'same' person. Morally, if someone is born with severe physical defects and suffers greatly, attributing this to past actions can lead to a lack of empathy and a perception of injustice, even if it's framed as a dynamic process for future improvement.
The afterlife as a crucial, yet problematic, component
The importance of an afterlife emerges as a critical element for the success of most theodicies. Without an afterlife, the cumulative weight of evil in this life seems insurmountable for many theistic arguments. However, traditional religious conceptions of the afterlife, particularly in Christianity and Islam, often present a mixed picture. While some may achieve eternal happiness with God, others face eternal torment. This eternal punishment, sometimes based on belief rather than actions, raises its own problem of evil. The idea of universalism, where all eventually achieve salvation, is considered by some as a more palatable approach, but it often conflicts with scriptural interpretations in certain traditions. The debate highlights the difficulty of constructing a concept of the afterlife that adequately resolves the problem of evil without introducing new moral quandaries.
Defenses versus theodicies and the challenge of plausibility
Some Christian philosophers opt for 'defenses' rather than strict theodicies. These defenses offer plausible, though not necessarily proven, narratives for how God might allow evil. The idea is to show that it's at least *possible* that a loving God has good reasons for the evil we see, thereby undermining the logical argument for atheism. However, the efficacy of these defenses hinges on the plausibility of the stories they present. A critical examination of these narratives may reveal objections that challenge their truthfulness. The discussion also touches upon the low proportion of philosophers who believe in God, contrasted with the high proportion among Christian philosophers, suggesting that while the space for belief may be narrow, it remains a point of contention and exploration.
Mentioned in This Episode
●Organizations
●People Referenced
Common Questions
Theodicies are arguments put forth by theistic philosophers to explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God would permit the existence of evil and suffering in the world. They attempt to reconcile the existence of God with the reality of evil.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
Philosopher credited with formulating the free will theodicy, which is widely thought to defeat the logical argument from evil.
Associated with a controversial experiment that investigated the timing of conscious awareness of decisions relative to brain activity, often interpreted as challenging the notion of free will.
Mentioned as an example of a historical figure whose free will, if unchecked, could lead to immense suffering and evil, posing a challenge to the free will theodicy.
A figure in a discussion at Princeton University, who apparently criticized John Hick for accepting the idea of hell.
A philosopher whose views on the afterlife, specifically his acceptance of hell, were criticized by Walter Kaufmann, but who then responded that he did not believe in it.
Mentioned as one of the Abrahamic religions that grapples with the problem of evil and presents theistic arguments (theodicies).
Discussed in relation to its concepts of karma and reincarnation as a framework for understanding suffering, presented as an alternative to Abrahamic theodicies.
Discussed in relation to its concept of the afterlife, the potential for eternal torment, and the emphasis on belief over deeds in some interpretations, as well as its compatibility with universalism.
Mentioned alongside Christianity as an Abrahamic religion that posits an afterlife which can be a place of eternal torment, posing challenges for theodicy.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 61 summaries
27 minWhy the Argument from Evil Depends on Probability | Michael Tooley
26 minDoes Evil Prove God Does Not Exist? | Michael Tooley
65 minWhat Is the Best Evidence for Life After Death? | Jeffrey Mishlove
21 minCan Science Disprove Free Will? | Richard Swinburne
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