Philosophy: Problem of Evil Part 3

TL;DR

Greg Ganssle discusses the evidential problem of evil and possible theistic responses.

Transcript

(intro music) Hi, my name is Greg Ganssle and I'm a part-time lecturer[br]in the Department of Philosophy at Yale University, and a Senior Fellow at the Rivendell Institute. And today we're talking about the philosophical problem of evil. In previous discussions,[br]we've seen the charge of contradiction or the deductive logical problem of evil dis... Read More

Key Insights

• The evidential problem of evil questions the existence of God based on the presence of seemingly unjustified evils in the world.
• William Rowe's 1979 argument posits that if God exists, there should be no unjustified evils, yet we observe such evils, suggesting God might not exist.
• An unjustified evil is defined as one where no good reason exists for its allowance, challenging the notion of a wholly good, all-powerful God.
• The argument is evidential because it relies on weighing evidence to support the claim that unjustified evils exist, rather than proving it beyond doubt.
• Rowe uses the example of a suffering deer in a forest fire to illustrate a potential unjustified evil, questioning the relevance of human free will in such cases.
• Steven Wykstra critiques Rowe's inference, questioning whether the absence of discernible justifying reasons implies their nonexistence.
• The strength of Rowe's argument depends on whether we should expect to understand God's reasons for allowing evil, with theists arguing that many reasons may be beyond human comprehension.
• Despite the argument, both theists and atheists can rationally hold their beliefs, as the debate hinges on different assessments of available evidence.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the evidential problem of evil?

The evidential problem of evil is a philosophical argument suggesting that the existence of seemingly unjustified evils in the world challenges the existence of an all-powerful, wholly good God. It argues that if God exists, there should be no unjustified evils, yet such evils are observed, leading to the conclusion that God might not exist.

Q: How does William Rowe illustrate the evidential problem of evil?

William Rowe illustrates the evidential problem of evil through the example of a deer suffering in a forest fire. The deer's prolonged suffering seems to lack a justifying reason, questioning the relevance of human free will and suggesting that, if God exists, He might not have a good reason to allow such suffering, thus challenging God's existence.

Q: What is an unjustified evil according to the discussion?

An unjustified evil is defined as an evil for which there is no good reason to allow its occurrence. It is an evil that no good being would permit if they had the power to prevent it. The presence of such evils in the world challenges the existence of a wholly good, all-powerful God.

Q: How does Steven Wykstra critique Rowe's argument?

Steven Wykstra critiques Rowe's argument by questioning the strength of the inference that the absence of discernible justifying reasons for evils implies their nonexistence. He argues that many of God's reasons for allowing evil might be beyond human comprehension, and the inability to identify them does not necessarily mean they do not exist.

Q: What determines the strength of Rowe's argument?

The strength of Rowe's argument is determined by whether we should expect to understand God's reasons for allowing evil. If it is reasonable to expect that many of God's reasons are beyond human comprehension, then the argument is weaker. Theists argue that the inability to discern reasons does not necessarily imply their absence.

Q: Can both theists and atheists rationally hold their beliefs despite Rowe's argument?

Yes, both theists and atheists can rationally hold their beliefs despite Rowe's argument. The debate hinges on different assessments of available evidence, and both sides can be seen as rational in their beliefs based on how they interpret the presence or absence of justifying reasons for observed evils.

Q: What is the role of evidence in the evidential problem of evil?

In the evidential problem of evil, evidence plays a crucial role in supporting the claim that unjustified evils exist. Unlike the deductive problem of evil, which seeks to prove a contradiction, the evidential problem relies on weighing evidence for and against the existence of unjustified evils to argue the likelihood of God's existence.

Q: How does the example of a suffering deer challenge theistic beliefs?

The example of a suffering deer challenges theistic beliefs by presenting a scenario where the suffering appears to lack a justifying reason. It questions the relevance of human free will and suggests that an all-powerful, wholly good God might not have a good reason to allow such suffering, thus challenging the likelihood of God's existence.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Greg Ganssle examines the evidential problem of evil, which challenges the existence of God based on the presence of seemingly unjustified evils. Using William Rowe's argument, he discusses whether such evils imply the nonexistence of God and explores potential theistic responses.

• Rowe's argument suggests that if God exists, there should be no unjustified evils. However, observable cases like a suffering deer in a forest fire seem to lack justifying reasons, questioning God's existence. Theists argue that God's reasons may be beyond human understanding.

• Steven Wykstra critiques Rowe's inference, questioning whether the absence of discernible justifying reasons implies their nonexistence. Ganssle concludes that both theists and atheists can rationally hold their beliefs, as the debate hinges on different assessments of available evidence.