Philosophy of Evil

Molinism and the Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

Molinism is a view that attempts to resolve two doctrines that seem at odds with each other. First, that God predestines an elect people for salvation. Second, that we freely choose salvation. Both doctrines and the problem itself come from Christianity, though the tenets can be shared in other monotheistic religions. The Molinist solution is that God predestines us by creating the right circumstances that would lead to us freely choosing salvation. 

The Problem of Evil is the question of why God would allow evil. If we accept the Molinist solution to the first problem, we could possibly use it to answer the second: God allows evil because it is part of the circumstances that would lead a person to choose salvation.

Is Molinism tenable? Can it be combined in this way to solve the Problem of Evil?

NOTES

  • Problem of Evil
    • 1. If God exists, then He could prevent evil
      • S1: He is all-powerful and all-knowing
    • 2. If God exists, then He would prevent evil
      • S1: He is all-good
    • So, 3. If God exists, then evil doesn’t exist
    • 4. Evil exists
    • So, 5. God doesn’t exist
  • Molinism
    • The following are three kinds of knowledge God has in the logical order He has them:
      • Natural knowledge = God's knowledge of all necessary truths (e.g., "2+2=4", "A squared circle is impossible")
      • Middle knowledge = knowledge of all CCFs
        • Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedom (CCFs) = what a person would do in a possible circumstance that doesn't actually happen
      • Free knowledge = knowledge of what He decides to create
    • The Molinist picture of creation:
      • God begins with natural knowledge
      • He decides to create
      • He accesses middle knowledge to determine what each person would do in every possible circumstance (i.e., He looks at the CCFs)
      • He chooses to create a world with all the circumstances such that all the people He wants to predestine for salvation use their free will to choose salvation
      • God creates
      • God has free knowledge of what He chose
  • Adapting Molinism for the Problem of Evil
    • Evil is a part of all the worlds where the elect choose salvation
      • Possible addition: God chooses the most people to get saved possible
    • God creates only as much evil as is necessary for the incomparable good of salvation
  • Objections to Molinism
    • O1 (Open Theists): free will can't be known ahead of time because then it is determined
      • R1: it is determined by the agent, which is exactly what free will is
    • O2 (Grounding Objection): there is nothing outside of God to make these CCFs true
      • This is especially concerning since these are contingent truths
  • Objections to Molinism used to explain the Problem of Evil
    • Before God created, all the people that currently exist were only possible people
    • It was possible for those people to choose other than they did at any point
    • So, there was also a possible person identical to each person that exists, only who chose only things that would avoid evil/lead to salvation
    • If God had only allowed evil as a necessary condition for good/salvation, then He would have just created these other possible people and avoided evil in the first place

The Not-Good God Response to the Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

How could a good God allow evil? This whole problem would go away if God wasn’t totally good. But, is that reasonable?

NOTES

  • Problem of Evil
    • 1. If God exists, then He could prevent evil
      • S1: He is all-powerful and all-knowing
    • 2. If God exists, then He would prevent evil
      • S1: He is all-good
    • So, 3. If God exists, then evil doesn’t exist
    • 4. Evil exists
    • So, 5. God doesn’t exist
  • The Evil God Response
    • God is not all good
    • So, the support argument for (2) is false
    • O1: this is an atheist position, not a theist position
      • R1: “God is evil” assumes God exists
      • R2: if “God is evil” is true, then the only reason to believe (2) is false, so the Problem of Evil fails
    • O2: God has no reason to be evil
      • 1. If God exists, then He is eternal and brought everything out of nothing
      • 2. So, if God exists, then He must be all-powerful, all-knowing, self-sufficient, etc.
      • 3. Evil actions are the result of a deficiency of some kind (e.g., temptation, corruption)
      • 4. So, God doesn’t commit evil actions
    • O3: God is the arbiter of good and evil
      • 1. What is good/evil for a thing is determined by what the thing is
      • 2. God invents what everything is
      • 3. So, God determines what is good/evil for everything
      • 4. But, nothing does the same for God
      • 5. So, God cannot be said to be evil like this
      • R1: this means God can’t be said to be good either
        • O1: God can be said to be good in an analogical sense since He determines what is good

Euthyphro Dilemma 3: The False Dilemma Response

by Leave a Comment

The Euthyphro Dilemma was posed in Plato’s “Euthyphro.” Adapted for our purposes, it asks what God’s role is in determining what is good and what is evil. Is it that God has no say in the matter but only reinforces what is already so, or is it that God determines what is good or evil? Either choice seems to bring undesirable consequences.

In this video, I explore the possibility that this is a false dilemma. There is a third option that avoids the repercussions of the first two and provides insight into the nature of morality.

NOTES

  • Third way
    • God chooses what is good/evil
    • But God does so according to His nature, which is eternal and never changes
  • S1: Avoids problems of Horn 1
    • God decides, so there is no threat to sovereignty, omniscience, or free will
    • Moral truth is built in to our natures
  • S2: Avoids problems of Horn 2
    • Not arbitrary since it is determined by God's unchanging nature
    • Not non-rational since it is chosen for a reason: according to His nature
  • O1: How can we call God good?
    • R1: analogically, since He determines goodness according to His nature

Euthyphro Dilemma 2: Does God pick what’s right or wrong arbitrarily?

by Leave a Comment

The Euthyphro Dilemma was posed in Plato’s “Euthyphro.” Adapted for our purposes, it asks what God’s role is in determining what is good and what is evil. Is it that God has no say in the matter but only reinforces what is already so, or is it that God determines what is good or evil? Either choice seems to bring undesirable consequences.

In this second video, I explore the option that God determines what is good or evil: that there is no moral law until God chooses what will go into the moral law. This option seems open to the objections that (1) the moral law is arbitrarily chosen, (2) God has made a non-rational choice, and (3) it’s difficult to see how obligation attaches to these commands if there is no prior set of rules about what is right and wrong.

NOTES

  • Horn 2
    • God decides:
      • Saving an innocent person’s life is good
      • Torturing babies for fun is evil
    • And that’s what makes those things good/evil respectively
  • O1: Arbitrary
  • O2: Non-rational
  • O3: No obligation

Euthyphro Dilemma 1: Are moral truths independent of God?

by Leave a Comment

The Euthyphro Dilemma was posed in Plato’s “Euthyphro.” Adapted for our purposes, it asks what God’s role is in determining what is good and what is evil. Is it that God has no say in the matter but only reinforces what is already so, or is it that God determines what is good or evil? Either choice seems to bring undesirable consequences.

In this first video, I explore the possibility that what is good or evil is determined before God gets to choose. This option lends itself to four objections we will consider. It seems inconsistent with God’s (1) sovereignty, (2) omnipotence, and (3) free will, and (4) it posits a mysterious list of rules uncreated by God.

NOTES

  • Horn 1
    • Saving an innocent person’s life is good
    • Torturing babies for fun is evil
    • God knows these things
    • So, God tells us not to do those things
  • O1: Sovereignty
  • O2: Omnipotence
  • O3: Freedom of the will
  • O4: moral truths are mysterious

The Hindu ‘Maya’ Response to the Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

The problem of evil is this: How could God allow evil? Hinduism is a very diverse religion and this problem doesn't apply to many forms of it: only henotheistic versions where Brahman is infinite. Interestingly, in that case Hinduism has a unique tool for dealing with the problem of evil: the doctrine of maya. Everything, including evil, is an illusion, so there is no problem of evil! Is such a doctrine possible? Can all evil be an illusion?

NOTES

Logical Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, God could prevent evil

   S1: omniscient & omnipotent

2. If God exists, God would prevent evil

   S1: omnibenevolent

3. So, if God exists, evil doesn’t exist

4. Evil exists

5. So, God doesn’t exist

The Main Ideas

i. Assume Brahman is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent

ii. The world is an illusion

ii. So, evil is an illusion

Objections

O3: suffering is real even if the physical isn't

O4: evil isn't an illusion; separateness from Brahman is an illusion, and this is evil

The Mormon Response to The Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

The problem of evil is this: How could God allow evil? Mormonism has a unique answer in that it rejects the idea that God has unlimited power, so that God couldn’t prevent evil—it wasn’t God’s fault! But, how can we say God has limited power? Are there some evils God could have prevented even with the limited power available? Check out the video to find out more!

Why I'm Still Using 'LDS' and 'Mormonism'

Sometime last year (2018), I read that the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, president Russell Nelson, claimed to receive a revelation from God (this is not an unusual claim for the leader of this religion, as he is always considered to be a ‘prophet, seer, revelator’). He said that God had impressed on his mind that people should use the full name ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ to reference his religion, though it could be shortened to ‘The Church,’ ‘The Church of Jesus Christ,’ or ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ.’ Further, it is no longer acceptable for anyone to use the traditional abbreviated terms ‘LDS’ or ‘Mormonism.’ He then asked everyone—not just members of his religion—to do the same. After thinking about it for a good amount of time, I decided I am going to continue to use the traditional shortened terms, and I would like to respectfully explain why.

There are two reasons I can see that I should stop using ‘Mormon’ and ‘LDS.’ First, President Nelson, and the adherents of his faith along with him, believe that God told him I should. I am not a Mormon, I don’t believe President Nelson is a prophet, and I don’t believe God wants me to stop using these terms—but they believe it. Obviously I am not under any religious obligation when I’m not part of the religion—in fact it’s odd for a religion to have rules for unbelievers to follow insofar as they are unbelievers—but does respect for the LDS faith compel me to acquiesce? I don’t think that it does. You can’t respect a faith if you don’t take it seriously enough to disagree openly with it. Pretending to go along with it is just pandering, and I don’t think anyone wants that. I don’t believe God said this, so respect for the LDS faith compels me to say so.

The second reason is a little more difficult: LDS members themselves, including President Nelson, wish to be called by these names. Generally, I want to make people happy. It usually costs very little effort for me to use a different name, so why not do so? I think the answer to that differs for the four names.

First, let’s consider “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” This is a perfectly acceptable name for the faith and I have no problem with it in principle, but it’s clearly a practical problem. That name is absurdly long for use in conversation. It’s a name for a letterhead, not for everyday speech. It’s just too impractical to use this name when speaking of the LDS church. Mercifully, President Nelson says that God allows us to shorten the name after the first use, but even the first use is a little ridiculous.

The name ‘The Church’ is obviously a huge improvement in brevity, but what it lacks in length it makes up for in confusion. ‘The Church,’ when used as a proper noun, has historically referred to all Christians. It is true that the founders of Mormonism claimed to be the only true Christians and that all existing Christian denominations were an abomination, but the current stance of the LDS is that they are just another denomination of Christianity. For that reason, I don’t think President Nelson means to claim that the LDS has the only true Christians when he says we should use this name, but then the name’s use is confusing.

The name ‘The Church of Jesus Christ’ is much worse in that sense. This sounds like a furtive claim to be the true church of Jesus. Again, that’s not the official stance of the LDS anymore, but this moniker makes it sound like we’re turning back the clock. It may not have been the intention of President Nelson to do so, but words are powerful and asking to be called by a name like this has psychological ramifications that are impossible to ignore. Imagine, for example, if Baptists asked everyone to call them ‘The Church of Jesus Christ.’ How bombastic does that sound? For that reason, I think this name is wholly unacceptable.

The last name is ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ.’ The term ‘restored’ is meant to indicate that the Christian church almost immediately apostatized after the apostles died. We have no evidence that such a thing happened and very good evidence that the Christianity practiced for 2,000 years is relevantly the same as that practiced in the first few centuries. However, LDS theology holds that it isn’t. The official teaching is that we’ve spent the last 1,900 years practicing an abomination, and it was only with Joseph Smith that the church was “restored.” I am a Christian, so I obviously disagree, and calling the LDS ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ’ is just a smack in the face for me. So, I can’t use this name.

I can definitely see why the name ‘Mormon’ is odd, but not why it’s bad. The cornerstone of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon. It would sound weird for someone to call me a “Bible-ite,” but I can’t see why that would be bad. The name ‘LDS’ is just short for ‘Latter-Day Saints’ which is short for ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.’ That seems to me rather useful.

I’ll be honest—this post is not very well-written. These kinds of things are not really what I’m passionate about, so I really don’t want to spend too much time on them. However, it is important to me that any Mormons that have seen my videos or read anything I have written about their faith understand that I don’t use these terms flippantly. It’s just that the options President Nelson has provided are either impractical or theologically unacceptable and there was nothing wrong with the traditional terms. For that reason, I am going to keep using them.

NOTES

Logical Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, God could prevent evil

   S1: omniscient & omnipotent

2. If God exists, God would prevent evil

   S1: omnibenevolent

3. So, if God exists, evil doesn’t exist

4. Evil exists

5. So, God doesn’t exist

Supporting Argument for (1)

assume: 6. God exists

7. God is all-knowing

8. Evil is something to know how to prevent

∴9. God knows how to prevent evil

10. God is all-powerful

11. Evil is something to have the power to prevent

∴12. God has the power to prevent evil

13. An agent can prevent something if she knows how to do so and has the power to do so

∴14. If God exists, God could prevent evil

The Main Ideas

i. God is an exalted man who is not omnipotent

ii. So, (10) is false

iii. But God is still powerful enough to prevent some evils that he doesn't

iv. So, this response isn't enough

The Open Theist Response to The Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

The Problem of Evil is this: How could God exist if evil exists? This objection assumes God would know how to stop evil since God is all-knowing—but what if God were all-knowing and still couldn’t know how to stop evil? Does such a possibility even make sense? Open Theism proposes just such a solution.

NOTES

Logical Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, God could prevent evil

   S1: omniscient & omnipotent

2. If God exists, God would prevent evil

   S1: omnibenevolent

3. So, if God exists, evil doesn’t exist

4. Evil exists

5. So, God doesn’t exist

Supporting Argument for (1)

assume: 6. God exists

7. God is all-knowing

8. Evil is something to know how to prevent

∴9. God knows how to prevent evil

10. God is all-powerful

11. Evil is something to have the power to prevent

∴12. God has the power to prevent evil

13. An agent can prevent something if she knows how to do so and has the power to do so

∴14. If God exists, God could prevent evil

The Main Ideas

i. Future free will decisions do not currently exist and are not determined right now

ii. So, God does not know what will happen in those cases

ii. This doesn’t count against omniscience because these are not things that exist, so they are not things to know

iv. Since God doesn’t know what we are going to do, He can’t know the evils we will bring about

v. So, even though God is omniscient, He doesn’t know how to stop evil

So, (8) is false

Major Assumptions of Open Theism

(OT1) God’s knowledge works like ours, only on a much bigger scale

(OT2) The future does not exist

(OT3) Libertarian free will is possible

(OT4) Libertarian free will is necessary for culpability

(OT5) Divine foreknowledge prevents libertarian free will

Burden of Proof and the Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

In a recent video, I examined the Problem of Evil: How could a good God allow evil to exist? The argument is as follows:

  1. If God existed, He could prevent evil because He is all-powerful and all-knowing
  2. If God existed, He would prevent evil because He is all-good
  3. So, if God existed, evil would not exist
  4. But, evil exists
  5. So, God doesn’t exist

Theists typically object to premise (2) and in the video, I enumerated four reasons an all-good God could possibly allow evil. An interesting thing to note, however, is that I need not have done so in order to show the Problem of Evil fails because I didn’t have the ‘burden of proof.’

What is the ‘burden of proof’?

The ‘burden of proof’ is the obligation for proving why things are the way they are. In general, the burden of proof rests on whoever is making the claim. For example, let’s say Allen believes in aliens and Denise denies aliens exist (personally, I have no opinion on this matter). Denise says, “Aliens can’t exist: no one has ever seen one!” Allen points out, “That doesn’t prove anything. We’ve never seen dark matter, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.” Notice that Allen hasn’t proved that aliens exist, but he doesn’t need to. He only needs to show Denise hasn’t proven her claim.

Say Denise then gives Allen a reason. “Well, we should expect they would have made contact.” Notice, however, that this is yet another claim, so once again Denise shoulders the burden of proof, this time for the new claim (this will continue until Denise finds an acceptable claim to support the reasons she has given). So, Allen could ask, “Why believe aliens should have contacted us?” Again, Allen hasn’t proved we should not expect that aliens would have contacted us already. If he wants to make his point even stronger he can provide a reason why we shouldn’t. Maybe he could say, “An alien species might see that we don’t like outsiders.” This might be a good reason, in which case Allen’s point is all the more reinforced. However, if it isn’t, this doesn’t mean anything for Denise’s argument. She still has failed to make her case.

Who has the burden of proof in the Problem of Evil?

In the case of the Problem of Evil, the claim is being made: “God cannot exist because an all-good God wouldn’t allow evil.” For that reason, the burden of proof is on the atheist to show God could have no reason for allowing evil. After all, a being that is all-good would certainly not commit evil himself, but it is not obvious that he wouldn’t allow evil at all.

Let’s say the atheist gives us a reason: “When a person could prevent an evil but doesn’t we think that person is not good, so God would not be good if He were to allow evil.” Now we have a reason, but notice this reason is also subject to criticism. So, for example, we could point out that this isn’t always true. I might allow my son to procrastinate studying and fail a test in order for him to learn that there are consequences for irresponsibility. Or, more to the point, we might point out that God is an infinite intelligence, so He might have reasons for allowing evil that we don’t know.

Why give reasons?

Notice, however, that we still don’t need to give any reasons. It is sufficient to point out that the atheist’s argument doesn’t show God couldn’t allow evil. In fact, in this case it might be that it’s impossible to give the reasons God allows evil. First of all, it might be beyond our ken to understand. Human psychology hasn’t come far enough along to show us why we do everything we do, certainly we shouldn’t expect to understand why God does everything He does. If God were easy to understand, He wouldn’t be God. Second, God may have many reasons for allowing evil, and it may be that not every reason applies to every evil. So, for example, I might allow my son to surf a wave that scares him a little bit because it will develop courage in him. This is a different reason than why I let him fail the test. God might have an infinite number of reasons and expecting a silver bullet-type response is unrealistic. Finally, God might have some good purpose for hiding His reasons.

However, we might still give some possible reasons, as I do in the video, to make the case even more convincing. If these reasons fail, then nothing is lost. It has still been shown that the atheist has not provided sufficient justification for the claim that God couldn’t have any reasons for allowing evil.

Of course, ultimately the theist will not be satisfied with defending God against accusations of being an impossible being. She will want to go further and say God exists, and this is a claim that gives the theist the burden of proof for showing why we should believe this. The point here is that she need not prove this in the discussion of the Problem of Evil because here she doesn’t shoulder the burden of proof.

The Logical Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

 It’s the most difficult question for any believer of God: How could a good God allow evil? In this video, I lay out the logical problem of evil (as distinct from the evidential and existential problems).

NOTES

Types of Problems of Evil

-Logical

-Evidential

-Existential

The Logical Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, God could prevent evil

S1: omniscient and omnipotent

2. If God exists, God would prevent evil

S1: omnibenevolent

3. So, if God exists, evil doesn’t exist

4. Evil exists

5. So, God doesn’t exist