Research Paper On Richard Swineburne's Theodicy

Kelsie Clark

Philosophy 1000 M/W

Intro to Problem Paper

Due: April 25, 2018

Who is the Abrahamic Monotheistic God? He has been defined as the God of the three omnis – Omniscient (all knowing), Omnipotent (all powerful), and Omnibenevolent (perfectly good). This is the God that is worshiped and revered by about 55.5% of the world, according to Pew Research Center in 2015 (Hackett, Mcclendon). That being stated, how can an Omnibenevolent, Omniscient and Omnipotent God allow evil in this world? We see it daily. Evil runs rampant through the streets. It represents itself in the form of people and groups. We even go so far as to characterize illnesses and suffering as evil. How can we reconcile this evil in our world with a God who can easily

Swineburne’s theodicy is not only answering the question, but it redefines some terms in order to establish what concepts he is using for this theodicy. One such term that he chooses to redefine is ‘omnipotence’. Swineburne’s states that “an omnipotent being [is] ‘one who can do anything logically possible, anything that is, the description of which does not involve a contradiction’”( p. 23-24). This means that God, though omnipotent, is still constrained by the force of logic. Swineburne also does not use the term ‘evil’ unless for purposes of distinguishing between that of moral evil and natural evil – such as the evil of man and the evil of illness or natural disaster. He instead uses the term ‘a bad state of affairs’. He defines a bad state of affairs as any of these possible evils. At its base, this term could be understood that “‘it would be bad for an agent who could prevent them to allow them to occur’”( Søvik p. 24) – which a complete contradiction of what Swineburne wishes to convey. His argument is structured simply as this: A perfectly good being will never allow any morally bad state to occur if he can prevent it – except for the sake of a greater good. Swineburne believes that the four criteria for the previous statement are as follows: “a) God has the right to allow Evil to occur. b) allowing

However, it takes more than just an evil event to bring about good. It takes the will of people involved, and I believe that is where Swineburne went wrong. He acknowledges that God allows evil if there is no other way to bring about an event of good. However, he fails to give credit to the will of those involved to choose that good. God can allow a horrendous act like the Holocaust to occur, but if people just ignored it, that evil would have been far more destructive. But because it was allowed to happen and people responded, God allowed people to fight that evil, and hopefully learn and become better because of it. People, in general, band together through tragedies and help each other and face evil head on. Whether evil is temporarily put at bay because of the will of the people or it continues to pervade, it is through the choices of the people evil affects that good is shown, and I believe that that is how God intended