ipl-logo

Richard Swinburne's Problem Of Evil

1060 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Arguments for an against problem of evil

This paper examines the problem of evil. The plan of the paper is as follows. First, I will explain the problem of evil. Second, I will present the reasons that support and defend the problem of evil argument’s premises. Third, I will discuss the criticisms of the problem of evil. Finally, I will evaluate the debate, specifically what is right and wrong with the criticisms and whether the problem of evil survives the criticisms discussed.
Evil exists everywhere in the world. There are two broad types of evil. The first is moral evil. Moral evil is an intentional act of evil, usually committed by human beings. Some examples of moral evil would be war, murder, theft, and rape. The second is natural evil. Natural evils are pain and suffering caused …show more content…

Richard Swinburne’s critical response to the problem of evil argument is the free will defense argument. According to the 1996 reading, "Why God Allows Evil," by Swinburne, he claims that because God gave us free will, our choice to choose, good and evil must be present. If we could only choose good, it would not be free will. In Swinburne’s free will defense, he emphasizes significant freedom, significant responsibility, and the usefulness of life. Swinburne defines significant responsibility as having responsibility for the trajectories of our own lives, the lives of others, and our world. In addition, he defines significant freedom as having the freedom to help or harm ourselves, other humans, animals, and our world. Our world consists of beings who have significant freedom and responsibility. Because we have significant freedom and responsibility, we are able to find the purpose of life.
Furthermore, Swinburne explains that God allows moral evil because it is impossible to eliminate moral evil while being given significant responsibility and freedom. If there was no moral evil, we would not know the dire consequences of our actions. Swinburne notes that God cannot predict the future because we have significant freedom to do what we choose to do. God allows natural evil because it demonstrates the laws of nature. For example, polluting the Earth has consequences. Through nature, God naturally …show more content…

According to the April 1995 reading, "Evil and Omnipotence," John Leslie Mackie believes that an all-good God does not exist because if there was an all-good God, then the presence of evil would be impossible. He indicates that if God was good, then he could have created a world where no matter what decision we made, we would always make a morally right decision.
The debate about the problem of evil can be examined more closely. I think Swinburne’s free will defense survives Mackie’s criticism of the free will defense. This is because there must be evil to know good. If there was no evil, how would we know what good is? Free will is the greater good. According to Mackie’s criticism, if God was truly almighty, he could have created a world where free-willed people would always choose the right action. I disagree with this because free will means being able to choose whether one will be good or bad. If we were programmed to always choose good, we would not have free will.
God cannot prevent creatures who have significant freedom from doing evil because then we would lose our strong inclination to do what is wrong or right. If we lose significant freedom, we lose significant responsibility. If God interferes and fixes everything, we wouldn’t live responsibly. We could give up on life because our choices don't

Show More
Related
1121 Words | 5 Pages

Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” In a similar vein: If God exists, he is all-knowing, omnipotent, and ethically flawless. If God were all-knowing, God would know about all the terrible occasions that occur in our reality. If God were omnipotent, God would have the capacity to do something.

Read More
1272 Words | 6 Pages

“The Problem of Evil” by Peter van Inwagen, is a series of lectures that that presents van Inwagen’s various responses to problem of evil. In this essay, I will present “the local problem of evil” (from chapter 6 of the book), the solution van Inwagen proposes for this problem, and my critique of his solution. “The local problem of evil,” according to van Inwagen, is the hypothetical response an atheist would have towards van Inwagen’s solution of “the global problem of evil” which is, “If god existed, then why is there so much evil in the world?” The argument of “the local problem of evil” is “If god existed then why are there specific horrors that occur in the world, like children dying in a horrific car crash?” The argument that is drawn

Read More
1706 Words | 7 Pages

I do not believe that the Free Will Defense is satisfactory because again, then positives of free will do not outweigh the negatives. If God is truly a morally perfect, omnipotent, and loving being, he could easily get rid of the evil in the world by just directing people to make the right choices. While it sounds nice to think of mankind journeying back to harmony in God’s love, it almost seems as though God is playing some kind of sick game where he sees how long he can torture humans. Van Inwagen also would say that free will gives the world more morally right things than morally wrong things, but how would someone even begin to measure that amount? And is it even possible to obtain an accurate measurement of how many good things have happened, and how many evil?

Read More
1015 Words | 5 Pages

Free will is what makes love, peace, and joy possible. Because of the freedom to choose good or bad, evil is in the world. Another reason evil exists is that people tend to put themselves first over others and God which ultimately leads to their demise. Only true happiness and joy can exist within God. Despite humans making a mess of everything, God still pursued His children and gave His one and only Son, Jesus Christ.

Read More
1530 Words | 7 Pages

“It is probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will… if a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why then did God give them free will?” I agree with this concept, if something is a free to be a good it is also free to be bad.

Read More
826 Words | 4 Pages

“Do you see this son, it’s all madness out there. I just don’t understand why God lets this happens.” As my mother watches the 11 pm news on a cold rainy night, most of the coverage is about evil acts and how it’s affecting the community of Los Angles. Thus, it raises the question of why a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent would allow evil and suffering to exist in the world. This paper explores the argument of the problem of evil conflicts with the existence of God from two different points of view, criticism of one point of view, and evaluation of the argument.

Read More
1495 Words | 6 Pages

He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b).   This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control.   The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).

Read More
1339 Words | 6 Pages

We as human beings both create and endure evil of many different varieties and levels of severity on a daily basis. Evil, both moral and natural, is recognized and spoken of constantly. Whether in sermons declaring the ultimate result of sin and evil from the perspective of the church, the daily news reports updating us on the War in Iraq or informing us of a local murder, or the knowledge of the ongoing struggle to rebuild a community which was destroyed during a catastrophic storm, earthquake, or wildfire, we without a doubt live amidst evil. Many of us have very differing philosophies on the proper way to define evil, for example, whether evil is intentional or a natural balancing force, whether evil is universal, or if one's particular

Read More
436 Words | 2 Pages

In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).

Read More
893 Words | 4 Pages

Theorists opposing this argument hold that morality is not dependent on the will of God. These theorists limit God’s omnipotence is stating clearly that he cannot make what is wrong, right. The theorists then suggest that God has to bend His will to conform to what is right. They hold that God wills what is morally right because it is right. In this argument, I take the stand that morality is what God wills it to

Read More
2349 Words | 10 Pages

The problem of evil takes into account three defining features of God: all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful and questions whether such a God would permit evil and not interfere. Sinnott-Armstrong discusses his stance by countering responses he coins as the Glorious Response, the Modest Response, and the Overriding Response. Whereas, Craig counters the arguments made by Sinnott-Armstrong. The Glorious Response Thus response suggests evil is

Read More
1006 Words | 5 Pages

Essay 2 My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection.

Read More
1089 Words | 5 Pages

Mackie’s argument highlights the inconsistency that arises between the premises of God’s existence. Mackie proposes the problem of evil to be that “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; [God exists]; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, 1955, p.200). Mackie states these four propositions cannot coexist, therefore, if evil exists, God cannot and conversely, if God is real evil must be

Read More
1372 Words | 6 Pages

Although God’s existence and the validity of the experiences that may imply God’s existence is still not known, it is enough to say that logically, evil can exist along with God and his properties, even in today’s

Read More
877 Words | 4 Pages

On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).

Read More

More about Richard Swinburne's Problem Of Evil

Related Topics

Open Document