The podcast explores eight distinct responses by classical theists to the evidential problem of evil, emphasizing the compatibility of evil with divine existence.
Skeptical theism suggests that human limitations in understanding divine reasoning do not negate the existence of God despite the presence of suffering.
Deep dives
Understanding the Problem of Evil
The problem of evil presents a challenge to theistic beliefs, particularly in traditional theism, which relies on the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. This alignment between the concept of a perfect deity and the existence of suffering and evil creates a philosophical tension. The logical problem of evil, which claims that evil’s existence contradicts the existence of God, has largely fallen out of favor among philosophers, giving way to more nuanced evidential problems that suggest evil is better explained by naturalistic rather than theistic frameworks. The central concern for theists is to find explanations that account for both moral and natural evils without undermining their belief in a benevolent deity.
Forms of Theistic Responses
Various strategies exist within theist responses to the problem of evil, classified into eight distinct approaches. The initial approach asserts that if God exists, then evil must ultimately be compatible with divine existence, often citing metaphysical demonstrations as justification. Another perspective, known as the total evidence approach, involves weighing the evidential burden of evil against a cumulative case for God's existence, suggesting that theism can still provide a more comprehensive understanding of reality when all factors are considered. The weak theodicy posits that there might exist justifying reasons for evil, although these may not be explicitly known or understood, thus leaving room for doubt and inquiry.
Theodicy Versus Naturalism
The strong and stronger theodicy approaches elevate the discourse by claiming that some known or theorized reasons justifying evil exist and that the distribution of evils align with what one could expect from a benevolent deity. This is in contrast with naturalism, which seemingly lacks an intrinsic explanation for the prevalence of evil. Authors like Eleanor Stump and Trent Dougherty articulate these views, arguing that the nature of suffering serves a greater purpose, such as spiritual growth or achieving a divine union, which can stand in opposition to naturalistic interpretations. These theodicies suggest that the realities of suffering not only make sense in a theistic framework but that they also challenge the predictive efficacy of naturalism.
The Role of Skeptical Theism
Skeptical theism offers a framework for understanding that, even if evil exists, human beings may not possess the cognitive capacity to discern God's reasons for permitting it. This perspective emphasizes humility regarding our understanding of divine intentions, arguing that the mere lack of perceived reasons for suffering does not provide sufficient evidence against God's existence. Authors like Timothy Perrine frame this approach by asserting that our inability to comprehend the scope of divine reasoning does not justify disbelief in God. Thus, skeptical theism acts as a philosophical buffer, allowing theists to maintain their beliefs in the face of seemingly gratuitous suffering without demanding complete understanding of divine plans.
Pat highlights 8 (or so) approaches classical theists have taken in response to the evidential problem of evil. The purpose of this video is not to defend any of these approaches, but simply to explain what they are and encourage further study for those interested.
