Introduction to Philosophy Jason M. Chang Bruce Russell, “The Problem of Evil” Introduction to Philosophy Jason M. Chang

Lecture Outline The argument from gratuitous evil The theist’s response Russell’s argument 100 year old earth believer Split the article into parts

Argument from Gratuitous Evil

Argument from Gratuitous Evil Story of Ariana Swinson Story of Roe’s fawn Story of Ariana Swinson On September 6, 2000, Edward Swinson and Linda Paling pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and first degree child abuse involving their daughter, two-year-old Ariana. Jack Kresnak, a writer for the Detroit Free Press, wrote the following on September 26, 2000:   St. Claire County Assistant Prosecutor Jean Sturtridge asked for long prison terms based on Ariana’s many bruises, broken right elbow, 4-inch skull fracture, brain hemorrhaging, ears that showed signs of tearing and sharp blows to the girl's mouth that tore the small piece of skin that holds the upper lip to the gum. On January 31, 2000, the couple killed Ariana after throwing her to the floor for not eating properly and “then pouring water into the mouth of the unconscious child, causing her to drown.” Ariana was malnourished, dehydrated, and had lost more than half her blood on the day of her death. The parents waited nearly an hour after Ariana's death to call police, using the time to coach their other two young children to take the fall for Ariana's death. Story of Roe’s fawn By philosopher William Roe Story “In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering”

Argument from Gratuitous Evil What is gratuitous evil? Definition Contrasted with necessary evil

Argument from Gratuitous Evil Necessary evil Gratuitous evil   Amount of evil Good achieved 50 1 100 2 200 3 300 4 400 5 500   Amount of evil Good achieved 6 500 7 8 9 10 100

Argument from Gratuitous Evil (P1) An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God could and would prevent the occurrence of gratuitous evil. (P2) Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore, (C) There is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God.

The theist’s response

The theist’s response Response by theist Strong vs. weak epistemic position The theist’s response “We are in no position to judge…” Cat analogy

Are we justified in believing that gratuitous evil exists?

Russell’s argument

Russell’s argument Russell’s thesis We are justified in believing that gratuitous evil (i.e., evil that does not lead to a greater good) exists Russell’s thesis  We are in a strong epistemic position to believe (i.e., justified in believing) that gratuitous evil exists

Russell’s argument Russell’s starting point General observation We do not always see a greater good come out of evil events

Russell’s argument Two questions Does not seeing something (i.e., a greater good) justify us in believing that it is not there? When are we justified in believing that something (i.e., a greater good) is not there?

Russell’s argument Why? Are we justified in saying that these are not in this room? Why?

Russell’s argument Nobody would argue that we are NOT justified because… The elephant could be invisible The tooth fairy could be too tiny The matrix could be hidden from us by supercomputers

Russell’s argument We are justified in believing there is no elephant, fairy, matrix because… (1) We do not see it (2) It not being there is the simplest explanation for why we do not see it

Russell’s argument Do not see an elephant Do not see a tooth fairy   Explanation 1 (Simpler) Explanation 2 (Complicated) Do not see an elephant There is no elephant The elephant is invisible The tooth fairy’s magic makes her too small to see Do not see a tooth fairy There is no tooth fairy Do not see the matrix The matrix is hidden from us by supercomputers There is no matrix

Russell’s argument Russell’s proposal We are justified in believing something is not there when… (1) We do not see it (2) It not being there is the simplest explanation for why we do not see it What is the simplest explanation for why we do not see a greater good produced from some evils?

Russell’s argument Do not see an elephant Do not see a tooth fairy   Explanation 1 (Simpler) Explanation 2 (Complicated) Do not see an elephant There is no elephant The elephant is invisible The tooth fairy’s magic makes her too small to see Do not see a tooth fairy There is no tooth fairy The matrix is hidden from us by supercomputers Do not see the matrix There is no matrix The greater good is hidden from us by an invisible Being Do not see a greater good from some evils There is no greater good

Justified to think that gratuitous evil exists Russell’s argument Russell’s conclusion We are justified in believing a greater good is not produced from some evils (Ariana, fawn, holocaust, throat cancer...?) because: (1) We do not see it (2) It not being there is the simplest explanation for why we do not see it Justified to think that gratuitous evil exists

Russell’s argument (P1) An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God could and would prevent the occurrence evil that does not produce a greater good. (P2) We are justified in believing that some evil in the world does not produce a greater good Therefore, (C) We are justified in believing that there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God Notes about argument: Argument is about what we are justified in believing (not what there actually is)

100 year old earth believer

Objections and replies Imagine a person who believes the earth is only 100 years old. He believes that signs of age, fossils, old books were placed by God to deceive us and that there are reasons beyond our understanding for God’s deception. According to this person, we are “too ignorant to judge” that the earth is over 100 years old. 100 year earth believer Believes the earth is 100 years old Believes signs of age, fossils, old books were placed by God to deceive us Believes there are reasons for God’s deception that are beyond our understanding Believes we are too ignorant to judge that the earth is over 100 years old Consensus on 100 year earth believer We are NOT too ignorant to judge whether the earth is over 100 years old Absurd to suggest that we are too ignorant to judge Both theists and atheists would agree that we CAN judge whether the earth is over 100 years old.

Objections and replies Plenty of evidence that: Earth is over 100 year old There is no greater good produced from some evils Theist rejects the “too ignorant to judge” reply Double standard Theist uses the “too ignorant to judge” reply Theist’s double standard Plenty of evidence that: Earth is over 100 years old There is no greater good that comes out of some evil Double standard Theist rejects the “too ignorant to judge” reply when (1) Theist insists upon the “too ignorant to judge” reply when (2)