1. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
The traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticized by philosophers. But the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism.
He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known
is some other non-rational way. I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another, so that the theologian can maintain his position as a whole only by a much more extreme rejection of reason than in the former case. He must now be prepared to believe, not merely what cannot be proved, but what can be disproved from other beliefs that he also holds.
MACKIE’S PROPOSAL
Traditional arguments lack rationality but the problem of evil goes a step further and demonstrates that much of religious doctrine is irrational.
It is a logical problem – all powerful, all loving and evil cannot all exist together. INCONSISTENT TRIAD.
Mackie introduces additional premises that state good always seeks to eliminate evil – an omnipotent and wholly good God should therefore be able to eliminate evil, yet evil still exists.
The problem can be solved by changing our understanding of omnipotence or omnibenevolence but then this reduces the greatness of God.

2. WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED BY THESE SOLUTIONS?
ADEQUATE SOLUTIONS
THEIST’S SOLUTIONS
There are, then, quite a number of adequate solutions of the problem of evil, and some of these have been adopted, or almost adopted, by various thinkers. For
example, a few have been prepared to deny God’s omnipotence, and rather more have been prepared to keep the term ‘omnipotence’ but severely to restrict its
meaning, recording quite a number of things that an omnipotent being cannot do.
Some have said that evil is an illusion, perhaps because they held that the whole world of temporal, changing things is an illusion, and that what we call evil belongs
only to this world, or perhaps because they held that although temporal things are much as we see them, those that we call evil are not really evil. Some have said
that what we call evil is merely the privation of good, that evil in a positive sense, evil that would really be opposed to good, does not exist.
MACKIE’S CRITICISMS
Mackie believes that these solutions are limited because:
It is not accurate to restrict God’s power and still call him omnipotent.
To say evil is an illusion does not match with the human experience (eg the Holocaust was very real).
Evil as the privation of good raises questions in meta ethics about what good is.
WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED BY THESE SOLUTIONS?
The problem can be solved if we:
1, Restrict what we mean by God’s omnipotence to just things that are logically possible.
2, Understand evil as an illusion.
3, Understand evil as the privation (absence of) good.
The idea that evil is not real does not seems totally at odds with events such as the Holocaust

3. FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 1 – EVIL IS A NECESSARY COUNTERPART TO GOOD
THEIST’S SOLUTION
It is sometimes suggested that evil is necessary as a counterpart to good, that if there were no evil there could be no good either, and that this solves the problem
of evil. It is true that it points to an answer to the question ‘Why should there be evil?’ But it does so only by qualifying some of the propositions that constitute the
problem.
MACKIE’S CRITICISMS OF THE SOLUTION
Limits God’s omnipotence – says that he could not
create good without also creating evil.
If we say that God’s omnipotence only covers things
that are logically possible, this presents a further
problem because it suggests that God is limited by
logic which doesn’t make sense because logic was
created by God.
If good and evil are necessary counterparts like great
and small, then they cannot be working to eliminate
each other as previously thought.
If good and evil can only be understood in relation to each
other then their value is only relative to each other. If
we apply this to good and evil, it reduces God’s goodness
to being only ‘better than’ something evil. This is not the
view of most theists who believe that God’s goodness
means that he is perfect.
Additionally, there is the problem that things that appear to have relative value can also have absolute value. For example a toddler is a giant relative to a spider but there is also an absolute height for a giant; so the term can exist on its own.
Even if we needed evil so that we were able to recognise
what good is, we would only need a small amount of it
and we undeniably have a lot of it.
WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED BY THE SOLUTION?
God had to create evil so that we could understand what good is.
The terms dwarf and giant can be used in a relative sense (I felt like a giant when I went into a nursery class) and also in an absolute sense (anyone over 6ft 7 is legally considered to be a giant). This shows that sometimes, things that seem like counterparts, can exist on their own.

4. FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 2 – EVIL IS A NECESSARY AS A MEANS TO GOOD
THEIST’S SOLUTION
It is sometimes suggested that evil is necessary for good not as a counterpart but as a means.
MACKIE’S CRITICISMS OF THE SOLUTION
This limits God’s omnipotence because it implies
that he is bound by causal laws.
God being bound by causal laws does not make
sense as he supposedly created everything
about the world and how it works, including
causal laws so how can be restricted by
something that he created?
WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED BY THE SOLUTION?
Good can only come about through evil; for example, we can only show forgiveness if we have first been wronged.
If God created the universe ex-nihilo (out of nothing) then he must have created all causal laws as well.

5. FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 3 – THE WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE FOR HAVING EVIL IN IT
THEIST’S SOLUTION
Much more important is a solution which at first seems to be a mere variant of the previous one, that evil may contribute to the goodness of a whole in which it is found, so that the universe as a whole is better as it is, with some evil in it, than it would be if there were no evil. This solution may be developed in either of two
ways. It may be supported by an aesthetic analogy, by the fact that contrasts heighten beauty, that in a musical work, for example, there may occur discords which somehow add to the beauty of the work as a whole. Alternatively, it may be worked out in connection with the notion of progress, that the best possible
organization of the universe will not be static, but progressive, that the gradual overcoming of evil by good is really a finer thing than would be the eternal unchallenged supremacy of good.
MACKIE’S CRITICISMS OF THE SOLUTION
There is no universal agreement that second order goods are more important than first order goods. Even though developments in medicine may seem like a second order good (perseverance to achieve and resilience), ultimately, they are only valued because they make people happy.
This changes our understanding of God. We previously thought about him as a loving father who wanted us to be happy but now we see he is willing to see us suffer in pursuit of becoming ‘better people’.
Most important criticism is that second order good also results in second order evil such as cruelty and torture and it is difficult to justify these. If we try to justify them by saying that they are necessary for free will, which is a third order good then we are setting ourselves up for an infinite regress.
WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED BY THE SOLUTION?
Only by contrasting evil with good can we truly appreciate what good is.
A world where people have to struggle to overcome evil is better than one with no evil because in overcoming these struggles, people develop good qualities such as courage and sympathy. This is the idea that first order evil (pain) is necessary for second order good (courage, sympathy). Second order is seen as more important than first order.
This solution is similar to the work of Irenaeus whose theodicy was all about the idea of humans experiencing evil and suffering to help them grow in the likeness of God.

6. FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS 4 – EVIL IS THE RESULT OF FREE WILL
THEIST’S SOLUTION
Perhaps the most important proposed solution of the problem of evil is that evil is not to be ascribed to God at all, but to the independent actions of human beings, supposed to have been endowed by God with freedom of the will. This solution may be combined with the preceding one: first order evil (e.g. pain) may be justified as a logically necessary component in second order good (e.g. sympathy) while second order evil (e.g. cruelty) is not justified, but is so ascribed to human beings that God cannot be held responsible for it.
MACKIE’S CRITICISMS OF THE SOLUTION
Mackie claims that theists are creating a false dilemma because they pretend that they only choices were between pre-programmed robots and free willed independent people. He believes that there is actually a third option which is to create free willed creatures who don’t choose to be evil.
If free behaviour is just random then when people are evil we cannot blame God because their behaviour is just random. The problem with this is that it has nothing to do with free will because this is all about making a conscious choice.
If our behaviour comes from our character then we could blame God for evil because he is the one who supposedly gives people their character – why would he give some people a character that meant that they would choose evil?
If God could control free will but chooses not to then this challenges his omnibenevolence because if he had the power to stop atrocities, why would he let them happen?
If God can’t control free willed creatures then he is not omnipotent because there is something that he cannot do – ie control the creatures.
WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED BY THE SOLUTION?
When God made humans, he had the choice to make them as either robots who would always be good or free willed independent creatures who could choose how to behave. In allowing us to have this choice, God knew he was taking the risk that some people would choose evil on some occasions.
Free will is then a third order good and justifies the existence of second order evils such as cruelty and torture as; in order to be truly free, people have to be able to choose from the full range of options of how to behave.

7. HOW TO STRUCTURE A MIND MAP FOR MACKIE
Mackie’s ideas (4)
Theist’s solutions (3)
Mackie’s criticisms (3)
MACKIE’S PROPOSAL
ADEQUATE SOLUTIONS
KEY IDEA – the Inconsistent Triad
Mackie’s criticisms (6)
Mackie’s criticisms (5)
Theist’s solution (1)
Theist’s solution (2)
FALLACIOUS SOLUTIONS
COUNTERPART TO GOOD
THE RESULT OF FREE WILL
NECESSARY FOR GOOD
MAKES THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE
Theist’s solution (1)
Theist’s solution (2)
Mackie’s criticisms (2)
Mackie’s criticisms (3)

8. 10 MARK QUESTION OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
THEIST’S SOLUTIONS
Adequate Solutions
Necessary counterpart to good
Necessary as a means to good
Makes the world a better place
The result of free will
The problem can be solved if we:
1, Restrict what we mean by God’s omnipotence to just things that are logically possible.
2, Understand evil as an illusion.
3, Understand evil as the privation (absence of) good.
God had to create evil so that we could understand what good is.
Good can only come about through evil; for example, we can only show forgiveness if we have first been wronged.
Only by contrasting evil with good can we truly appreciate what good is.
A world where people have to struggle to overcome evil is better than one with no evil because in overcoming these struggles, people develop good qualities such as courage and sympathy.
In allowing us to have free will God knew he was taking the risk that some people would choose evil on some occasions.
Free will is then a third order good and justifies the existence of second order evils such as cruelty and torture
Traditional arguments lack rationality but the problem of evil goes a step further and demonstrates that much of religious doctrine is irrational.
It is a logical problem – all powerful, all loving and evil cannot all exist together. INCONSISTENT TRIAD.
Mackie introduces additional premises that state good always seeks to eliminate evil – an omnipotent and wholly good God should therefore be able to eliminate evil, yet evil still exists.
The problem can be solved by changing our understanding of omnipotence or omnibenevolence but then this reduces the greatness of God.
MACKIE’S CRITICISMS
It is not accurate to restrict God’s power and still call him omnipotent.
To say evil is an illusion does not match with the human experience (eg the Holocaust was very real).
Evil as the privation of good raises questions in meta ethics about what good is.
Limits God’s omnipotence – says that he could not create good without also creating evil.
If God is limited by
logic this doesn’t make sense because logic was created by God.
If good and evil are necessary counterparts they cannot be working to eliminate each other.
Understanding good and evil as relative reduces God’s goodness to being only ‘better than’ something evil.
Things that appear to have relative value can also have absolute value.
Even if we needed evil so that we were able to recognise what good is, we would only need a small amount of it .
This limits God’s omnipotence because it implies that he is bound by causal laws.
God being bound by causal laws does not make sense as he supposedly created everything about the world and how it works, including
causal laws so how can be restricted by
something that he created?
There is no universal agreement that second order goods are more important than first order goods.
God is willing to see us suffer in pursuit of becoming ‘better people’.
Most important criticism is that second order good also results in second order evil such as cruelty and torture and it is difficult to justify these. Can lead to infinite regress
Mackie claims that theists are creating a false dilemma
If free behaviour is just random then it has nothing to do with free will because this is all about making a conscious choice.
If our behaviour comes from our character then we could blame God for evil because he is the one who supposedly gives people their character.
If God could control free will but chooses not to then this challenges his omnibenevolence because if he had the power to stop atrocities, why would he let them happen?
If God can’t control free willed creatures then he is not omnipotent because there is something that he cannot do – ie control the creatures.