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

Bruce Russell,“The Problem of

Evil”Introduction to PhilosophyJason M. Chang

Lecture Outline

1. The argument from gratuitous evil

2. The theist’s response

3. Russell’s argument

4. 100 year old earth believer

Argument from Gratuitous Evil

Argument from Gratuitous Evil

Story of Ariana Swinson

Story of Roe’s fawn

Argument from Gratuitous Evil

What is gratuitous evil?

• Definition

• Contrasted with necessary evil

Argument from Gratuitous Evil

 Amount of evil

 Good achieved

0 50

1 100

2 200

3 300

4 400

5 500

 Amount of evil

 Good achieved

6 500

7 500

8 500

9 500

10 500

100 500

Necessary evil

Gratuitous evil

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

o “We are in no position to judge…”

o 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 argument

Russell’s starting point

• General observation

o 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

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 

 Explanation 1

(Simpler)

 Explanation 2

(Complicated)

There is no elephant

The elephant is

invisible

There is no tooth fairy

The tooth fairy’s magic

makes her too small to

see

There is no matrix

The matrix is hidden from

us by supercomput

ers

Do not see an

elephant

Do not see a tooth fairy

Do not see the 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 

 Explanation 1

(Simpler)

 Explanation 2

(Complicated)

There is no elephant

The elephant is

invisibleThere is no tooth fairy

The tooth fairy’s magic

makes her too small to

seeThere is no matrix

The matrix is hidden from

us by supercomput

ers

Do not see an

elephantDo not see a tooth fairy

Do not see the matrix

Do not see a greater good from some

evils

There is no greater

good

The greater good is hidden

from us by an invisible

Being

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

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.

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

Theist uses the “too ignorant to judge” reply

Double standard