Stay tuned. Jim and I will be hosting a livestream soon, to announce a giveaway of our recent books. In the meantime, let us know what you made of this conversation. What did you like? What did we leave out? What would you like to see next? Appreciate you guys!
This was great. Really appreciated seeing Dr. Jim again and looking forward to the future papers on this subject. Below is our two cents on the debate: I think it is correct to say that the most interesting debate on the Problem of Evil in the literature is the one occurring between proponents of evidential arguments from evil and skeptical theists, but even within these two camps, there are varieties of different arguments. One excellent paper is Bruce Russell's 1996 paper *Defenseless* which outlines a typology of arguments of some of the different arguments from evil that have been offered. Russell distinguishes between inductive and abductive arguments, and arguments that use gratuitous evils, vs. distribution/types of evils themselves as the specific datum with respect to the argument. He then outlines several responses to many forms of skeptical Theism as articulated by van Inwagen, Stephen Wykstra, and Michael Bergmann. I'd also recommend Jordan Howard Sobel's chapter *Atheologies, Demonstrative, and Evidential* in *Logic and Theism* which also looks at the debate between Rowe-style evidential arguments vs. skeptical considerations offered by Alston and Wykstra, before offering a Humean-based evidential argument from evil. I very much agree with Dr. Jim that Paul Draper is probably among the most formidable Atheologians working in the academy and his many works on the subjects should be taken seriously by Theists. His 2017 paper *God, Evil, and the Nature of Light* is a good statement of some of his most recent thinking on the issue. Michael Tooley is another individual who has recently been offering some interesting work on evidential arguments from evil, utilizing Carnapian probability theory as his tool of the trade. Following his debate book with Plantinga in a series of publications he's been offering a very sophisticated version of the argument, that I think offers a unique challenge to skeptical Theism. Could say more, but again, this was a great episode and am looking forward to the future work on this subject.
Thank you for this. Another fascinating video. My thinking on this is that God is all powerful/knowing/good AND he did already wipe away evil through Christ’s death and resurrection. As finite beings our “time” is not the same as that of an infinite being, so although the problem of evil has been perfectly taken care of, just not on our timeline, hence its existence today. If one believes in an eternal afterlife, this has meaning. Pain and suffering while we are in our finite form is the product of evil, but there is an end to it.
Having affinity to Neoplatonism and absolute transcendence of the One, I am with Brian Davies when he says that the problem of evil is wrongly placed as God is not a moral agent. But I also understand why many Christians have an issue with that account, because that is not the understanding of God we get from the Bible. But if we take a truly Neoplatonic view, God is not intervening in the world as we see in the Bible. God is not one among the powers who act in the world rather the ultimate source of all active and passive powers out there in reality. So, I personally gravitate towards an alternate understanding of omni properties of God i.e. omnipotence defined as God being the source of all powers out there in reality; omniscience defined as God knowing all universal essences (in its all possibilities) being the source of all universal essences out there in reality as a result of conceiving it first and omnibenevolence defined as God is the ultimate goodness which all beings participate in to different degrees. And once this understanding of omni properties and absolute transcendence of God is taken into account, what Brian Davies says makes perfect sense. To me, evil is privatio boni due to particular beings participating imperfectly with goodness. The world is imperfect by design. Evil exists in the world because the sensible world is the soul embodied in matter, which dilutes the original goodness. Once the soul ascends upwards and away from the tangling of matter and its tendencies, towards intellect and aligns more with it, the beings become more good and the experience of suffering goes away. Just my take.
We approach this along similar lines of thought, John. No surprise, since I have strong affinities for neoplatonism myself. Thanks for sharing your reflections on this. Valuable, and insightful!
Comment for traction. Totally anecdotal but I’ve seen many ppl report that terminally ill children (problem of failure) often have grateful and less embittered perspectives despite their condition.
I just ordered my (hardcover) copy of Thinking about Thinking from Amazon, but it was actually a little difficult to find! A link to it in the video description might be helpful for anyone else who is interested in ordering Dr Jim's book!
@@jimmadden23 evil, the problem of: The so-called “problem of evil” is a term used almost exclusively in the Theological and philosophical communities, in reference to the fact that there appears to be an inordinate amount of pain and/or suffering in the world than ought to be expected, assuming the existence of an omnibenevolent Creator God/dess. For example, if there is an all-loving Father/Mother God/dess, why do animals experience an extravagant amount of pain/suffering? Furthermore, why are many babies born with horrific deformities? Below are four possible responses to the problem of undue suffering (i.e. pain), from the four major metaphysical world-views: 1. Naturalism/Physicalism: Since there is nothing beyond this closed material universe, gratuitous pain and suffering is a consequence of the mechanics of the physical world alone, especially of evolutionary processes. Since the universe is indifferent to both the physical phenomena and the mental processes contained therein, a stoic disposition to suffering/pain ought to be taken. 2. Panpsychism/Pantheism: Since, as in naturalism, there is no Creator (neither a Personal Creator God, nor an Intelligent Impersonal Designer) in most versions of panpsychism and pantheism, there is no explanation for gratuitous pain and suffering. It is what it is. 3. Monism/Idealism: Under the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (dual-aspect monism) promulgated within this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the notion of intelligent design, that is, that this universe is the design of Universal Conscious Awareness Itself, is supported (Cf. intelligent design). Hence, superficially, it may seem logical to substitute the Personal Deity for Infinite Awareness, and make the very same accusation (that is, that Brahman is responsible for pain/suffering). I have two responses to this dilemma: Firstly, there is nothing without Brahman, so you, the reader, is hypostatically, that Unlimited Conscious Beingness Itself, and therefore whom is there to blame for any apparent occurrences of undue pain? N.B. This view is not to be confused with solipsism. Secondly, those instances of disproportionate pain/suffering (as well as everything else in existence) is merely an appearance in Universal Consciousness, as explained in the fifth and sixth chapters of this work, and is a necessary result of duality. There cannot be pain without pleasure, nor suffering without happiness, just as there cannot be heat without cold, nor beauty without ugliness. Whilst dreaming of painful experiences, we mistake them for real experiences. Similarly, the pain experienced in this life is temporal. Furthermore, if a naturalist was to push-back on this explanation by claiming that Infinite Conscious Awareness could have designed this universe to be free of pain/suffering (despite the fact the he/she would be, essentially, that Infinite Conscious Awareness), then I would respond thus: How would it be possible for a pluralistic/dualistic world to be perfectly pain-free? For example, if every living creature experienced nothing but pure, unadulterated bliss from conception to death, it would indicate an absolute state of being, and therefore, incongruous with a relativistic universe. This would imply that it would feel ecstatic for a person to insert his or her hand into a pot of boiling mercury! Pain is (almost) as unavoidable as pleasure, and the acceptance of this fact is conducive to peace. Additionally, it could be posited that the mere fact that the individual organism experiences death, is itself a form of pain (or “evil”). 4. Theism: As very expertly demonstrated in the seventh chapter of this Holy Scripture, the existence of a Supreme Deity is a logical impossibility, so this so-called “problem of evil” is ostensibly redundant. However, Theists have formulated several Theodicies (responses to the problem of evil). The three most common Theodicies are: God has given humans free-will, and the pain/suffering we experience is due to our freedom of volition; We become purified through life’s trials (which is also predicated on freedom of will); God has also promised that such evil and suffering persists for only a finite time in human history, and will bring an end to it all. Furthermore, the future hope that God offers will compensate for, or at least put into perspective, this present world’s evil. Those Theologians who believe in reincarnation (notably those in most Indian traditions, and the New Age) will use that concept to explain how any apparent pain/suffering experienced in a human’s life is due to any and all conscious decisions made in the past, including in any past lives. Of course, these Theodicies can be easily defeated by anyone with an above-average intelligence quotient, so it is unnecessary to waste precious space here to do so, suffice to indicate that the first-mentioned Theodicy fails to account for the pain experienced by those animals deemed to lack any semblance of freedom of volition. N.B. As implied in the first paragraph of this Glossary entry, the terms “pain” and “suffering” are invariably equated with “evil” by those who use the phrase “the problem of evil”. The first point that ought to be made in this regard is that pain and suffering are NOT, in fact, synonymous, according to the tenants proffered in this book (see Chapter 15). Personally, if I was to rename this argument, I would call it the “problem of undue pain”, since pain can be useful in certain circumstances, yet in many instances, proven to be gratuitous or unjustifiable, and thus making the existence of an omnibenevolent, personal Creator questionable.
Hello, I am not a great expert on philosophical topics, but I have a question about the topic of omnipotence: isn't it a contradiction that an omnipotent being exists? I think I have read something about this but I don't remember where, the example that was mentioned was the following: if you are omnipotent you can create something that was indestructible and if it is indestructible that would nullify your omnipotence... Am I very wrong? Is the question a simple one? (Sorry for posing a question in such a simplified way, but my intellectual preparation is not enough for much more...😊)
Good to have you here, and good question. There is a long history, and large literature, around the notion of omnipotence. Various critics raise puzzles and paradoxes of the sort you’ve stated, and, of course, various proponents offer replies, often along the lines of restricting our understanding of omnipotence (though hopefully in a principled, non-arbitrary way). In short, this is still very much an active, and quite lively, debate. For my money, I think the traditional “metaphysics first” approach to omnipotence is best, since it helps to avoid many of the usual sorts of puzzles & paradoxes. I say a bit more about this traditional approach here: chroniclesofstrength.substack.com/p/responding-to-feser-the-pitfalls
@@PhilosophyforthePeople, why would the Absolute require OMNIPOTENCE, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, Theists would argue that once God has created the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise He wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that the universe (at least our particular bubble universe) is composed of space-time, that time is relative, and therefore, cannot supervene upon the eternal, timeless Absolute.
Stay tuned. Jim and I will be hosting a livestream soon, to announce a giveaway of our recent books.
In the meantime, let us know what you made of this conversation. What did you like? What did we leave out? What would you like to see next?
Appreciate you guys!
This kind of summary is so useful! Thanks.
Hoping to do more of these. Thanks!
I bought Dr.Jim's new book and so should you.
You rock.
Happy reading!
Thank you Brendan!!!!
This was great. Really appreciated seeing Dr. Jim again and looking forward to the future papers on this subject. Below is our two cents on the debate:
I think it is correct to say that the most interesting debate on the Problem of Evil in the literature is the one occurring between proponents of evidential arguments from evil and skeptical theists, but even within these two camps, there are varieties of different arguments. One excellent paper is Bruce Russell's 1996 paper *Defenseless* which outlines a typology of arguments of some of the different arguments from evil that have been offered. Russell distinguishes between inductive and abductive arguments, and arguments that use gratuitous evils, vs. distribution/types of evils themselves as the specific datum with respect to the argument. He then outlines several responses to many forms of skeptical Theism as articulated by van Inwagen, Stephen Wykstra, and Michael Bergmann. I'd also recommend Jordan Howard Sobel's chapter *Atheologies, Demonstrative, and Evidential* in *Logic and Theism* which also looks at the debate between Rowe-style evidential arguments vs. skeptical considerations offered by Alston and Wykstra, before offering a Humean-based evidential argument from evil.
I very much agree with Dr. Jim that Paul Draper is probably among the most formidable Atheologians working in the academy and his many works on the subjects should be taken seriously by Theists. His 2017 paper *God, Evil, and the Nature of Light* is a good statement of some of his most recent thinking on the issue. Michael Tooley is another individual who has recently been offering some interesting work on evidential arguments from evil, utilizing Carnapian probability theory as his tool of the trade. Following his debate book with Plantinga in a series of publications he's been offering a very sophisticated version of the argument, that I think offers a unique challenge to skeptical Theism.
Could say more, but again, this was a great episode and am looking forward to the future work on this subject.
The problem of Jim hiddenness has been resolved!
Thank you for this. Another fascinating video.
My thinking on this is that God is all powerful/knowing/good AND he did already wipe away evil through Christ’s death and resurrection. As finite beings our “time” is not the same as that of an infinite being, so although the problem of evil has been perfectly taken care of, just not on our timeline, hence its existence today. If one believes in an eternal afterlife, this has meaning. Pain and suffering while we are in our finite form is the product of evil, but there is an end to it.
Having affinity to Neoplatonism and absolute transcendence of the One, I am with Brian Davies when he says that the problem of evil is wrongly placed as God is not a moral agent. But I also understand why many Christians have an issue with that account, because that is not the understanding of God we get from the Bible. But if we take a truly Neoplatonic view, God is not intervening in the world as we see in the Bible. God is not one among the powers who act in the world rather the ultimate source of all active and passive powers out there in reality. So, I personally gravitate towards an alternate understanding of omni properties of God i.e. omnipotence defined as God being the source of all powers out there in reality; omniscience defined as God knowing all universal essences (in its all possibilities) being the source of all universal essences out there in reality as a result of conceiving it first and omnibenevolence defined as God is the ultimate goodness which all beings participate in to different degrees.
And once this understanding of omni properties and absolute transcendence of God is taken into account, what Brian Davies says makes perfect sense. To me, evil is privatio boni due to particular beings participating imperfectly with goodness. The world is imperfect by design. Evil exists in the world because the sensible world is the soul embodied in matter, which dilutes the original goodness. Once the soul ascends upwards and away from the tangling of matter and its tendencies, towards intellect and aligns more with it, the beings become more good and the experience of suffering goes away. Just my take.
We approach this along similar lines of thought, John. No surprise, since I have strong affinities for neoplatonism myself. Thanks for sharing your reflections on this. Valuable, and insightful!
Comment for traction. Totally anecdotal but I’ve seen many ppl report that terminally ill children (problem of failure) often have grateful and less embittered perspectives despite their condition.
hey pat! do you have any updates on when your book with gaven on aquinas's five ways will be out?
None at the moment, sorry. I will let everyone know as soon as I know!
I just ordered my (hardcover) copy of Thinking about Thinking from Amazon, but it was actually a little difficult to find! A link to it in the video description might be helpful for anyone else who is interested in ordering Dr Jim's book!
Thank so much for investing in my work!!!!
Yes, thanks for supporting the good professor. Description updated with link to the book!
@@jimmadden23
evil, the problem of: The so-called “problem of evil” is a term used almost exclusively in the Theological and philosophical communities, in reference to the fact that there appears to be an inordinate amount of pain and/or suffering in the world than ought to be expected, assuming the existence of an omnibenevolent Creator God/dess. For example, if there is an all-loving Father/Mother God/dess, why do animals experience an extravagant amount of pain/suffering? Furthermore, why are many babies born with horrific deformities?
Below are four possible responses to the problem of undue suffering (i.e. pain), from the four major metaphysical world-views:
1. Naturalism/Physicalism: Since there is nothing beyond this closed material universe, gratuitous pain and suffering is a consequence of the mechanics of the physical world alone, especially of evolutionary processes. Since the universe is indifferent to both the physical phenomena and the mental processes contained therein, a stoic disposition to suffering/pain ought to be taken.
2. Panpsychism/Pantheism: Since, as in naturalism, there is no Creator (neither a Personal Creator God, nor an Intelligent Impersonal Designer) in most versions of panpsychism and pantheism, there is no explanation for gratuitous pain and suffering. It is what it is.
3. Monism/Idealism: Under the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (dual-aspect monism) promulgated within this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the notion of intelligent design, that is, that this universe is the design of Universal Conscious Awareness Itself, is supported (Cf. intelligent design). Hence, superficially, it may seem logical to substitute the Personal Deity for Infinite Awareness, and make the very same accusation (that is, that Brahman is responsible for pain/suffering). I have two responses to this dilemma:
Firstly, there is nothing without Brahman, so you, the reader, is hypostatically, that Unlimited Conscious Beingness Itself, and therefore whom is there to blame for any apparent occurrences of undue pain? N.B. This view is not to be confused with solipsism.
Secondly, those instances of disproportionate pain/suffering (as well as everything else in existence) is merely an appearance in Universal Consciousness, as explained in the fifth and sixth chapters of this work, and is a necessary result of duality. There cannot be pain without pleasure, nor suffering without happiness, just as there cannot be heat without cold, nor beauty without ugliness. Whilst dreaming of painful experiences, we mistake them for real experiences. Similarly, the pain experienced in this life is temporal.
Furthermore, if a naturalist was to push-back on this explanation by claiming that Infinite Conscious Awareness could have designed this universe to be free of pain/suffering (despite the fact the he/she would be, essentially, that Infinite Conscious Awareness), then I would respond thus: How would it be possible for a pluralistic/dualistic world to be perfectly pain-free? For example, if every living creature experienced nothing but pure, unadulterated bliss from conception to death, it would indicate an absolute state of being, and therefore, incongruous with a relativistic universe. This would imply that it would feel ecstatic for a person to insert his or her hand into a pot of boiling mercury! Pain is (almost) as unavoidable as pleasure, and the acceptance of this fact is conducive to peace. Additionally, it could be posited that the mere fact that the individual organism experiences death, is itself a form of pain (or “evil”).
4. Theism: As very expertly demonstrated in the seventh chapter of this Holy Scripture, the existence of a Supreme Deity is a logical impossibility, so this so-called “problem of evil” is ostensibly redundant. However, Theists have formulated several Theodicies (responses to the problem of evil). The three most common Theodicies are: God has given humans free-will, and the pain/suffering we experience is due to our freedom of volition; We become purified through life’s trials (which is also predicated on freedom of will); God has also promised that such evil and suffering persists for only a finite time in human history, and will bring an end to it all. Furthermore, the future hope that God offers will compensate for, or at least put into perspective, this present world’s evil.
Those Theologians who believe in reincarnation (notably those in most Indian traditions, and the New Age) will use that concept to explain how any apparent pain/suffering experienced in a human’s life is due to any and all conscious decisions made in the past, including in any past lives. Of course, these Theodicies can be easily defeated by anyone with an above-average intelligence quotient, so it is unnecessary to waste precious space here to do so, suffice to indicate that the first-mentioned Theodicy fails to account for the pain experienced by those animals deemed to lack any semblance of freedom of volition.
N.B. As implied in the first paragraph of this Glossary entry, the terms “pain” and “suffering” are invariably equated with “evil” by those who use the phrase “the problem of evil”. The first point that ought to be made in this regard is that pain and suffering are NOT, in fact, synonymous, according to the tenants proffered in this book (see Chapter 15). Personally, if I was to rename this argument, I would call it the “problem of undue pain”, since pain can be useful in certain circumstances, yet in many instances, proven to be gratuitous or unjustifiable, and thus making the existence of an omnibenevolent, personal Creator questionable.
nice 😎😎😎
Hello, I am not a great expert on philosophical topics, but I have a question about the topic of omnipotence: isn't it a contradiction that an omnipotent being exists? I think I have read something about this but I don't remember where, the example that was mentioned was the following: if you are omnipotent you can create something that was indestructible and if it is indestructible that would nullify your omnipotence... Am I very wrong? Is the question a simple one? (Sorry for posing a question in such a simplified way, but my intellectual preparation is not enough for much more...😊)
Good to have you here, and good question. There is a long history, and large literature, around the notion of omnipotence. Various critics raise puzzles and paradoxes of the sort you’ve stated, and, of course, various proponents offer replies, often along the lines of restricting our understanding of omnipotence (though hopefully in a principled, non-arbitrary way). In short, this is still very much an active, and quite lively, debate. For my money, I think the traditional “metaphysics first” approach to omnipotence is best, since it helps to avoid many of the usual sorts of puzzles & paradoxes. I say a bit more about this traditional approach here: chroniclesofstrength.substack.com/p/responding-to-feser-the-pitfalls
@@PhilosophyforthePeople, why would the Absolute require OMNIPOTENCE, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, Theists would argue that once God has created the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise He wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that the universe (at least our particular bubble universe) is composed of space-time, that time is relative, and therefore, cannot supervene upon the eternal, timeless Absolute.