The Problem of Evil - Common Sense Atheism

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Sufferings of Beasts 133 animals; he is, therefore, under no moral obligation to eliminate or ameliorate their sufferings. 22 Thisargumentseemstometohavetwodefects. First, it proves too much: if it shows that God is under no obligation to eliminate or minimize the physical sufferings of beasts, an exactly parallel argument shows that he is under no obligation to eliminate or minimize the physical sufferings of human beings. Geach writes: God is not an animal as men are, and if he does not change his designs to avoid pain and suffering to animals he is not violating any natural sympathies as Dr Moreau did. Only anthropomorphic imagination allows us to accuse God of cruelty in this regard. (p. 80) But why would someone who accepted this argument not also accept the following argument: God is not an animal as men are, and if he does not change his designs to avoid pain and suffering to human beings he is not violating any natural sympathies as Hitler did. Only anthropomorphic imagination allows us to accuse God of cruelty in this regard. 23 Secondly, the argument assumes that if God is under any moral obligation to remove or lessen the sufferings of beasts, this obligation must be grounded in sympathy. But why should this be so? The suffering of a higher animal is an intrinsically bad thing, and the incompatibility of physical suffering with the divine nature is no barrier to God’s knowing this to be true. This, surely, is enough to place him under a moral obligation to eliminate or ameliorate the sufferings of higher animals (a prima facie obligation, to be sure, an obligation that may well be overridden by some other consideration). Or, if this is not evident, owing perhaps to considerations pertaining to the differences between God and creatures, it is at any rate evident that the fact that a certain being cannot feel sympathy with physical suffering does not show that that being is not under a prima facie obligation to eliminate or ameliorate physical suffering. If even that much is not evident to you, I invite you to consider the following analogy. In the distant future, human beings visit a planet orbiting the star Epsilon Eridani, and discover that it is inhabited by a species of rational beings. We establish communication with the Eridanans, but only with great difficulty, and with much uncertainty about what is being communicated because they’re very, well, alien. But we’re clear on one thing, at least: that they have urgently
134 The Sufferings of Beasts warned us not to release any significant quantities of the inert gas argon into their atmosphere. If we do, they tell us, something very bad will happen to them. We try to learn the nature of this bad thing, but the statements about it that we can understand are mostly negative: it will not involve physical suffering or illness or famine or a diminution of their population or diminished mental capacities—indeed, for every bad thing we can think of, we learn that it isn’t that thing or in any way like it (apart from its badness). The Eridanans insist, however, that it is abadthingwhosebadnessisasobjective as the badness of widespread physical suffering. (It’s not, they assure us, that their religions teach that argon is an ‘‘unclean gas’’ or anything else that is ‘‘subjective’’ or dependent on some cultural contingency.) Suppose we believe them. Should we not then regard ourselves as being under a moral obligation (prima facie, at least) not to release argon into their atmosphere? And is it not clear that this moral obligation would not rest on sympathy? (If we did release the argon, and if the Eridanans then said, ‘‘Well, you did it, and the very bad thing we warned you of has now happened to us,’’ we could feel no sympathy with them.) Is it not clear that the obligation arises simply from the fact that we believe that the release of argon would cause something very bad to happen to the Eridanans? Neither of these two alternatives to the anti-irregularity defense, therefore—neither the angelic-corruption-of-nature defense nor the nodivine-sympathy-with-beasts defense, is satisfactory. It is my conviction that the most promising defense as regards the sufferings of beasts is the anti-irregularity defense. How plausible an audience of neutral agnostics would find this defense is a question I will leave to you to answer.
Page 4:
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Page 7 and 8:
1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX
Page 10 and 11:
Preface These lectures were deliver
Page 12:
Outline Contents Detailed Contents
Page 15 and 16:
xii Detailed Contents agnostics’
Page 17 and 18:
xiv Detailed Contents he is ‘‘h
Page 19 and 20:
2 The Problem and Argument from Evi
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
10 The Problem and Argument from Ev
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Lecture 2 The Idea of God I said th
Page 37 and 38:
20 The Idea of God unifying princip
Page 39 and 40:
22 The Idea of God ‘‘God was in
Page 41 and 42:
24 The Idea of God And Demiourgos i
Page 43 and 44:
26 The Idea of God evil. When we fi
Page 45 and 46:
28 The Idea of God —immutable. Th
Page 47 and 48:
30 The Idea of God worlds: those in
Page 49 and 50:
32 The Idea of God (it would certai
Page 51 and 52:
34 The Idea of God Now why do I dra
Page 53 and 54:
36 The Idea of God not a possible p
Page 55 and 56:
38 Philosophical Failure Note the w
Page 57 and 58:
40 Philosophical Failure proved by
Page 59 and 60:
42 Philosophical Failure which prem
Page 61 and 62:
44 Philosophical Failure thesis. Al
Page 63 and 64:
46 Philosophical Failure realist in
Page 65 and 66:
48 Philosophical Failure of our con
Page 67 and 68:
50 Philosophical Failure mere agnos
Page 69 and 70:
52 Philosophical Failure representa
Page 71 and 72:
54 Philosophical Failure minds, say
Page 73 and 74:
Lecture 4 The Global Argument from
Page 75 and 76:
58 The Global Argument from Evil I
Page 77 and 78:
60 The Global Argument from Evil ca
Page 79 and 80:
62 The Global Argument from Evil to
Page 81 and 82:
64 The Global Argument from Evil We
Page 83 and 84:
66 The Global Argument from Evil Yo
Page 85 and 86:
68 The Global Argument from Evil Si
Page 87 and 88:
70 The Global Argument from Evil th
Page 89 and 90:
72 The Global Argument from Evil ot
Page 91 and 92:
74 The Global Argument from Evil ha
Page 93 and 94:
76 The Global Argument Continued of
Page 95 and 96:
78 The Global Argument Continued di
Page 97 and 98:
80 The Global Argument Continued an
Page 99 and 100: 82 The Global Argument Continued bo
Page 101 and 102: 84 The Global Argument Continued I
Page 103 and 104: 86 The Global Argument Continued wi
Page 105 and 106: 88 The Global Argument Continued wi
Page 107 and 108: 90 The Global Argument Continued He
Page 109 and 110: 92 The Global Argument Continued fr
Page 111 and 112: 94 The Global Argument Continued Th
Page 113 and 114: 96 The Local Argument from Evil tha
Page 115 and 116: 98 The Local Argument from Evil (3)
Page 117 and 118: 100 The Local Argument from Evil [T
Page 119 and 120: 102 The Local Argument from Evil yo
Page 121 and 122: 104 The Local Argument from Evil ha
Page 123 and 124: 106 The Local Argument from Evil Bu
Page 125 and 126: 108 The Local Argument from Evil In
Page 127 and 128: 110 The Local Argument from Evil If
Page 129 and 130: 112 The Local Argument from Evil ca
Page 131 and 132: 114 The Sufferings of Beasts the ac
Page 133 and 134: 116 The Sufferings of Beasts balls
Page 135 and 136: 118 The Sufferings of Beasts state
Page 137 and 138: 120 The Sufferings of Beasts Let us
Page 139 and 140: 122 The Sufferings of Beasts gift f
Page 141 and 142: 124 The Sufferings of Beasts What I
Page 143 and 144: 126 The Sufferings of Beasts on the
Page 145 and 146: 128 The Sufferings of Beasts a worl
Page 147 and 148: 130 The Sufferings of Beasts told t
Page 149: 132 The Sufferings of Beasts to ens
Page 153 and 154: 136 The Hiddenness of God hiddennes
Page 155 and 156: 138 The Hiddenness of God admiratio
Page 157 and 158: 140 The Hiddenness of God Theist. S
Page 159 and 160: 142 The Hiddenness of God about the
Page 161 and 162: 144 The Hiddenness of God If this w
Page 163 and 164: 146 The Hiddenness of God (2) Patri
Page 165 and 166: 148 The Hiddenness of God in genera
Page 167 and 168: 150 The Hiddenness of God intellect
Page 169 and 170: Notes LECTURE 1 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Page 171 and 172: 154 Notes 14. But here is a defense
Page 173 and 174: 156 Notes to the metaphysical probl
Page 175 and 176: 158 Notes greatest possible being m
Page 177 and 178: 160 Notes matters was said only to
Page 179 and 180: 162 Notes I believe as strongly as
Page 181 and 182: 164 Notes 10. Note that I do not sa
Page 183 and 184: 166 Notes Christianity.) Let us say
Page 185 and 186: 168 Notes LECTURE 6 THE LOCAL ARGUM
Page 187 and 188: 170 Notes of them: all of them but
Page 189 and 190: 172 Notes 20. One might, however, w
Page 191 and 192: 174 Notes 3. Those who think that t
Page 193 and 194: 176 Notes that the first conjunct i
Page 195 and 196: 178 Works Cited Providence and Evil
Page 197 and 198: 180 Works Cited ‘‘What is the P
Page 199 and 200: 182 Index free will (free choice) 2
Page 201:
REVELATION
show all

The Problem of Evil - Common Sense Atheism

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?