Teaching & Learning Guide for

In recent years, much of the debate within the philosophy of religion has focused on the problem of horrendous evils. Horrendous evils constitute a unique class of evils which presumably poses a stronger objection to the existence of omni-God than other classes of evils. However, while the existence of horrendous evils has generally been taken to be evidence against the existence of God, some philosophers have suggested that it may be evidence for the existence of God. This article discusses three different kinds of theistic arguments from horrendous evils. The first argument emphasizes that theism has more resources than naturalism to explain why we find certain evils objectively horrifying. The second argument focuses on the notion that, given the cruel world we live in, a posture of optimism is more consistent with theism than naturalism. The third argument begins from the assumption that certain responses to horrendous evils are reasonable, and from that premise, explains why each of these responses are conditioned on a theistic picture of the world. The article provides a starting point for those who are interested in theistic arguments from horrendous evils. There is significant space in the existing literature for more work to be done to object to, and/or develop, each of these arguments further. Author Recommends: Plantinga, A. (2007). Appendix: Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments. In D.-P. Baker (Ed.), Alvin Plantinga. Cambridge University Press. (pp. 223-226). This paper provides Plantinga's brief formulation of the ‘argument from objectively horrifying evil’. Plantinga, A. (1997). A Christian Life Partly Lived. In K. J. Clark (Ed.), Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers. InterVarsity Press. This paper provides Plantinga's explanation of the ‘argument from objectively horrifying evil’ from an autobiographical perspective. Adams, M. M. (2013). God Because of Evil: A Pragmatic Argument from Evil for Belief in God. In J. P. McBrayer & D. Howard-Snyder (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil. Wiley-Blackwell. This paper provides Adams' formulation of the ‘pragmatic argument from horrendous evil’. Nagasawa, Yujin (2018). “The Problem of Evil for Atheists” in The Problem of Evil: Eight Views in Dialogue, ed. N. N. Trakakis. Oxford University Press. This paper provides a similar argument to Adams' ‘pragmatic argument from horrendous evil’ by examining the relationship between theism, naturalism, and optimism. Volf, M. (2005). I protest, therefore I believe. The Christian Century, 122(3), 39. This paper provides Volf's discussion of an ‘argument from reasonable responses’ that focuses on the response of protest. https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2014/entries/moral-arguments-god/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/ Philpapers https://philpapers.org/browse/arguments-for-theism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dprquqrzQxJsmOArxEoBDaMx15T9T--P8dagUqX6kQI/edit Jackson, E. (2021). Explaining Evil and Pragmatic Belief. Capturing Christianity Conference. https://youtu.be/sukh4FeGaEo Adams, M. M. (2009). Marilyn McCord Adams on Evil. Philosophy Bites. (Podcast). https://philosophybites.com/2009/07/marilyn-mccord-adams-on-evil.html Sample Syllabus: Week I: Introduction Adams, M. M. & Stewart Sutherland (1989). Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 63, 297–323. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/ Week II: Argument from Objectively Horrifying Evil Plantinga, A. (1997). A Christian Life Partly Lived. In K. J. Clark (Ed.), Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers. InterVarsity Press. (pp. 223-226). Plantinga, A. (2005). God, Arguments for the Existence of. In E. Craig (Ed.), The Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Routledge. Plantinga, A. (2007). Appendix: Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments. In D.-P. Baker (Ed.), Alvin Plantinga. Cambridge University Press. Van Inwagen, P. (2003). The Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. (Chapter 1, footnote 14). Plantinga, A. (2010). Naturalism, Theism, Obligation and Supervenience. Faith and Philosophy, 27(3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil201027328 Wielenberg, E. J. (2009). In defense of non-natural, non-theistic moral realism. Faith and Philosophy, 26(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil20092612 Week III: Pragmatic Argument from Horrendous Evils Adams, M. M. (2013). God Because of Evil: A Pragmatic Argument from Evil for Belief in God. In J. P. McBrayer & D. Howard-Snyder (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil. Wiley-Blackwell. Nagasawa, Yujin (2018). “The Problem of Evil for Atheists” in The Problem of Evil: Eight Views in Dialogue, ed. N. N. Trakakis. Oxford University Press. Jackson, E. (2021). Explaining Evil and Pragmatic Belief. Capturing Christianity Conference. https://youtu.be/sukh4FeGaEo Roth, J. K. (1981). A Theodicy of Protest. In S. T. Davis (Ed.), Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy. John Knox Press. Nagasawa, Yujin (2018). “The Problem of Evil for Atheists” in The Problem of Evil: Eight Views in Dialogue, ed. N. N. Trakakis. Oxford University Press. (See responses to Nagasawa, and Nagasawa's replies). Week IV: Argument from Reasonable Responses Plantinga, A. (1997). A Christian Life Partly Lived. In K. J. Clark (Ed.), Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers. InterVarsity Press. Volf, M. (2005). I protest, therefore I believe. The Christian Century, 122(3), 39. Dostoyevsky, F. (1879/1992). The Brothers Karamazov. Everyman's Library. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. (Chapter: ‘Rebellion’) Katz, S. T., Biderman, S., & Greenberg, G. (2007). Wrestling with God: Jewish Theological Responses during and after the Holocaust. Oxford University Press. (Students can choose to read any three short chapters). What are ‘horrendous evils’? Do you think that the distinction between horrendous and non-horrendous evils is meaningful? Why do you think the notion of ‘horrendous evils’ has been gaining more attention in the literature? Some philosophers have argued that theistic arguments are designed to prove the existence of God. Others think that the aim of attaining proof is impossible or highly improbable, and think that the aim of theistic arguments should be more modest: they should instead strive for probabilities (they make God's existence probable) ̧ to be pointers (they point to the existence of God), or to make an inference to the best explanation (they suggest that God's existence is the best explanation for some phenomena). In the light of that discussion, what do you think the aims ‘theistic arguments from horrendous evils’ should be? The article intends for these arguments to be theistic arguments for an omni-God. Do you think that these arguments, in their current formulation, point towards an omni-God? Alternatively, consider whether the arguments may instead point towards a kind of God that need not possess the traditional omni attributes. Put differently, if the arguments are successful, what kind of God (or which attributes of God) do each of the arguments point towards or require? Relatedly, supposing that you think that the arguments do not point towards an omni-God, how could a proponent of the omni-God thesis revise or develop the arguments such that the arguments would point towards an omni-God? Can you think of other ways to reconstruct the argument from objectively horrifying evils, the pragmatic argument from horrendous evils, and the argument from reasonable responses? What are some problems and prospects with your reconstruction of the arguments? How do the responses from Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamazov and Wiesel's Berish relate to each of the arguments? Many of these arguments can be further analysed and developed by appealing to resources in other disciplines (such as literature, psychology etc). Can you think of related concepts, arguments and resources from other disciplines that may relate to these arguments? Can you think of other kinds of theistic arguments from horrendous evils beyond the three presented in this paper/course? I'm grateful to an anonymous reviewer for thoughtful suggestions on a previous version of this guide

Epistemology · Theism · Augustinian Studies and Theology · Chemistry · Philosophy · Psychology · Theology and Philosophy of Evil · War, Ethics, and Justification

• Teaching & Learning Guide for

  Open Access•Daniel Ooi•Philosophy Compass•2023

  Add to list

• Teaching & Learning Guide for

  Open Access•Daniel Ooi•Philosophy Compass•2023

  Add to list