Problem of Evil: Intro

The lecture today was jam-packed, just like yesterday. So, naturally, I have a lot to say. It was a good one though. I'm going to be putting the basis of Nash's stuff down, and then adding in my thoughts and comments in parentheses. Just so it's clear who's really talking.

(Something interested Nash mentioned about this post-- it was taped September 18th, 2001... Just a week after 9-11.)

Nash admits- this lecture isn't the actual "answer" to the problem of evil. It's meant to be an introduction on the topic. He even points out that there really isn't a completely satisfactory answer on this argument- it's really a process (learning the pieces of the argument and how to break it down).

Something else that's sort of important to know: all Nash is referring to when he talks about "The Problem of Evil" is the contradiction between our God and the existence of Evil. This argument just says that if there is a God that is all good, he and evil cannot co-exist.

Three Problems: 

Deductive Problem of Evil-

• This argument is sufficient to undermine the entire Christian faith, and has done so for hundreds of years. (It might seem a bit over the top to claim that this argument is that potent, but even in my two high-school years, I've seen people back up their non-belief with the question, "How can I believe in a God who lets things like the Holocaust happen?"  Honestly, I really don't have a sound argument to defeat this with. Obviously I can express God's love, and try to explain that the absence of good is evil...etc. But sometimes people need a better logical explanation to help them break down the walls of their world view. That's part of the reason I'm super excited for this chunk of the lectures. It'll be nice to have some sort of well thought out logical argument behind me on this one.)  
• Therefore- its crucial that we learn how to defeat it. 
• Alvin Plantinga- major Christian philosopher, came up with the argument that defeats the problem of evil. (Side note: Plantinga's attack on this problem doesn't come in this lecture. I've researched it a bit, and I'll try to elaborate more at the end.)
• The day is coming when we will come in contact with this problem and need some sort of an explanation. 

Inductive Problem of Evil-

• Without any attack at all, this argument stands 100% against Christianity. 
• Our job is not to prove 100% against it, just to poke holes sufficiently in the argument so that our side again looks probable. Some people will not believe- no matter how much reasoning you give them. Undermining their position is the key to getting them to see the credibility of our position. 

The Gratuitous Problem of Evil- 

• Evil has no redeeming value. (What Nash means here is that some argue that evil can never be used for a "good" purpose. Obviously Christians believe that God uses instances of evil for his perfect will, but if you take on this particular world lens, evil and God cannot co-exist, and therefore no evil can ever amount to any good. People exemplify this when they try and find the reason for bad things happening.  Sometimes none is apparent, and their logical assumption is that there isn't any good capable of being produced from the situation- rather than the possibility of them just not being able to understand it's meaning). 
• Examples: Children with terminal cancer, 9-11, hurricanes. 

Popular Presentation

Objectives- 

• To present a good example of Apologetics at work against one of the most popular and toughest intellecual challenges against Christianity. 
• Knock the problem down into peices that are better to handle- instead of trying to assalut it all at once. (Nash compares this argument to an 800 pound gorilla. You wouldn't go at it alone, or all at once.) 

Naturalists and The Problem of Goodness- 

• If the problem of Evil is bad for believers, the "problem" of Goodness is an issue for Naturalists (non-beleivers).  How could morals or goodness exist without a God to implement them? What about real, genuine beauty? Agape love? Those in themselves defy closed box theology.
• Problem exists because of the essential attributes of God. (These are what evil contradicts with). 
• God is all powerful.
• God is all knowing. 
• God is all good. 
• Logical implications of that...
• God has the power to stop evil. 
• God knows everything, and could therefore prevent evil if he wished. 
• God is all good, and therefore cannot allow evil to happen. 
• (Again, I just want to point out, the above stuff is the "Problem of Evil" argument, NOT what I'm saying. Nash is just establishing the argument really well, so that we can knock it down really well. Keep that in mind.) 

Important Distinctions-

• Theoretical vs. Personal. (There is a HUGE difference between knowing there's evil in the world, and experiencing it. For example, we hear about car crashes on the news all the time, but things change when a family member tragically dies in one.) 
• Evil in General VS. Specific instances (Again, sort of goes with theoretical vs. personal. It is a bit different though. Its the difference between knowing that bad things happen, and knowing that a bad thing happened. )
• Moral vs. Natural 
• Moral- human decisions that lead to consequences. 
• Natural- seemingly comes out of nowhere. (Earthquakes, tornadoes, cancer, etc.)

Honestly, I was kind of dissapointed that Nash only gave 1 small piece of reason against this argument. Hopefully he really gets going on showing how to poke holes in this argument in the next lecture. For now though, I feel like he did a good job explaining the problem (even if he didn't get around to the fixing part...). Stay tuned for part two. :) 

ps. Alvin Plantinga. I found one link that’s insane (It’s a Stanford Encyclopedia-- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/) and another link that dumbs it way down- http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/the-problem-of-evil-solved-thank-you-alvin-plantinga.