His first argument is one that I perceive to be very weak for a man of Swinburne’s scholarship. He says that if there is a God, it is to be expected that he would do certain things, including allowing the occurrence of evil. This is an unconvincing statement that lacks any solid evidence that points towards its conclusion. Equally unconvincing is another statement that follows shortly afterwards, ‘evils occurrence is not evidence against the existence of God.’ What else does the existence of evil indicate? That there is a God? Of course the existence of evil is evidence against the existence of God. It highlights flaws that a being that makes humans seem inferior has. God is seen to be
2.
“IS THERE A GOD?”
omnibenevolent, but how can he be when evil exists? Swinburne tries
to defend the existence of God here by suggesting that God gives human free will and this will bring about the possibility of evil, and puts in outside of his own control whether or not that evil occurs. This argument is also uncertain as it suggests that God does not possess any omnipotence, this in turn suggests that he has the same level of power as a human being. This anthropomorphises God, which in turn
suggests that he might not exist if he only possesses the power of a human.
In response to moral evil, Swinburne proposes that this can form characters into good human beings. He says that humans have free will and are free and responsible in their choices, this leaves room for improvement. He uses a quote from Aristotle to strengthen his argument; ‘we become just from doing just acts, prudent from doing prudent acts, brave by doing brave acts.’ Swinburne then goes on to suggests that by doing just acts when it is difficult to (overcome moral evil) it goes against our natural inclinations (desires) and it will therefore be easier to do a just act next time. He basically says that moral evil doesn’t pose a threat to the existence of God as it can be easily overcome. Swinburne then goes on to argue that we could wipe out moral evil all together. He says that we can change our desires and free ourselves from the less good desires and the possibilities for free and responsible choice is enormous. He argues that we could eradicate moral evil with this structure. I see this argument to be extremely weak as it is impossible for everyone in the world to eradicate their moral evils. There are millions of deviants in the world and this argument is simply lacking in credibility. Swinburne’s argument that the existence of moral evil doesn’t point toward there not being a God, is incredibly weak. Let’s see if he does any better try to argue why there is natural evil, and why God allows it.
3.
“IS THERE A GOD?”
Swinburne suggests that natural evils main role is to make it possible for humans to have the kind of choice which the free will defence extols and to make available to humans specially worthwhile kinds of choice. This suggestion doesn’t really make sense. The point that is trying to be put across is unclear and vague. It is almost as if he is talking in riddles.
Another argument in the defence of natural evil being evidence against the existence of God is that natural evil increases the range of significant choice. Someone suffering as the result of a natural evil can either endure it or bemoan it; his friend can show compassion or be callous. Pain caused by natural evil makes possible these choices/emotions possible which would otherwise not exist. He is saying that God makes natural evil so that humans can explore their otherwise unfound emotions. This, I feel, is a fair enough argument, but many will disagree with this way of thinking by saying that if God is all good he shouldn’t make a world with a place for evil.
To conclude his argument Swinburne says that God has the right to allow evil to occur and we, as inferior beings, should not question its happening. He also argues that God would be less than perfectly good if he created a world without pain and suffering, so that we can appreciate the good things in life. However he does recognise that evil is evil and is a substantial price to pay for the goods of the world. Swinburne’s theodicy is an interesting one and one that gives the reader plenty to contemplate and think whether the existence of evil really is evidence to suggests that God does not exist.
