Reading: J.L. Mackie, Evil and Omnipotence, pp. 288-296
Mackie was a well-respected British philosopher who was equally well known for his atheism. His book The Miracle of Theism is a tightly reasoned rejection of theism and defense of atheism. The article you are reading for Friday is an earlier piece, originally published in 1955. Mackie died in 1983.
Notice that Mackie is arguing for a very strong thesis, viz., “that religious beliefs … are positively irrational”.
Mackie, like Hume, does not explicitly include omniscience in his description of the problem of evil, but presumably a being that lacked knowledge would also lack power and thus would not be omnipotent. So, he may be implicitly assuming that God is omniscient. Mackie seems to assume that omnipotence means being able to do anything (even something that is logically impossible).
On page 289-290, Mackie distinguishes between adequate and fallacious solutions to the problem of evil. An adequate solution to the problem of evil gives up one of the assumptions that generate the problem (e.g., revising the dfn of omnipotence). Fallacious solutions “explicitly maintain all the constituent propositions, but implicitly reject at least one of them in the course of the argument that explains away the problem of evil” (290). Mackie then argues that 4 popular solutions to the problem of evil are fallacious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It seems to me that any critic of Mackie's take on evil will have to give up some ground on the regular assumptions of God's omnipotence or God's pure goodness, and that seems like its enough to combat any Christian theologian. The only way to really contend with the problem of evil, since we cannot deny that evil exists in this world, is to acknowledge that God has limits to what he can or cannot do. He is either not omnipotent, not wholly good, or not in control of his own creations. The only argument among the fallacious solutions that seems like it could have any chance of defeating Mackie's argument is #4, "Evil Is Due to Human Free Will." But even if humans are responsible for all the evil in the world, why could God not predispose them to do good, or use his prophets to influence them further? God must either not exist or have severe limitations that the theologian cannot accpet.
I like Mackie's writting. He makes good logical sense and doesnt try to beat around the bush. I only thing I really didn't understand was his relation of good and evil to greatness and smallness in part one. I also agree that the only way to really defeat his argument would be found in part 4. The problem of free will he says that his crtics will touch on it and it is possible to counter him with it. Also, I find it interesting thast Mackie touches on the idea of God's omniscience, but doesnt really state it bluntly. I wonder why that is.
I disagree with Ed on the argument number 4. To say that evil is due to human free will and therefore absolves god of any misdoing is utterly absurd. Take for example a vicious dog. If you keep a vicious dog and know it to be vicious, then you are henceforth responsible for it. Even if it is only vicious 1% of the time, because you know it has such characteristics you logically must be held responsible should your dog maim a child. Same with god. Simply because we choose to be evil does not negate the fact that god made us that way.
I was sort of confused reading Mackie because I did not understand how he addressed whether that argument that good isn’t necessarily opposed to evil is a good argument. It looks like he address it in his first fallacious solution but I got confused when he started talking about “great” and “small”. The rest of his arguments against the solutions seemed to do well especially in my mind his argument against free will. In his second paragraph on 294 he makes a really interesting point about our choices coming from our character which God is responsible for making.
I am not a huge fan of Mackie's style of writing but I think he makes some good points. However, if God created free will where we always choose good, is that really free will. It goes back to the argument of the guy mowing the lawn. Does he really have a choice? Furthermore, if God did not give man the opportunity to choose evil, he takes away the ability for humans to glorify him. If we always choose what is right we cannot glorify him because there is no chance to do otherwise. By choosing to do good, we bring glory to God and that is our purpose under the Christian viewpoint.
My principle issue with Mackie is his criticism of the free will defense. It makes no sense to say God grants people the freedom to choose but sees that they only choose right. While it is possible people could always choose right, it would be improbable, and to manipulate the actions of people to make it so they always choose right means there is no choice involved. Mackie’s argument is more subtle, however. It is difficult to then explain why freedom is different from randomness. But Mackie then goes on to talk about freedom being type of greater good. Perhaps he is right, but I suspect freedom may be a logical necessity and that rather than being a greater good, it is a necessity and that it is a requirement to fulfill the purpose of creation. Mackie continues by saying God could offer a choice but when people choose evil he could conform their will to good. That is nonsense. If I say, “Would you like an apple or an orange,” and you reply, “apple,” only to hear me say, “too bad you get an orange,” did you actually have a choice? Or if you do choose an orange, did you really choose or did you just have an illusion of choice?
I'm curious as to why Mackie fails to delve deeper into the concept of God's omnipotence. Especially when considering whether or not evil is necessary as a means to good, Mackie simply states that such a solution would affect our beliefs as to God's omnipotence. I don't quite understand how though. Is it not possible that God, while being wholly good, introduced evil in order to inspire his followers to do good? This would fall under his power as an omnipotent being and thus I'm curious why Mackie claims that it would negatively affect God. Overall his Mackie's writing is fairly straight forward and easy to comprehend and follow.
Like the majority of the arguments we have studied so far, so much is hinged upon one's concept of omnipotence/omniscience. A revision of this concept seems to be, as Mackie suggests, the only adequate resolution to the problem. It seems that a more explicit explanation in these areas would allow for critics to more articulately express their withdraws from his logical train of thinking. As far as I can tell, his logic is sound. I wish he would give detailed examples of adequate solutions, as he does with fallacious solutions.
The last post is mine. i forgot my pw.
-Brennan
I like Mackie's writing. Although I do not personally agree with him, he addresses many of the popular arguments against his position. I liked the argument about free will best because this is how I personally solve the problem of evil. Mackie asks why God could not make it so everyone chose good in their free will. This seems to be a contradiction in terms. If you are free to choose something and you only have one thing to choose from, what choice is that? From a theistic viewpoint, God wants us to choose him. If we don't choose him, that is our decision. God wants to be glorified, but only by those who choose to do so. How great would a God be if he forced people to gloify him? It's like an AOC in a squad... you have the choice to follow him, or he could use his power over you to make you respect them. However, how much do you really respect them? God wants people who desire him to worship. He also states that if God gives people free will then he cannot control him and that God is no longer omnipotent. I do not think this is true because if God can do everything and chooses not to, I do not believe that is a limit in power, which Mackie goes on to describe.
Post a Comment