×

We use cookies to help make LingQ better. By visiting the site, you agree to our cookie policy.

image

Crash Course 2: Philosophy., 13a. The Problem of Evil. Part 1/2.

13a. The Problem of Evil. Part 1/2.

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Why is the sky blue? Which came first: orange the color or orange the fruit? And why is C3PO afraid of everything? Like, who decided it was a good idea to teach a droid to experience fear?

There are some questions that we ask ourselves, either as kids, or adults, or both. They're questions about weird, everyday things, and they're weird because most of us don't know the answers to them offhand. But most of the time, those questions turn out to be pretty answerable. Like, for the ones I just mentioned, the short answers are: Because of the way photons interact with the molecules in the atmosphere. ...the fruit; And…uh…'cause that's what George Lucas wanted. Maybe because 3PO's a protocol droid, and they need to be able to relate to humans. Though, he could stand to turn his fear settings down a notch.

Now, as you know, philosophers have a soft spot for questions that can never be answered. Most of the time, these puzzles make for great thought experiments – tests of our skills in logic and argument. But there are some questions whose very lack of an answer can be downright troubling.

Unlike the occasional fluke of physics or bit of Star Wars trivia, there's a part of us that really wants, or even needs to have an answer to these things. For the past month or so, we've been exploring the philosophy of religion, and we've been doing it mainly from a theistic perspective, looking into arguments that justify belief in God. But one of the most persistent challenges to god's existence is also the root of one of the most-asked, but least answerable, questions that we, as thinking beings, face. Why is there evil?

[Theme Music]

Evil comes in many forms. And likewise, for philosophers, poses many problems, especially vis a vis the existence of god.

First, there's what's known as the logical problem of evil. Like all rational people, theists can't help but acknowledge that the world is full of evil. And here, we're understanding “evil” to be all manner of bad stuff – like, not just Hitler or Darth Vader or Moriarty. It's everything that's in the vast spectrum of badness, from stubbed toes to plagues and everything in between. Theists and atheists both agree that evil exists in this way. But they disagree about the next part. Many theists believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. But atheists argue that this creates a contradiction – a set of beliefs that can't all be true at the same time. Because, evil is bad, right – whether it's stubbed toes or genocide or paper cuts or epidemics? So, if there's really an all-knowing God out there, he knows about all the evil. He might even know about it before it happens. And if he's all-powerful, he could stop it. And if he's all-good, then he would want to stop it. And yet he doesn't. The evil continues. Philosophically rational people shouldn't hold inconsistent beliefs, so atheists argue that you're going to have to give something up – and the thing to give up is God. Some theists, however, take a different route. They choose to give up one or more divine attributes. They argue that maybe God isn't powerful enough to stop evil, or maybe he's not knowledgeable enough to know about it, or maybe he's not even good enough to care about stopping it. That might sound weird to some of you, but if you've ever heard someone say that God is envious, or petty, or jealous, that's basically what they're doing – they're acknowledging the possibility that God is not actually good. If you've ever checked out the Old Testament, there is a God there who has some anger issues – one who's not at all opposed to wiping out entire populations just because of some bad behavior. Still, despite this scriptural evidence, many theists are committed to God's omni-attributes, and are thus stuck with a problem. They have to resolve the logical problem of evil and find some way to explain why God would allow evil into the world. And if you can do that, then you are presenting what is known as a theodicy.

A theodicy is an attempt to show that the existence of evil doesn't rule out the possibility of God's existence. Yes, this is such a big deal that there's a word for it. And the most popular theodicy is called The Free Will Defense. This argument holds that God maximized the goodness in the world by creating free beings. And being free means that we have the choice to do evil things – a choice that some of us exercise. This theodicy says that God doesn't create evil, but evil can't be avoided without depriving us of our freedom. And a world without freedom would be a worse place overall.

This explanation preserves God's goodness, because he created the best possible world, and also preserves his omnipotence and omniscience, because, although he does know about evil and could stop it, he has a good reason not to – to ensure our freedom. The problem is, the free will defense really only really addresses what's known as moral evil – or the evil committed, on purpose, by humans. Now, we're certainly responsible for a lot of bad stuff, but you can't blame us for everything. We can't be held responsible for the fact that the plates of the earth sometimes shift, causing destructive earthquakes, or that a storm might knock a tree over that falls onto someone's house. This type of evil – the stuff we're not responsible for – is called natural evil, and the free will defense can't resolve natural evil. Religion is one of those philosophical issues that can make it hard for us to consider anything objectively. That's where fiction comes in handy because fictional stories can let us see how hypothetical people deal with hypothetical situations. And with that in mind, let's go to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy!

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

13a. The Problem of Evil. Part 1/2. 13a. El problema del mal. Parte 1/2. 13a.悪の問題パート1/2. 13a. Het probleem van het kwaad. Deel 1/2. 13a. Problem zła. Część 1/2. 13a. O problema do mal. Parte 1/2. 13а. Проблема зла. Часть 1/2. 13a. Проблема зла. Частина 1/2.

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Why is the sky blue? Which came first: orange the color or orange the fruit? And why is C3PO afraid of everything? Like, who decided it was a good idea to teach a droid to experience fear? 谁决定教一台机器人经历恐惧是个好主意呢?

There are some questions that we ask ourselves, either as kids, or adults, or both. 有些问题我们自己问自己,不管是孩子时还是成年时,或者两者都有。 They're questions about weird, everyday things, and they're weird because most of us don't know the answers to them offhand. Son preguntas sobre cosas raras y cotidianas, y son raras porque la mayoría de nosotros no sabemos responderlas de antemano. Это вопросы о странных, повседневных вещах, и странные они потому, что большинство из нас не знает на них ответов. 这些问题涉及奇怪的日常事物,而且奇怪的是大多数人并不能立刻知道答案。 But most of the time, those questions turn out to be pretty answerable. Like, for the ones I just mentioned, the short answers are: Because of the way photons interact with the molecules in the atmosphere. Por ejemplo, para los que acabo de mencionar, las respuestas cortas son: Debido a la forma en que los fotones interactúan con las moléculas de la atmósfera. 就像我刚提到的那些,简短的回答是:由于光子与大气中的分子相互作用的方式。 ...the fruit; And…uh…'cause that's what George Lucas wanted. ...la fruta; y... eh... porque eso es lo que George Lucas quería. ...水果;还有...因为这是乔治·卢卡斯想要的。 Maybe because 3PO's a protocol droid, and they need to be able to relate to humans. Quizá porque 3PO es un droide de protocolo, y necesitan poder relacionarse con humanos. 也许因为3PO是一个礼仪机器人,他们需要能够与人类交流。 Though, he could stand to turn his fear settings down a notch. Aunque podría bajar un poco la intensidad de su miedo. 尽管如此,他可以减弱一点他的恐惧感设置。

Now, as you know, philosophers have a soft spot for questions that can never be answered. 现在,正如你所知道的,哲学家对那些永远无法得到答案的问题情有独钟。 Most of the time, these puzzles make for great thought experiments – tests of our skills in logic and argument. 大多数时候,这些谜题都是很好的思维实验 - 检验我们逻辑和论证技能的测试。 But there are some questions whose very lack of an answer can be downright troubling. Pero hay algunas preguntas cuya falta de respuesta puede ser francamente preocupante. 但有一些问题,其缺乏答案本身就会令人不安。

Unlike the occasional fluke of physics or bit of Star Wars trivia, there's a part of us that really wants, or even needs to have an answer to these things. ||ara sıra||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 与物理学的偶然事件或星球大战的琐事不同,我们内心深处确实希望或甚至需要对这些事情有一个答案。 For the past month or so, we've been exploring the philosophy of religion, and we've been doing it mainly from a theistic perspective, looking into arguments that justify belief in God. 在过去的一个月左右,我们一直在探讨宗教哲学,主要是从有神论的角度,探讨能够证明对上帝信仰的论据。 But one of the most persistent challenges to god's existence is also the root of one of the most-asked, but least answerable, questions that we, as thinking beings, face. Pero uno de los desafíos más persistentes a la existencia de Dios es también la raíz de una de las preguntas más planteadas, pero menos contestadas, a las que nos enfrentamos como seres pensantes. 但对上帝存在的最持久的挑战之一,也是我们作为思考的生命所面临的最常问但最难回答的问题的根源。 Why is there evil? 为什么存在邪恶?

[Theme Music] [主题音乐]

Evil comes in many forms. And likewise, for philosophers, poses many problems, especially vis a vis the existence of god. 对哲学家来说,尤其是关于上帝的存在,也会带来许多问题。

First, there's what's known as the logical problem of evil. 首先,有所谓的逻辑上的邪恶问题。 Like all rational people, theists can't help but acknowledge that the world is full of evil. Como todas las personas racionales, los teístas no pueden evitar reconocer que el mundo está lleno de maldad. 与所有理性的人一样,有神论者不得不承认世界充满了邪恶。 And here, we're understanding “evil” to be all manner of bad stuff – like, not just Hitler or Darth Vader or Moriarty. 在这里,我们将“邪恶”理解为各种坏事 - 不仅仅是希特勒、达斯维达或者莫里亚蒂。 It's everything that's in the vast spectrum of badness, from stubbed toes to plagues and everything in between. 这包括从被踩到的脚趾到瘟疫等各种坏事,涵盖了坏事的广泛范围。 Theists and atheists both agree that evil exists in this way. 无论是有神论者还是无神论者都同意邪恶是以这种方式存在的。 But they disagree about the next part. Many theists believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. But atheists argue that this creates a contradiction – a set of beliefs that can't all be true at the same time. Because, evil is bad, right – whether it's stubbed toes or genocide or paper cuts or epidemics? 因为,邪恶是不好的,不是吗 - 无论是被绊倒的脚趾还是种族灭绝还是纸嘴或流行病? So, if there's really an all-knowing God out there, he knows about all the evil. 所以,如果真的有一个全知的上帝存在,他知道所有的邪恶。 He might even know about it before it happens. 他甚至可能在事情发生之前就知道。 And if he's all-powerful, he could stop it. And if he's all-good, then he would want to stop it. And yet he doesn't. The evil continues. Philosophically rational people shouldn't hold inconsistent beliefs, so atheists argue that you're going to have to give something up – and the thing to give up is God. 在哲学上理性的人不应持有矛盾的信念,因此无神论者认为你将不得不放弃某些东西 - 而要放弃的是上帝。 Some theists, however, take a different route. Algunos teístas, sin embargo, toman un camino diferente. 不过,一些有神论者选择了另一条路。 They choose to give up one or more divine attributes. 他们选择放弃一个或多个神圣属性。 They argue that maybe God isn't powerful enough to stop evil, or maybe he's not knowledgeable enough to know about it, or maybe he's not even good enough to care about stopping it. That might sound weird to some of you, but if you've ever heard someone say that God is envious, or petty, or jealous, that's basically what they're doing – they're acknowledging the possibility that God is not actually good. Puede que a algunos os suene raro, pero si alguna vez habéis oído a alguien decir que Dios es envidioso, o mezquino, o celoso, eso es básicamente lo que están haciendo: están reconociendo la posibilidad de que Dios no sea realmente bueno. 对于你们中的一些人来说,这可能听起来很奇怪,但如果你曾经听过有人说上帝是嫉妒的、卑鄙的或者妒忌的,那基本上就是他们在承认上帝实际上可能并不善良。 If you've ever checked out the Old Testament, there is a God there who has some anger issues – one who's not at all opposed to wiping out entire populations just because of some bad behavior. 如果你曾经查阅过旧约,那里描述的上帝可能有些愤怒问题——一个并不反对仅仅因为一些不良行为而消灭整个人群的上帝。 Still, despite this scriptural evidence, many theists are committed to God's omni-attributes, and are thus stuck with a problem. 尽管有这些经文的证据,许多信神者仍然坚信上帝的全能属性,因此陷入了困境。 They have to resolve the logical problem of evil and find some way to explain why God would allow evil into the world. And if you can do that, then you are presenting what is known as a theodicy.

A theodicy is an attempt to show that the existence of evil doesn't rule out the possibility of God's existence. Yes, this is such a big deal that there's a word for it. 是的,这件事情如此重要,以至于有一个专门的术语。 And the most popular theodicy is called The Free Will Defense. 而最受欢迎的神正义学被称为自由意志辩护。 This argument holds that God maximized the goodness in the world by creating free beings. 这一论点认为上帝通过创造自由的存在最大化了世界上的善。 And being free means that we have the choice to do evil things – a choice that some of us exercise. 而且自由意味着我们有选择做坏事的权利——一些人在选择中实施了这种权利。 This theodicy says that God doesn't create evil, but evil can't be avoided without depriving us of our freedom. 这种神学解释说上帝不创造邪恶,但如果不剥夺我们的自由,邪恶是无法避免的。 And a world without freedom would be a worse place overall. 而且一个没有自由的世界会更糟。

This explanation preserves God's goodness, because he created the best possible world, and also preserves his omnipotence and omniscience, because, although he does know about evil and could stop it, he has a good reason not to – to ensure our freedom. The problem is, the free will defense really only really addresses what's known as moral evil – or the evil committed, on purpose, by humans. 问题在于,自由意志辩护实际上只是针对所谓的道德邪恶 - 或者是人类故意犯下的邪恶,而不是其他类型的邪恶。 Now, we're certainly responsible for a lot of bad stuff, but you can't blame us for everything. 现在,我们当然要为很多坏事负责,但不能把所有责任都推到我们身上。 We can't be held responsible for the fact that the plates of the earth sometimes shift, causing destructive earthquakes, or that a storm might knock a tree over that falls onto someone's house. 我们不能因为地球板块有时会发生位移导致破坏性地震,或者风暴可能把一棵树刮倒到别人的房子上而被追究责任。 This type of evil – the stuff we're not responsible for – is called natural evil, and the free will defense can't resolve natural evil. Religion is one of those philosophical issues that can make it hard for us to consider anything objectively. La religión es una de esas cuestiones filosóficas que pueden hacernos difícil considerar algo objetivamente. 宗教是一种哲学问题,使我们很难客观地考虑任何事情。 That's where fiction comes in handy because fictional stories can let us see how hypothetical people deal with hypothetical situations. 这就是小说派上用场的地方,因为虚构的故事可以让我们看到假设人们如何处理假设情况。 And with that in mind, let's go to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy! 有了这个想法,让我们来到“快闪哲学”版块思考吧!