Re: An Argument from Non-Gratuitous Evil
Thomas Metcalf commits an elementary blunder. He assumes that all evil is justified, “grants to the defender of theism that gratuitous evil does not exist,” (The Improbability of God, 329) and argues that “the position according to which there is no gratuitous evil will lead to a new argument from evil, a strong evidential argument against God’s existence.” (330) How does it work? He proposes the principle
(PA) If a person S is suffering intensely, and S’s suffering is justified, it is morally better to inform S that her suffering is justified than to withhold that information. (331)
Yet many people do not believe that their suffering is justified. Hence the all-good God does not exist.
Have you spotted the problem right there? The fact that many people consider their travails to be unjust is itself an evil. But by Metcalf’s own assumpton, all evils are justified, including this one! Therefore, any attempt to disprove that God has some good reason not to let everybody know the meaning of their trials is entirely vain. I’m done with this guy.
Update. Let’s be (very) charitable to Metcalf and suppose that he simply argues that in PA he has found an instance of unjustified evil:
1) Suppose the opposite: God exists.
2) Therefore, all evil is justified.
3) But that some people do not know how the evils they suffer are justified is itself an evil.
4) That evil is unjustified.
5) Hence not all evils are justified, and gratuitous evil does exist.
6) Hence God does not exist.
Metcalf goes on to prove 4). But he need not bother. The evil of the (perhaps temporary) failure to find meaning in one’s suffering is neither more nor less troublesome from the point of view of theism than any other evil, including the evil of the suffering itself, and therefore the standard theodicies apply to it. For example, our author’s third objection to his own thesis, namely that “God wants us to figure things out for ourselves, such as that our suffering is justified, because that process of discovery would provide the opportunity for mental, emotional, and spiritual growth,” deserves far more attention than the cursory and unsatisfactory treatment given to it in the article.