Philo, Volume 8, Number 2, 2006
The Failure of Type-4 Arguments from Evil, in the Face of the Consequential Complexity of History
by Kirk K. Durston
Abstract: Bruce Russell has classified evidential arguments from evil into four types, one of which is the type-4 argument. Rather than begin with observations of evils that appear to be gratuitous, type-4 arguments simply begin with observations of evils. The next step, and the heart of a type-4 argument, is an abductive inference (inference to the best explanation) from those observations, to the conclusion that there is gratuitous evil. Reflection upon the consequential complexity of history, however, reveals that we have no objective grounds for making the key, abductive inference, thus, all type-4 arguments from evil fail.
Tires were exploding all over the place. That poor girl was screaming, God, it must have been for ten minutes. We just couldn’t help her. Eyewitness, multi-vehicle inferno, Hwy 401
In the instance of suffering described in the above prelude, the girl’s heart-rending screams for help as she was slowly incinerated would have, and did, move anyone with even a shred of compassion to do everything in their power to save her. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect being, surely such a being should have been moved to intervene when all human efforts failed. Such an intervention never occurred. The best explanation for the lack of a theistic rescue, some would argue, is that such a being does not exist.
Bruce Russell has classified evidential arguments from evil into four major types.1 I have dealt elsewhere with the effect of the consequential complexity of history upon type-1 and type-2 arguments.2 Russell indicates that there is no known example of a type-3 argument. Thus, this paper shall focus only on type-4 arguments. By Russell’s taxonomy, the sort of argument from evil given in the previous paragraph would classify as a type-4 evidential argument from evil. In this paper I shall argue that the complexity of history, with it’s innumerable, interacting causal chains, puts us in a position of such ignorance, that type-4 arguments are neutralized. I will begin with a review of Russell’s explanation of the type-4 argument. Following this, I will examine the consequential complexity of history and its effect on type-4 arguments. Finally, I will look at some possible objections to the counter-argument I lay out in this paper.