The following text is about philosophy of religion.
Theodicy—the attempt to reconcile God's existence with evil—has taken many forms. Leibniz argued this is the best of all possible worlds; any alternative would contain more evil overall. Critics found this implausible given extreme suffering. Contemporary "skeptical theism" takes a different approach: rather than explaining evil, it argues that humans cannot reasonably expect to understand God's reasons. Divine purposes may involve goods beyond human comprehension. Critics respond that this defeater could justify any atrocity as potentially part of a larger plan, undermining moral judgment by making evil inscrutable rather than addressing it.
What objection do critics raise against skeptical theism?
It explains evil too clearly and specifically
It could be used to justify any atrocity by making evil inscrutable
It claims this is the best possible world
It denies human suffering exists
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Critics argue "this defeater could justify any atrocity as potentially part of a larger plan, undermining moral judgment by making evil inscrutable."
- Evidence: Could justify atrocity; undermines moral judgment.
- Reasoning: Inscrutability removes grounds for moral evaluation.
- Conclusion: Making evil inscrutable is dangerously permissive.
Choice A is incorrect because it doesn't explain evil at all—it claims we can't understand. Choice C is incorrect because this is Leibniz's view, not skeptical theism. Choice D is incorrect because skeptical theism acknowledges evil exists.