DOCSLIB.ORG

Problem of Evil 1 Problem of Evil

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Problem of Evil 1 Problem of Evil Problem of evil 1 Problem of evil In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible, and attempts to show the contrary have been traditionally known as theodicies. There are a wide range of responses that have been given to the problem of evil. These include the explanation of evil as the result of free will misused by God's creatures, the view that our suffering is required for personal growth, the denial that God is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, and skepticism concerning the ability of humans to understand God's reasons for permitting the existence of evil. There are also many discussions of "evil" and associated "problems" in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[3][4][5] and scientific disciplines such as evolutionary ethics.[6][7] But as usually understood, the "problem of evil" is posed in a theological context.[1][2] Detailed arguments Numerous different versions of the problem of evil have been formulated.[1][2][8] Logical problem of evil One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is often attributed to Epicurus[9] and may be schematized as follows: 1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. 2. There is evil in the world. 3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist. This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens. In this case, P is "God exists" and Q is "there is no evil in the world". Since it is unclear precisely how the antecedent of the first premise of the epicurean argument entails the consequent, later versions have been offered such as:[2] 1. God exists. 2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. 8. Evil exists (logical contradiction). Versions such as these are referred to as the logical problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and cannot therefore all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises No. 3 and No. 6), with defenders of theism arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good. One greater good that has been proposed is that of free will, famously argued for in Plantinga's free will defense. The first part of this defense accounts for moral evil as the result of free human action. The second part of this defense argues for the logical possibility of "a mighty nonhuman spirit"[10] such as Satan who is responsible for so-called Problem of evil 2 'natural evils', including earthquakes, tidal waves, and virulent diseases. Many philosophers accept that Plantinga successfully solves the logical problem of evil,[11], as he appears to have shown that God and evil are logically compatible, though others demur[12]. Evidential problem of evil The evidential version of the problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive version), seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism. As an example, a critic of Plantinga's idea of "a mighty nonhuman spirit" causing natural evils may concede that the existence of such a being is not logically impossible but argue that due to lacking scientific evidence for its existence this is very unlikely and thus it is an unconvincing explanation for the presence of natural evils. William L. Rowe's famous example of natural evil: "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, A version by William L. Rowe: horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its [13] suffering." 1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2] Another by Paul Draper: 1. Gratuitous evils exist. 2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism. 3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[14] These arguments are probability judgments since they rest on the claim that, even after careful reflection, one can see no good reason for God’s permission of evil. The inference from this claim to the general statement that there exists unnecessary evil is inductive in nature and it is this inductive step that sets the evidential argument apart from the logical argument.[2] The logical possibility of hidden or unknown reasons for the existence of evil still exist. However, the existence of God is viewed as any large-scale hypothesis or explanatory theory that aims to make sense of some pertinent facts. To the extent that it fails to do so it is disconfirmed.[2] According to Occam's razor, one should make as few assumptions as possible. Hidden reasons are assumptions, as is the assumption that all pertinent facts can be observed, or that facts and theories humans have not discerned are indeed hidden. Thus, as per Draper's argument above, the theory that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is indifferent requires no hidden reasons in order to explain evil. It is thus a simpler theory than one that also requires hidden reasons regarding evil in order to include omnibenevolence. Similarly, for every hidden argument that completely or partially justifies observed evils it is equally likely that there is a hidden argument that actually makes the observed evils worse than they appear Problem of evil 3 without hidden arguments. As such, from a probabilistic viewpoint hidden arguments will neutralize one another.[1] Author and researcher Gregory S. Paul offers what he considers to be a particularly strong problem of evil. Paul describes conservative calculations that at least 100 billion people have been born throughout human history (starting roughly 50 000 years ago, when Homo Sapiens – humans – first appeared).[15] He then performed what he calls "simple" calculations to estimate that the historical death rate of children throughout this time. He found that it was over 50%, and that the deaths of these children were mostly due to diseases (like malaria). Paul thus sees it as a problem of evil, because this means, throughout human history, over 50 billion people died naturally before they were old enough to give mature consent. He adds that this could have implications for calculating the population of a heaven (which could include an additional 30 000 billion humans who died naturally but prenatally, the aforementioned 50 billion children, and finally the remaining 50 billion adults – excluding those alive today).[16][17] A common response to instances of the evidential problem is that there are plausible (and not hidden) justifications for God’s permission of evil. These theodicies are discussed below. Related arguments Doctrines of hell, particularly those involving eternal suffering, pose a particularly strong form of the problem of evil (see problem of hell). If unbelief, incorrect beliefs, or poor design are considered evils, then the argument from nonbelief, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from poor design may be seen as particular instances of the argument from evil. Answers and theodicies Responses to the problem of evil have sometimes been classified as defenses or theodicies. However, authors disagree on the exact definitions.[1][2][18] Generally, a defense may refer to attempts to defuse the logical problem of evil by showing that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. A defense need not argue that this is a probable or plausible explanation, only that the explanation is logically possible, for if on some logically possible explanation God and evil are logically compatible, then whatever the case with respect to that explanation's being true or not, God and evil are logically compatible.[19] A theodicy,[20] on the other hand, is more ambitious, since it attempts to provide a plausible justification—a morally sufficient reason—for the existence of evil and thereby rebut the "evidential" argument from evil.[2] Richard Swinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are greater goods that justify the evil's presence in the world unless we know what they are—without knowledge of what the greater goods could be, one cannot have a successful theodicy.[21] Thus, some authors see arguments appealing to demons or the fall of man as indeed logically possible, but not very plausible given our knowledge about the world, and so see those arguments as providing defenses but not good theodicies.[2] Lacking omnibenevolence, omniscience, or omnipotence The problem of evil will not be encountered if God lacks any one of the three qualities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophical Issues with Existence of God
    Philosophical issues with existence of God www.rationalhumor.com R.N Session Schedule Session # Date / Time Session Name Brief Description 1 Jan 24th – Sunday General Concepts & History of Understand what are the various belief systems. 2:00pm to 4:00pm Philosophy Historical Review of how Philosophy evolved 2 Jan 31stth – Sunday General Philosophy an Introduction General Introduction into what is the branch of 2:00pm to 4:00pm Philosophy and then specifically review religious philosophy 3 Feb 7th – Sunday Philosophyof Religion How philosophyis handled and presented in the 2:00pm to 4:00pm various MAJOR religions – Abrahaministic & Eastern 4 Feb 14th – Sunday Logic & Logical Fallacies Understanding Logic and understanding how to 2:00pm to 4:00pm identify fallacies in arguments 5 Feb 21st – Sunday Arguments for the Existence of God Theological arguments; Ontological Arguments and 2:00pm to 4:00pm Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God 6 Feb 28th – Sunday Philosophical issues with existence of Philosophical issues with existence – Boeing 747 2:00pm to 4:00pm God Gambit; Russell’s TeaPot; Morality etc. 7 March 7th - Sunday Free Will and Theodicy Theproblem of Free Will with respect to 2:00pm to 4:00pm Omnipotence; Omniscience and Omni benevolence. Problem with Evil 8 March 14th – Sunday Putting it all together Summarizingkey concepts 2:00pm to 4:00pm www.rationalhumor.com R.N Background Information a) Free Will - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqFbiBDb _c b) Eastern Religions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3w5ZUs7 ayI c) Belief - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOI2YvV uuE Arguments against the existence of God Type Empirical Arguments • Inconsistent revelations from various faiths.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamic Bibliography on Divine Hiddenness
    Dynamic Bibliography on Divine Hiddenness Daniel Howard-Snyder and Adam Green Note: The authors would be grateful for suggested additions to this bibliography from the philosophical/theological literature. Last updated: September 20, 2017 Aijaz, I., and M. Weidler, 2007, “Some Critical Reflections on the Hiddenness Argument,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 61 (1): 1-23. Aiken, S., forthcoming, “Does Divine Hiding Undermine Positive Evidential Atheism?,” Religious Studies. Allen, D., 1983, Three Outsiders: Pascal, Kierkegaard, Simone Weil. Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications. Alston, W. P.,1996, “Belief, Acceptance, and Religious Faith,” in Faith, Freedom, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today, J. Jordan and D. Howard-Snyder (eds.), Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 3-27. Anderson, R., 1911, The Silence of God, London: Hodder and Stoughton. Andrews, M., 2014, “Divine Hiddenness and Affective Forecasting,” Res Cogitans 5 (1): 102-110. Audi, R., 2011, Rationality and Religious Commitment, New York: Oxford University Press. Azadegan, E., 2013a, “Divine Hiddenness and Human Sin: The Noetic Effects of Sin,” Journal of Reformed Theology 7 (1): 69-90. ---, 2013b, “Ibn ‘Arabi On the Problem of Divine Hiddenness,” Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi Society 53 (1): 49-67. ---, 2014, “Divine Love and the Argument from Divine Hiddenness,” European Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 6 (2): 101-116. Babolin, A., 1992, “Deus Absconditus: Some Notes on the Bearing of the Hiddenness of God Upon Butler’s and Pascal’s Criticism on Deism,” in Joseph Butler’s Moral and Religious Thought, C. Cunliffe (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29-35. Baker-Hytch, M., 2016, “Mutual Epistemic Dependence and the Demographic Divine Hiddenness Problem.” Religious Studies 52: 375-394 Balentine, S.,1980, “A Description of the Semantic Field of the Hebrew Words for ‘Hide’,” Vetus Testamentum 30: 137–153.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria Lee W. Sytsma Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Sytsma, Lee W., "Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria" (2018). Dissertations (1934 -). 769. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/769 RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA by Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2018 ABSTRACT RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. Marquette University, 2018 Origen has traditionally been famous for his universalism, but many scholars now express doubt that Origen believed in a universal and permanent apocatastasis. This is because many scholars are convinced that Origen’s teaching on moral autonomy (or freedom of choice) is logically incompatible with the notion that God foreordains every soul’s future destiny. Those few scholars who do argue that Origen believed in both moral autonomy and universal salvation either do not know how to reconcile these two views in Origen’s theology, or their proposed “solutions” are not convincing. In this dissertation I make two preliminary arguments which allow the question of logical compatibility to come into focus.
    [Show full text]
  • John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number
    John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number: 4593-816-4 275 Elkins Lake Huntsville, Texas 77340 USA 1-713-202-8953 [email protected] Approved Thesis Title: Examination of the Work of John C. Polkinghorne Praeparatio Evangelii Supervisor: Professor William J. Abraham Co-supervisor: Professor Vaughn Willard Baker Date of Submission of Thesis: i Curriculum Vitae John Ford Wilson Curriculum Vitae EDUCATION Ph.D. Physics, University of Houston, Houston, Texas M.S. Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, Pa. M.S. Theological Studies, Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University M.S. Industrial Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Tennessee. EXPERIENCE Lecturer, Department of Physics, Sam Houston State University; Huntsville, Texas Member The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Fellow, Center of Faith and Culture at University of St. Thomas; Houston, Texas Adjunct Faculty for Institute for Spirituality and Health, Houston, Texas Associate Pastor for Evangelism, St. Luke’s United Methodist Church; Houston, Texas Ordained Deacon in Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church Research Assistant Professor of Physics and Director of Educational Outreach, University of Houston; Houston, Texas Professor of Physics Houston Community College System; Houston, Texas Adjunct Professor of Physics University of St. Thomas; Houston, Texas Wilson and Associates: Self-employed as consultant in Houston, Tx. for marketing, business and strategic planning, and investment management. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Marketing Division, DuPont Textile Fibers Dept: Technical Service Manager for Reemay® and Typar®. Marketing Manager for Reemay®, Typar®, and Sontara®. Strategy and Development Assistant for Nomex® fiber and paper; responsible for business plans, earnings, and forecast.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Two Religions and Ethical Value
    Chapter Two Religions and Ethical Value 57 2.1 Philosophy and Religious Belief Introduction What should be the role of philosophy with respect to religious belief? The question is hard to answer since people have different ideas as to what constitutes philosophy and religion. A traditional answer, however, is that philosophy can help us to see whether or not religious beliefs are worthy of acceptance'. The idea here is that philosophers can single oi;t particular religious beliefs and ask questions like Ts this belief rationally 4efensible?’ or ‘Can this belief be supported by argument or appeal to evidence?’ lying behind such questions is the assumption that religious beliefs ar^ either true or false and that their truth or falsity can be settled or discussed at an intellectual level. Is there any relationship between ethics and religion? Is there any substantially based objective ethical code or not? Does God exist? How about the view that God’s Will determines what is morally obligatory? To an outside observer, .these, debates, among.. Western philosophers, and theologians concerning the relationship between religion and morality may seem culture-bound. The emergence of ethics as a separate fieldl of inquiry, the effort to distinguish morality from religion, and the countervailing effort to reassert a place for religion in human life all arise from a very particular cultural and social context. Nevertheless, the fact that systematic thinking about ethics emerged in the West, and that it generated a series of divergent explorations of the relationship between religion and morality, does not mean that this thinking or aspects of these views have no validity across 58 cultural lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Arbor Foundations 26 – Apologetics: Earnestly Contending for the Faith April 21, 2019 – Jon Evans
    Arbor Foundations 26 – Apologetics: Earnestly Contending for the Faith April 21, 2019 – Jon Evans Key Ideas / Biblical Basis 1 Peter 3:13-17 And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? But ​ even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, ​ and always be ready to give a defense (apologian) to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good ​ conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer ​ for doing good than for doing evil. Purposes of Apologetics: 1. To demonstrate what is plainly declared in scripture, that man is without excuse for his unbelief. (Romans 1:18-20) ​ ​ 2. To show unbelievers that the Christian faith is reasonable and does not require that the faithful abandon reason, logic, truth, etc. 3. To bolster the faith of Christians, who are prone to doubt or spiritual depression and/or surrounded by persuasive unbelief. The central task of Christian Apologetics is to show that the Christian faith is: 1. Consistent with the world of observation. 2. Rationally and logically robust. More Reading: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/task-apologetics/ ​ An important distinction: Apologetics is fundamentally about showing the Christian faith to be true, not ​ about knowing that it is true.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Atheism, Secularism, Humanism? Academy for Lifelong Learning Fall 2019 Course Leader: David Eller
    What is Atheism, Secularism, Humanism? Academy for Lifelong Learning Fall 2019 Course leader: David Eller Course Syllabus Week One: 1. Talking about Theism and Atheism: Getting the Terms Right 2. Arguments for and Against God(s) Week Two: 1. A History of Irreligion and Freethought 2. Varieties of Atheism and Secularism: Non-Belief Across Cultures Week Three: 1. Religion, Non-religion, and Morality: On Being Good without God(s) 2. Explaining Religion Scientifically: Cognitive Evolutionary Theory Week Four: 1. Separation of Church and State in the United States 2. Atheist/Secularist/Humanist Organization and Community Today Suggested Reading List David Eller, Natural Atheism (American Atheist Press, 2004) David Eller, Atheism Advanced (American Atheist Press, 2007) Other noteworthy readings on atheism, secularism, and humanism: George M. Smith Atheism: The Case Against God Richard Dawkins The God Delusion Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything Daniel Dennett Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Victor Stenger God: The Failed Hypothesis Sam Harris The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Religion Michael Martin Atheism: A Philosophical Justification Kerry Walters Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed Michel Onfray In Defense of Atheism: The Case against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam John M. Robertson A Short History of Freethought Ancient and Modern William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist Phil Zuckerman and John R. Shook, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Secularism Janet R. Jakobsen and Ann Pellegrini, eds. Secularisms Callum G. Brown The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000 Talal Asad Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity Lori G.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 15: Resources This Is by No Means an Exhaustive List. It's Just
    Chapter 15: Resources This is by no means an exhaustive list. It's just meant to get you started. ORGANIZATIONS African Americans for Humanism Supports skeptics, doubters, humanists, and atheists in the African American community, provides forums for communication and education, and facilitates coordinated action to achieve shared objectives. <a href="http://aahumanism.net">aahumanism.net</a> American Atheists The premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. <a href="http://atheists.org">atheists.org</a> American Humanist Association Advocating progressive values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers. <a href="http://americanhumanist.org">americanhumanist.org</a> Americans United for Separation of Church and State A nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving church-state separation to ensure religious freedom for all Americans. <a href="http://au.org">au.org</a> Atheist Alliance International A global federation of atheist and freethought groups and individuals, committed to educating its members and the public about atheism, secularism and related issues. <a href="http://atheistalliance.org">atheistalliance.org</a> Atheist Alliance of America The umbrella organization of atheist groups and individuals around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview. <a href="http://atheistallianceamerica.org">atheistallianceamerica.org< /a> Atheist Ireland Building a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism. <a href="http://atheist.ie">atheist.ie</a> Black Atheists of America Dedicated to bridging the gap between atheism and the black community. <a href="http://blackatheistsofamerica.org">blackatheistsofamerica.org </a> The Brights' Net A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Quarterly
    THE PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY VOL. 10 No. 39 APRIL 1960 GOD AND EVIL A. THE PROBLEM STATED: Evil is a problem for the theist in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand, and the belief in the omnipotence and perfection of God on the other. God cannot be both all-powerful and perfectly good if evil is real. This contradiction is well set out in its detail by Mackie in his discussion of the problem.l In his discussion Mackie seeks to show that this contradiction cannot be resolved in terms of man's free will. In arguing in this way Mackie neglects a large number of important points, and concedes far too much to the theist. He implicitly allows that whilst physical evil creates a problem, this problem is reducible to the problem of moral evil and that therefore the satisfactoriness of solutions of the problem of evil turns on the compatibility of free will and absolute goodness. In fact physical evils create a number of distinct problems which are not reducible to the problem of moral evil. Further, the proposed solu- tion of the problem of moral evil in terms of free will renders the attempt to account for physical evil in terms of moral good, and the attempt thereby to reduce the problem of evil to the problem of moral evil, completely un- tenable. Moreover, the account of moral evil in terms of free will breaks down on more obvious and less disputable grounds than those indicated by Mackie. Moral evil can be shown to remain a problem whether or not free will is compatible with absolute goodness.
    [Show full text]
  • This Note Is Brought to You by Fabreads.Org Go to Fabreads.Org/Oau-Notes for More Notes
    WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? ETYMOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHY Philosophy etymological comes from two Greek words “PHILEU” and “SOPHIA” which means “LOVE” and “WISDOM” respectively. • It is categorically termed “LOVE FOR WISDOM”. If philosophy means Love for Wisdom then philosophers are “LOVERS OF WISDOM” Philosophy as love for wisdom doesn’t mean that philosophy is wisdom or philosophers are custodians of wisdom. All it says is that philosophy is that philosophy is a discipline that urges us to be in constant search for wisdom. We should be able to distinguish wisdom from collection of mere opinions, dogmas opinions, articles of faith or unquestioned positions or views i.e. all received opinions must be examined in the process of searching for wisdom. Philosophy is a critical discipline that urges us to question all received opinions by criticizing examine in order to get to the object of love, which is wisdom. Critical here means being able to subject all opinions to critical observation in order to have access to the alternative that is supported by the superior arguments. For this reason of criticality, philosophy was seen as a “GADFLY” (The nauseating sound mosquitoes, housefly and other insects of the likes make) a discipline that constantly keeps us on our toes in a way such that we are not susceptible or don’t fall easily into accepting unquestioned & indefensible positions. This means we must always make attempt to penetrate through distinct opinion or perspective. Philosophy is like sciences, they are both (philosophy and sciences) interested in carrying out systematic research in to the nature of things.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil and the Probity of Theodicy from William Rowe's
    Liberty University Department of Philosophy The Problem of Evil and the Probity of Doing Theodicy from William Rowe’s Evidential Argument from Evil ------------------------------------------- A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Philosophy Department of Liberty University In Partial Fulfilment Of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in Philosophical Studies -------------------------------------------- By Olaoluwa Apata -------------------------------------------- Lynchburg, VA May 2016 Abstract In this research, we discussed the types of evil: moral and natural, which are cited by atheistic philosophers as evidence against the existence of God. The so-called evidence from evil has been used by the atheistic and other non-theistic scholars to raise hypothesis on evaluating the possibility or likelihood that an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God exists in a world that is littered with evil. Moral evil is evil that arise from the misuse of free will by moral agents, while natural evils are natural disasters such as: earthquakes, famine, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. We discussed moral evil and Plantinga’s free will defense. We also discussed the natural evil and how it poses threat to theism. The logical and the evidential arguments from evil are the forms of arguments developed from moral and natural evils. While many scholars have agreed that Plantinga’s free will defense adequately responds to the problem of logical evil, the same consensus does not necessarily apply to the evidential argument from evil. We also examined William Rowe’s evidential argument which he developed from cases of intense animal and human sufferings considered by him to be pointless or gratuitous with no known reasons or goods for which God should have allowed the visceral experience of such sufferings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Liberal Doctrine of Hell and Universalism: a Transcendental Approach
    1 The Liberal Doctrine of Hell and Universalism: A Transcendental Approach By Daniel L. Broadstock BA (Hons), B.Ed A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy University of Divinity 2017 2 Abstract In this thesis I have applied a Kantian methodology to present a new approach to the problem of Hell. I have engaged with two leading perspectives in this debate, the ‘liberal doctrine of Hell’ and the doctrine of Universalism, and pursued dialogue with leading theologians of each view; Jerry Walls and Jurgen Moltmann respectively. The liberal model of Hell is a modern attempt to revitalise the doctrine by recasting its nature and purpose. Rather than an instrument for the punishment of sin, the liberal model interprets Hell as God’s response to human freedom. This theory holds that God has constituted human beings with free volition of the will and desires a free relationship with them. As it is possible to resist this invitation, he has also created Hell as a place of eternal separation for those who reject him. While the invitation of grace is never withdrawn, some will remain there forever. Universalism is the view that all human beings will be saved. I have sketched a general outline of these views, illustrating them with reference to arguments proposed by key thinkers in their respective fields. I conclude that they constitute an antinomy; an a priori dilemma abstract from experience and therefore unresolvable by philosophical reasoning. I suggest that the problem of Hell can be resolved by employing a theological adaptation of Kant’s transcendental idealism: eternal separation and universal salvation can both be true, if understood as compatible manifestations of different levels of reality and perception.
    [Show full text]