✯✯✯ Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis

Saturday, December 04, 2021 11:21:59 PM

Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis



If they both happen to confess, they each serve 5 years each, Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis 10 years between Case Study On Atlantic Waste Management. Well, then we shall bring forward. Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis term ethical egoism has Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis applied retroactively to philosophers such as Bernard de Mandeville and to Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis other materialists of his generation, although none Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis them declared themselves to be egoists. The Gods Must Be Crazy Analysis remember my Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis telling me, The eyes of God are on us always. This Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis the quality of Zoe or the Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis of the likeness of God. Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis should not arouse our anger; we Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis remember that we deal with minors, even though they may be called professors, lawyers, and the like. This phase is the creation of man in the image of God. Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis court Liputin would have protested his innocence just as Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis as Petrashevsky had done. Would not then Divine creativeness, replacing Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis present destruction Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis life, Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis us as a model for Role Of Panic In Contagion re-creation?

What is Divine Command Theory? (The Euthyphro Dilemma)

Beyond the evident snobbery in such an implication, none of this is true. And if I come across a philosopher who tells me that I may not be deluded or ignorant, but merely filling leisure hours discussing matters of little importance, since unrelated to existing objects that one can study scientifically, I should certainly close the book and not bother with it further. Early Positivism left behind a lot of scars of this sort, but it must be admitted that there have been long and difficult efforts to redress these over the decades, beginning with at least Austin and the later Wittgenstein. Sherlock Homes is a social entity; the empirical presentation of him is in the many texts in which he has appeared.

In a non-trivial sense going beyond Kripke , he is as real as any phenomenon of social interaction. In crude material terms, there is no such thing as theater. And we would not be wrong or even inexact, because people participating in that culture would understand the differing uses of the term in the contexts in which it was uttered. If the participants understand each other, what can the logician do but confuse the matter? A character in a work of fiction exists, in that it has a reality. This existence is clearly not the exact same as that of the theater building or theater play or theater the culture surrounding the performance of the play , but it is in the same domain and must be, since the characters in the play are all themselves fictional.

This provides us some grounding with regard to the following claims concerning the reality of a given fictional character. My immediate concern here is to discuss the fictional character of an ongoing serial narrative, Doctor Who more accurately, just the Doctor , who is about to receive a major revision by those responsible for producing the stories in which the character appears. Since first appearing in November of , this character has undergone several major revisions over a 54 year career, and many of these have been accounted for within the narrative by the fact that the Doctor is an alien, of a species capable of regenerating into not only different bodies but different personalities.

To introduce the Doctor, I will quote myself, from an article I wrote for the Doctor Who Ratings Guide , which will reveal what I believe to be an important nuclear property of the character. Principally, as a response to a wide-spread nostalgia for the type of scientist-adventurer appearing in Victorian literature, as evidenced by a slew of films based on this literature that were popular in the s:. Although the BBC Quatermass serials were set in the near future, the character of Bernard Quatermass is a clear throwback to the scientist heroes of H. Author Nigel Kneale was certainly a modern sci-fi writer, but the Quatermass character is just as clearly engaged in Victorian era scientist-heroics.

To me, it is not at all surprising that the Quatermass serials would be brought to theaters by Hammer Films, whose stock in trade was nostalgia for Victorian gothic. My point is not that the character of the Doctor was mere regurgitation of Bernard Quatermass; that is clearly not the case. My point is that Quatermass and the Doctor share the same literary and dramatic genealogy and that at the core of both is a nostalgia for the Victorian scientist hero of early science fiction. I think most fans of the Doctor are aware of it; but they seem to treat the matter lightly, as a kind of amusing subtext.

I am trying to point out that this nostalgia is at the very core of the Doctor, this is his personality, this is what he is: a Victorian scientist who happens to come from another planet from the far-off future. Since the BBC announced that the next regeneration of the Doctor would be portrayed by a female actor on July 16 th of this year, there has been the expected rounds of self-congratulatory back-patting among media-visible Feminists, as well as the inevitable trolling of negative responses from male chauvinists.

All too predictable and largely missing the real difficulty with this redefinition of the character. A fictional character not only exists within a work of art, but in the hands of a capable author or capable film makers is himself or herself a work of art. As such, the character will have — must have — certain continuing traits to remain recognizable as precisely this particular work of art, from appearance to appearance.

When such revision is no longer possible, the character fades from public view and eventually disappears. But there is a point at which revision of identifying traits itself erases something essential to the character; something that made him or her this particular character, this self-same, recurrent work of art. The American dime-novel hero, Nick Carter, was first imagined as a private detective in the New York of the s.

As he was redeveloped for the pulp magazines of the s, he accumulated new supporting characters, a new look, a new home, and got involved in cases readers of the time could recognize, such as dueling with organized crime. But eventually, the pulp magazines he inhabited disappeared, and he did with them. The original Nick Carter exercised properly, watched his diet, and took his vitamins. Killmaster Nick Carter did none of these things. More importantly, the original Nick Carter was a master of detective skills, including deduction, gathering clues, interrogation, and following people.

Killmaster Nick Carter demonstrated none of these skills, although he could commit cold-blooded murder and engage in ruthless torture, which the original Nick Carter would have found abhorrent. The Killmaster fans could have their Nick Carter. Mine belonged to a different historical moment, now buried in the past and only accessible in fits of nostalgia.

Instead, it seems to derive from a conception of the Doctor as an institution rather than as a character. Another way to look at it: Cannot a female character be generated in serial works of fiction as dynamic, charismatic, interesting and admirable as the Doctor and achieve similar success in popular entertainment without being the Doctor? Or must women always wait for male models to be institutionalized in order to colonize them? Obviously, this is not applicable to real institutions such as governments. At what point is such a character revised beyond recognition, effectively becoming a different character? Her name is Sherlock Holmes. Okay, fine; but is she the character that Conan Doyle imagined?

But even the Moffett-Gatiss Sherlock evidences deductive actually abductive detective skills. I think our Holmes from Bahrain is unrecognizable, lacking this. The only way we could justify our Bahrainian Holmes is by assuming that Holmes is an institution, not a character, and it was time for Muslim psychics to be given their time inhabiting its leadership. Does this make any sense? Where had my Victorian scientist flown? Some Feminists say we ought to have a female James Bond another institution?

And then promote the franchise four-wall, as they say. I was a white boy, and I wanted to be like John Shaft. Hell, I wanted to be like him more than like James Bond, who was always so uptight about what champagne to drink. The same is true of Modesty Blaise. We need to find ways to broaden audience expectations, certainly; but we should also respect characters as characters, and not treat them as institutions.

And we should remember that the work of cultural change is not in colonizing existing forms, but inventing new ones and promoting them properly. My point is not that the Doctor of Doctor Who should not be a woman; the BBC owns the rights to the character and may do with it what they will. Rather, my point is that it is misguided to conceive of a fictional character as an institution. James 13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me. I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions. Ezekiel 25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; Amos 6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?

When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? So when anyone thinks of the deity as the being of the old bible stories the problem of evil is "solved" by abandoning the concept that creates the problem in the first place. If one thinks of the deity as a parent not knowing what its children will do or not responsible for what its children do or as some being testing humans or not able to prevent evil then the problem is "solved" by abandoning the concept that creates the problem in the first place when the deity is changed from a being with infinitely good properties and powers into a mere human.

The Problem of Evil arises as an attempt to give an account that makes sense as to how an all perfect being could exist at the same time that there exists moral evil. Troubles with a simple belief prompt critical reflection and the desire to use reason to support the belief system. Consideration of the troublesome issues led to Augustine and Aquinas moving beyond the traditions of faith and into philosophical thought and a reliance on reason to interpret and defend key beliefs in the Christian tradition. Of these two types, we may further divide both of them into the following two classes:.

The problem itself arises because of certain qualities which religious believers grant to God, and the consequences of these given certain observations about the world. To illustrate these consider three qualities that most religious believers would not want to deny to the deity, the single deity and Supreme Being, the God: absolute goodness omnibenevolence , absolute power omnipotence and absolute knowledge omniscience. Now, add to this the observation that there is evil in the world. Setting aside for the moment the question of how a good God could create a world with evil in it, ask yourself why such a deity does not do something to help combat such evil. Many theologians and philosophers over the centuries have asked this question and we will now look at some of the answers they have given.

According to the history of this issue and contemporary concerns it is moral evil that is the crux of the problem more than natural evil. Natural evil may be conceived of as simply part of nature and not evil at all. However, there are those who think that it may be possible to accept that God accepts moral evil and such evil may have a purpose or explanation consist with the existence of a supreme being but that there could be no good reason for God to have natural evil in the Universe. There is therefore the argument against the existence of God based on Natural Evil. Conclusion God does not exist. If there was no pain we would not appreciate being well and pleasure. How then is the Supreme Being the deity, the creator of all to be considered as all good if the deity created evil as well as the good that there is?

If evil is not directly the creation of the deity but comes about through the actions of a fallen angel, LUCIFER, and the weakness of human beings who succumb to temptation to do moral evil then how is it not the result of what the deity has done? If all comes from the deity then would not evil as well as the good come from the deity? Bible stories do not solve the Problem of Evil they make it worse as they are stories from the Hebrews who did not think of the deity as being All Perfect and All Good.

The idea of the deity in the early bible stories is not the idea or concept of the deity that produces the Problem of Evil. The deity of the Hebrews appears not able to place a check on Lucifer. The deity of the Hebrews might not have been thought of as being All Powerful. Thus, the use of the bible to address the Problem of Evil merely introduces troublesome historical elements into the entire matter. If there is a fallen angel responsible for the evil and then the deity is the creator of that angel then why is the deity not respinsible for the evil done by the fallen angel if the deity knew before creating the angel everything that the abgel would do?

The Hebrew deity had not the All Knowing characteristic of later thought. So for the Hebrews and their stories there is no problem of evil because they did not have the Concept of the Deity that produces the Problem of Evil. One approach to dealing with the problem and solving it in some sense is to chaneg the idea of the deity Process Theology to something closer to the earlier ideas. Take away the All Powerful or the All Knwoing or the All Good character of the deity and there is no problem of evil as there was none until after the Christian era began.

Any attempt to make the existence of an All-knowing, All-powerful and All-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil is known as a Theodicy. It is an attempt to justify the ways of god to humans. It is as attempt to explain the coexistence of God and Evil. N ow what operates in these attempts to rescue the idea of the existence of a deity from the charge that there can not be a deity if there is moral evil is the very subtle altering of the idea of the deity from that of a supreme and all perfect being to something other than that.

All criticisms of these apologists or defenders involve exposing the subtle attempt to convert the idea of the supreme being from one that so perfect as to generate the Problem of Evil in the first place to the idea of the deity as not quite being all perfect or all knowing or all powerful or all good. The Problem of Evil is the result of :. The inconsistency in the ideas of an all knowing, all powerful and all good being that is the creator of the universe with the existence of moral evil. For the Christians the idea of the Hebrew deity was not going to be acceptable to those whom they hoped to convert: those who had come under the influence of the Greek manner of thought, those other than the Hebrews.

The Christians take the idea of the all perfect being , the source of all that is true, good and beautiful, from the Greeks and layer it over the idea of the single deity of the Hebrews and the history of that idea as presented in the Hebrew scriptures. Augustine : Humans are free and Humans have fallen because they are as children. Augustine proposed a solution to the problem by blaming it on the Fall of Humanity after the disobedience in the Garden of Eden. From this view, humankind is responsible for evil by being led astray by Satan. This not only absolves the deity, the God, of creating evil but also allows the deity to show the world its love by bringing a form or version of itself into physical form in the presence of the Christ into the world.

The Supreme Being, God, is seen as involved in soul making. Humans are growing from bios to zoe: from undeveloped life to divine love and spiritual life. However, t he existence of Evil leads to the questioning of the existence of an all loving and all good and powerful deity. The large amount of EVIL is particularly difficult to explain. Irenaeus Developmental and Teleological view God is involved with soul making. Irenaeus AD thought that the existence of evil actually serves a purpose. From his point of view, evil provides the necessary problems through which we take part in what he calls "soul-making". From this point of view, evil is a means to an end in as much as if it did not exist, there would be no means of spiritual development.

However , with this view god is the author of evil and although it has a purpose it challenges the nature of god as being all good. Irenaeus' view has been put forward in modern times by such philosophers as John Hick Evil and the God of Love, and Richard Swinburne. According to this view the pains and sufferings of the world are meant by God to act as a means of producing a truly good person. Using human suffering as a means to good is criticized and condemned on the grounds that the suffering of one child can never be justified in terms of what good results. Again this defense of the deity brings into question the all -good aspect of the deity. John Hick: Developmental and Teleological view God is involved with soul making. Hick's answer involves interpreting the creation story in Genesis in a non-literal fashion.

Rather than regarding the story as an account of what has already happened, he suggests that we consider it an account of what is currently taking place. The idea here is that we are an integral part of God's creation. In essence, we have not yet reached the final 'day' of creation. God is still, in a way, creating humanity using us as tools and as that which is shaped. This earth is seen as a factory for making souls. This creation requires the possibility that we suffer in order to provide incentive for improvement. Connelly, Longview Community College.

Hick, John. It is a theodicy cased on the free will defense. The majority of theodicies that have dominated Western Christendom are Augustinian in nature. According to St. Augustine, God created man without sin and placed him in a paradise free of sin. The decline of man occurred as a result of his weakness in the face of temptation and his misuse of free will. This theory holds that the grace of God will save some of humanity, but at the same time, some of humanity will suffer eternal damnation.

It is two centuries older than the Augustinian tradition, and it holds that man was not created as a complete being without sin that proceeded to rebel and fall from grace. Instead, Hick argues, man is in a constant state of creational evolvement. According to the Irenean tradition, man is created in two steps, Bios and Zoe. The first step, Bios is the creation of the physical universe and organic life.

This phase continues with the creation of man, an organic being with a personal life who is capable of having a relationship with God. This phase is the creation of man in the image of God. The second phase of this creation is man achieving goodness and personal worth. This is the quality of Zoe or the attainment of the likeness of God.

For a parent to produce a well-rounded, moral child, there is a two-fold process. First there is the actual conception and birth of the child, which can be compared to the physical creation of man. The second step for a parent is to teach the child the difference between wrong and right and between good and bad. The parent must teach the child how to avoid temptation and live the good life. On a larger scale, man must learn how to live the good life as God sees fit.

Since humankind is endowed with free will, this must be a cooperative effort. Some would argue that God could have just created man in this final, perfected state from the outset. However, Hick argues that doing so would be akin to God creating man as a pet in a cage. Additionally, he argues that such initial perfection would not be nearly as valuable as perfection achieved through trial and error. Hick claims that it would be impossible for the deity to have created human with free will and yet not with the ability to choose evil.

Hick claims that either humans are made free and that leads to moral evil or else they are made without freedom as with robots and that would make it possible to avoid there being any acts of moral evil. It is better that there be free will and so the deity made the universe with free will in it and that leads to the existence of moral evil. Madden and Hare : Counter to John Hick. These two philosophers argue against the position of Hick. They claim that Hick commits three fallacies:. They claim that it is possible that there could be a universe created by a deity that could have creatures of free will who do not choose evil. God could have chosen not to permit those humans to be conceived that god knew in advance of their conception would use their free will to choose and to do evil.

The deity, God, might permit only those fetuses to develop that creator deity, God, knew in advance would lead to the birth and life of basically good person who would avoid choosing to do evil. Madden, Edward H. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Edward Madden and Peter H. Hare begin by stating three fallacies that are often employed in attempts to solve the Problem of Evil. Madden and Hare give an analogy of God as a headmaster at a liberal school. God does not want to have students who learn only because they fear punishment. Instead, he wants students who take an active role in learning for the love of knowledge. Thus, God declares that there are no rules and no organized classes at his school, and each student will be responsible for his own education.

However, simply because strict rules would result in negative consequences does not mean that having no regulation is ideal. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that, just as it is a false dichotomy to assert that God had no other options in creating humans. However, Madden and Hare disagree. Once again Hick utilizes a false dichotomy in asserting that God either must tell all about himself or remain aloof. Hick argues that some evil is necessary in order for mankind to achieve goodness, and that goodness achieved through trial and error is better than goodness given to man from the outset. Madden and Hare argue, however, that simply because goodness might come from evil, this argument only shows that evil would be even worse if good did not result from it.

In essence, the argument really does not show a need for evil. It only shows that it could be worse, there could be no resulting good. However, Madden and Hare point out that this argument ignores the fact that just as easily as it could be worse, it could also be better. Hick also claims that if God were to begin removing evil, there would be no point at which to stop, unless He removed all evil. Hick argues that if God were to remove all evil, He would be creating a hedonistic paradise, and soul-making would be impossible in such a world. However, this is a slippery slope argument. In effect, Hick asserts that God would have no method to gauge the effect of removing each type of evil. Madden and Hare point out that God could remove evil to the point where there was just enough to justify it as a means to an end of soul making.

Finally, Hick appeals to mystery in his argument. He says that the mystery of why God does what He does also helps to foster soul making. Again, he employs the all or nothing strategy by saying that without the occasional unjust, unwarranted or needless evil, there would be no sympathy. Madden and Hare note that there are three ways of criticizing this idea. First off, it is possible to have sympathy for those who are suffering as a means to a desired end, such as a husband sympathizing with his wife who is suffering from labor pains. The suffering brings about both sympathy and a desired end. A miniscule amount of suffering would do just as well. Finally, unjust suffering may cause compassion, but it also breeds resentment. Madden and Hare argue that it is likely that the negative aspects of resentment would outweigh the positive ones of compassion.

Mackie : suggested reading: J. Mackie and the Problem of Evil. Alvin Plantinga : against Mackie. A modern advocate of Augustine's view can be found in Alvin Plantinga God, Freedom and Evil , who claimed that for God to have created a being who could only have performed good actions would have been logically impossible. Here are his basic points:. This is the idea that humans sin in all possible worlds or else.

Therefore, every world that God creates must have not only the possibility of evil in it but actual evil as well. In examining the Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga holds that the Free Will Defense is an acceptable method for overcoming the claim that the Problem of Evil negates the existence of God. Additionally, God cannot simultaneously give these creatures the freedom to commit evil and yet prevent them from doing so. One objection to the Free Will Defense is that it is possible for beings that are capable of committing evil to never do so. Those who object to the Free Will Defense use this line of argument to assert that either God is not wholly good or that God is not omnipotent.

Plantinga also offers the argument of Leibniz who stated that since before creation, God had the choice of creating any one of a multitude of worlds, and since the omnipotent and all good God chose to create this world, it must be the best possible world. Although there are many possible worlds that contain moral good without moral evil, this world does not have to be the best of all possible worlds.

Additionally, due to the freedom of action ascribed to humans, God could not create any one of a multitude of worlds, however, He does retain omnipotence. In response to the claim that god could have created a world containing moral good but no moral evil, Plantinga argues that in creating a world in which God actively causes people to do good, they are no longer free. In order to create a world containing only moral good yet also containing people suffering from transworld depravity, God would have to create people who were significantly free but at the same time would, by virtue of their transworld depravity, at some point commit evil in regards to at least one action in any possible world.

Thus, the consequence of creating a world in which these sufferers of transworld depravity commit moral good is creating a world in which these persons commit at least one morally evil act. Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Harper and Row, This view was later criticized by Anthony Flew and J. Mackie, who both argue that God could have chosen to create good people who still possessed free-will and chose only the good.

Using evil to produce good. Those who argue that the deity is using evil to bring about good and so somehow good produces good have to contend with the following counter argument that establishes that there must be some evil that does not produce the good in any way: that there is a high probability that there exists purely gratuitous moral evil. The Evidential Problem of Evil : The inductive argument against the existence of the all perfect deity. William Rowe :. It is possible that there are and have been acts of evil that have not led to any good result whatsoever. Thus, the argument to defend god based on the claim that the deity is using evil for some good purpose is defeated.

Based on the mere possibility of an act of evil, human suffering, that is completely gratuitous. It would be an act in which a human does an evil act and another human suffers as a result but he act is not witnessed by anyone and both the evil doer and the victim of the evil deed die without communicating it to anyone directly or indirectly. It is possible for such an act to occur and is so then there would be no possibility for it to teach any lesson to anyone. There would be no possibility for it to lead to a greater good. This is an inductive argument because it is based upon possibility. It defeats the defense of the existence of an all perfect deity that is all good and all powerful and all knowing at the same time. If there were a God, He would not have allowed any completely pointless instances of suffering.

So, it is quite probable that God does not exist. This simple, concise proof makes the existence of God very unlikely granted the fact of pointless suffering in the world. Obviously this argument is valid, but the terms must be clarified to understand the full power of this demonstration. The God that Rowe is referring to is the traditional God of Christian Theism, a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly benevolent.

An instance of pointless suffering would be one that God "could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good" Rowe Thus, God would be permitting pointless suffering if, by not intervening, an obvious opportunity for some greater good was lost, or an even more horrific evil was to result. He mentions the example of a suffering young fawn: "suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire, the fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering" Rowe Now it seems quite evident that "no greater good.

Therefore, you may conclude that such suffering was, in all probability, pointless. Probability is dependent on the amount of background information and, therefore, one would require omniscience to know the full extent of the above example. To this objection, the atheist may respond in the form of a question: is it reasonable to hold that throughout the entire course of human history, there was not at least one case of pointless suffering? Was not a single one of those deaths pointless, given the others? Think about the Crusades and the slaughtering of innocent women and children by "Christians" who claimed to have permission from God Himself. Is it not eminently reasonable to hold that at least one of these instances of innocent suffering was pointless?

To establish the second premise, all that is needed is one such case. Draper, although hopeful that theism is true, points out that there are two problems that may prevent theism from being true. Those two problems are evolution and evil. Draper attempts to show that evolution is more likely to be true on evolution than on theism. He points out that for naturalists, there is a lack of plausible alternatives to evolution, while for the theist, who starts out with such grandiose things as omniscience and omnipotence, anything is possible. Some theists argue that the complex and well ordered evolution of some beings is not possible without divine intervention. Draper gives the example of the human eye. Some theists argue that evolution cannot completely explain exactly how the eye became so incredibly complex.

However, Draper points out that no one has yet to offer solid reasons why evolution could not have achieved the complexity seen in the human eye. While Draper admits that there are some gaps in the knowledge that we have regarding evolution, he counters the arguments based upon these gaps by saying that there is no good reason to believe that naturalist solutions to the problems or questions relating to evolution will eventually be found, as many have already been discovered. Draper then goes on to discuss the pattern of pleasure and pain in conjunction with evolution as an evidential argument for naturalism over theism. Draper points out that there are countless connections between pain, pleasure and reproductive success.

In order for humans to be successful in reproduction, they must maintain a constant body temperature. By pointing out that the blind process of natural selection is what drives evolution and that often a strong trait such as walking upright that gives a species reproductive advantages would be furthered even though it may also come with weaker traits such as back and foot problems , Draper argues that natural selection is much more probable on evolutionary naturalism than on theism. Additionally, if natural selection drives evolution, it is most likely that the evolution of pain and pleasure also arose from natural selection, thus inherently linking pain and pleasure to reproductive success.

Draper says that this idea is furthered by our knowledge that many parts of organic systems are methodically conjoined to reproductive success. The moral randomness of pleasure and pain i. Although neither naturalism nor theism has been proven to be true or false, Draper argues that the ratio of the probability of naturalism is much greater than the ratio of the probability of theism. Since theism and naturalism are opposite hypotheses, they cannot both be true simultaneously. Therefore, all things considered, evolution and natural selection provides a powerful argument against theism.

Draper, Paul. Louis P. Pojman, ed. An Atheistic Perspective by Thomas Rauchenstein. For a Greater Good? Peter E. Evil and the Power of God by C. READ: C. Lewis and David Hume on the Problem of Evil. Perhaps the most common theodicy is the so-called free-will argument - very similar to Augustine's argument. God creates humans with free will because that is better more perfect than to create them without free will. God who is all perfect must do what is the best. To create humans who would only do good would be to deny them free will. It is free will that is the source of evil and not the God that created the evil doers. Evil is the result of human error 2. Human error results from free-will the ability to do wrong 3. If we didn't have free-will we would be robots 4.

God prefers a world of free agents to a world of robots 5. Evil is therefore an unfortunate - although not unavoidable outcome - of free-will 6. For God to intervene would be to go take away our free-will 7. Therefore, God is neither responsible for evil nor guilty of neglect for not intervening. Argument against the free will defense:. Consider these cases meant to illustrate that the deity is not removed from responsibility for evil even if humans have free will. Free Will Defense 1: The deity is not responsible for the evil but people are responsible all by themselves and without the involvement of the deity because they have and use free will to choose evil. If people do exactly what their deity created them to do then why would they be punished for doing what the creator created them to do?

If the creator knows that the fetus will become a child and grow into a mass murderer and the deity proceeds to allow the conception and the birth and the growth of that human being and then allows that being to get the means together and commit the murders then why would the human being be punished for what the creator-deity made that human being to do? If it is the choice of the human to kill was it not the choice of the creator to make the being that will choose to do the evil?

Counter Example Situation 1. Let's say I run a sports and gun shop in a small town. Someone I know, Joe, comes running into the store and wants to but an automatic weapon. Joe is very agitated and angry and he tells me hat he hates all those women across the street in the bakery shop and he is going to teach them a lesson. I tell him that he should not hurt anyone. He says sell me the gun and I do. He tells me he is going to kill those women. I tell him it is wrong to do that and he should not do that. He asks me to sell him the ammunition for the weapon he just bought and I sell it to him. He says he will kill every last one of those women and I say he must not do it. I tell him it is very bad. He asks me to show him how to shoot the weapon and I teach him. I warn him again not to use it to kill people.

He goes out of the store and crosses the street and kills everyone of the women. When the police question me, I tell them the whole story and I point out that it was not my fault because Joe had free will and I warned him and told him not to do it! Well, most humans would hold me responsible just based on what it was reasonable to think that Joe would do given what Joe said before leaving my store. If I am responsible in part for the killings then what about God who gave Joe life and knew for sure what Joe would do with that life? I only know pretty darn well what he would do with the weapon.

God knows for sure and can stop anything. Or else, God does not know or God does not have all power. Free Will Defense 2: The deity is not responsible for the evil but people are responsible all by themselves and without the involvement of the deity because they have and use free will to choose evil. Counter Example Situation 2. I ask some human being, say Susan, to baby sit for a group of eight children aged 3 to 7.

I ask Susan to watch them for 5 hours. They are playing in the very large ballroom of a mansion. In the ballroom are a large number of toys, electronic games and small rides for children. Some workers had been removing paint from the iron windows and left cans of paint at the far end of the ballroom where the windows are. There is also paint remover, thinners, flammable liquids and a blowtorch they have been using to get the old paint off of the window frames.

I return five hours later to find the mansion on fire, Susan out in front with three of the children. The other children were trapped inside and burned to death. I ask her what happened and she said she stepped out of the ballroom for a break and when she returned it was on fire. I ask her how she could do such a thing and she replies that she only stepped out for five minutes and he warned the children before she did so not to touch the materials at the end of the ballroom near the windows. She told them that it was very dangerous. They touched those things anyway. Now if some human made those claims there are few rational adults who would not think that the person who was left to watch the children was responsible for the harm that came to them.

That Susan should have known. If this is what we would think about Susan, then what should we think about GOD, who is supposed to know everything about the past, present and future and is all powerful as well? I f we would hold Susan responsible in part for the harm to the children then even more so we must hold the deity responsible for evil since the deity that is all knowing and all powerful could have and should have stopped it as Susan should have stayed with the children to prevent harm. Counter Example Situation 3. Now think. If the deity made the humans to do the evil knowing they would choose the evil then is the deity also responsible for that evil?

The deity says to you and I if we go through door 3 we will produce a child that will murder more than people. We hear what the deity tells us and believe that the deity knows the future and then we go through door 3. The child grows up and kills people. Would you and I be responsible for those deaths in any way? We might have gone through door 1 or door 2 or door 4 etc Well, if we would be in part responsible so would the deity who knows in advance and then chooses to create or allow to be conceived the killer of people. Free Will Defense 3: The deity is supposed to be all perfect and all good , all knowing and all powerful at the same time. A manufacturer of automobiles make two different models.

The testing of one model prior to sale indicates that it has defects in the brake system likely to cause brake failure, accidents, injuries and deaths. The other model is tested and the results indicate no problems at all. The manufacturer decides to proceed with the production and sale of both models. The model with known faults does have numerous brake failures resulting in many injuries and deaths. The manufacturer is held liable for those injuries and deaths due to prior knowledge of the defect and the likelihood of brake failure resulting in injuries and deaths. Now if instead of the manufacturer of automobiles the deity is the creator of humans. The deity knows in advance how each human will use free will the deity has given the human.

The deity knows in advance which humans will use free will to choose evil. The deity chooses which humans will actually be born and survive and live to do those things he deity knows in advance that they will choose to do of their own free will. There would be no denial of free will and no making of puppets out of humans if the deity choose that the humans who choose evil instead of good are not born in the first place. Such humans would be conceived but not born, experiencing a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage or were to die soon after birth and before the start of the evil doing. But evidence is that if there is a deity then the deity chooses not to act in this way and so the deity chooses the evil to occur through the actions of the humans that were created by the deity knowing in advance of their actual physical existence that they would choose evil.

Thus, the deity is responsible for the evil acts and their consequences. Therefore the deity cannot be all good and all knowing and all powerful at the same time. The Free Will Defense does not really solve the Problem of Evil for the deity is seen as not being all good because the being is in part responsible for evil. Free Will Defense 4: The deity is testing humans by giving them free will in order to determine if they will use that free will to do good or to do evil.

Those who use free will to choose the good will be rewarded and those who choose evil will be punished. If god is giving a test what kind of a being would that make god? If god is all-knowing would god know the results of all such tests before the tests were even administered? If god made humans and made them with free will and knows before they are born how they will use that free will and then goes ahead and makes them be born,. Counter Example Situation 4 If I knew in advance everything my dog was going to do and then let my dog loose and it bit someone I would be responsible for that harm! Why isn't the deity responsible for what the deity knows its creations will do before they are even created?

After all according to the belief system in the Supreme Being that is all-perfect, the deity chooses who to create!!!!! Counter Example Situation 5 If an instructor gave an examination to a class and the instructor knew that the materials on the exam had not been covered in the course and that few , if any, students would be able to pass the examination, well what sort of an instructor would that be? Why is not the deity that is all knowing not in the same position as that instructor in terms of fairness and justice?

This argument by analogy is offered to defeat the defense of the deity as being all good based on the idea that the deity is using evil to test humans creatures with free will. This defense Evil is part of a Test does not really solve the Problem of Evil for it challenges the characteristic of an all perfect being being all good and all just. What each of the defenses of the supreme being does is to subtly alter the idea of the Supreme Being by weakening or ignoring one or more of the characteristics of that being that led to or created the inconsistency or contradiction that is termed the "Problem of Evil".

In each of these defenses the deity permits or creates evil or is unable or unwilling to reduce or remove evil. The defenses do not succeed against the criticisms and do not solve the Problem of Evil so that the traditional nature of the Supreme Being is preserved and seen as consistent with the existence of moral evil because they in one form or another rely upon the altering of the idea of the supreme being by either reducing or denying one of its characteristics that is responsible for the problem in the first place.

If the Problem of Evil as it has been approached by the theodicists has not been solved or dealt with in a manner that satisfies critics what other approaches may be taken? The other three options will now be examined. Evil is only a part of the overall good and does not exist in itself. I f the deity is all perfect then any universe created by that deity could not be anything less than perfect.

This universe that does exist must therefore be the best possible. If this is so and there is what appears to be evil in this universe then that evil is not really evil at all but some necessary part or feature of the best of all possible worlds. Humans do not have the viewpoint of the deity. Humans cannot see the universe as seen by the deity. Humans focus on some aspect of the whole and give it a name "evil" and then think that evil has some existence or fore on its own. When the entire creation is seen by the deity it appears to be beautiful and what humans call evil is seen by the deity as necessary feature of the overall beautiful creation.

Humans cannot get past the human perspective that is finite. Humans are viewing the canvas of a beautiful oil painting. They view the work of art by standing very close and focusing on the dark smudges dabs of gray and brown and black paint which they call evil. However, if the viewer would step back the viewer of the painting see the beauty of the work and the dabs of paint previously thought to be ugly or evil would be seen as all part of the beautiful work of art. The problem is that humans cannot step back and view the painting for the view of the deity.

So, for humans here is the appearance of the feature that they call evil. From the viewpoint of the deity that which humans call evil is not evil at all but a part of the overall creation. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.

Separatory Funnel Lab Report is Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis a part Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis the overall good and does not exist in itself. If the kind of life that is Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis Sheryl Sandberg The Leadership Ambition Gap Analysis reproduced is simply the Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis of a physical Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis that Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis capable of engaging in physical Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis i. We may also observe that Myshkin, although generally considered Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis simpleton, is actually very far from stupid. For if there were something in the other world, it is surely not Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis such as they. Its successor, Epoch, ended almost as soon as plain tales from the hills began Dostoevskys Divine Command Theory Analysis the death of Mikhail Dostoevsky, the indispensable man behind the scenes.

Web hosting by Somee.com