UNIT 3 REVISION(MR PLATTS’ UNIT)

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Types of evilNATURAL – evil caused naturally in the world e.g. earthquakes, volcanoes

MORAL – caused by people e.g. murder, war

The logical problem of evilA God who’s omnibenevolent will have a motive to get rid of evil

A God who’s omnipotent will have the ability

Evil exists in the world

Therefore God doesn’t exist, or he is not omnibenevolent/omnipotent

The evidential problem of evil – RoweIf evil resulted in a greater good then suffering might be justified but the act is still considered evil

God could prevent suffering without removing a greater good

Unnecessary evil points to the non-existence of the God of classical theism

The inconsistent triad – Mackie

God is omnipotent

God is omnibenevolent Evil exists

Evil makes the existence of God impossible. Evil and God are incompatible. God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent and evil exist at the same time.

The inconsistent triad – HumeOnly two of the three can exist alongside each other

Either God isn’t either omnipotent or omnibenevolent, or evil doesn’t exist

The consequences of evil are too prominent to deny so it does exist

Therefore God must not be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, or he doesn’t exist

AugustineThe bible shows God is wholly good

He created a perfect world and created all things good

Evil isn’t good therefore God cannot have created evil

Evil doesn’t exist, it is simply the privation of good

Evil comes from humans and fallen angels who have free will but have chosen to turn away from God

Perfection was ruined by human sin

It wouldn’t be right for God to intervene with suffering so God is justified in allowing us to suffer

He sent Jesus to earth to take the punishment for sin so that all believers can be saved

Criticism – SchleiermacherIt’s a logical contradiction to say a perfectly created world went wrong

Either the world wasn’t perfect to start with or God made it so that there was the possibility the world could go wrong

It’s God who’s to blame

The free will defenceFree will is essential to humanity

We need evil to have free will

We need evil and free will to be able to make our own choices about believing in God

STRENTHS WEAKNESSES

Swinburne – if God intervened it would jeopardise freedom, God can’t act like anoverprotective parent

Vardy – natural evil doesn’t always bringabout good

Plantinga – can’t always choose God or wouldn’t be free, enables humans to get into heaven

Mackie – God has the capability of creating free will where all people choose good and don’t want to sin

Blames humans not God

Logical

IrenaeusEvil traced back to free will

God didn’t make a perfect world

Evil plays a valuable plan in God’s plan

Goodness and perfection had to be developed by humans

Evil allows us to develop virtues

Evil and suffering will be overcome and humanity will live in heaven

Criticisms of IrenaeusSuggests everyone goes to heaven

Challenges don’t always result in positive human development

Love can’t be expressed by allowing suffering

HickIf God made humans perfectly we’d all be robots

Humans need free will

God had to create humans at an epistemic distance

In this way, God isn’t so close to humans that we have no choice but to believe in him

Process thought – GriffinGod didn’t create the universe as it’s an uncreated process

God is part of the universe, therefore part of suffering with us

God’s role in creation was to start off the evolutionary process

God doesn’t have total control

He can’t stop evil

God’s actions are justified as the universe produced sufficient good to outweigh evil

WEAKNESSES

Denies God’s omnipotence

Questions whether a limited God is worthy of worship

God could still prevent evil

RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE

The problem of religious languageSome say religious language is cognitive (communicates knowledge, information and facts about God)

Something about God can be known

However, religious statements aren’t facts

Therefore religious language is meaningless

Via negative – AquinasNegative way

We can’t talk about God in positive terms as it’s misleading and confusing

We must only talk of God in negative terms such as what he’s not

CRITICISM

Davies – describing something as what it’s not gives no clue to what he is

Verification principle – AyerIf we verify a statement we check its truth against a body of evidence or facts

A statement which can’t be conclusively verified can’t be verified at all

It’s simply devoid of any meaning

Denys the possibility of God’s existence altogether

No way of empirically verifying his existence

Analytic propositions: statements that contain all the information within the statement that we need to verify it

Synthetic propositions: statements that can be confirmed through the use of the senses

Strong verification: an assertion only has meaning if it can be verified according to empirical information

Weak verification: for an assertion to be true one simply has to state what kind of evidence would verify its’ contents

Falsification principle – FlewAny statement that can’t be falsified is empty of meaning

Religious language is meaningless

Nothing can count against religious statements

They can’t be verified or falsified because believers won’t accept ay evidence to count against their beliefs

Criticism – Hare Flew didn’t understand the nature of religious beliefs

“Bliks” = basic beliefs about the world

Basic beliefs are “bliks” as they’re neither verifiable nor falsifiable

We all have a blik

Aquinas Analogy of attribution: qualities we ascribe to each other are a reflection of the qualities of God

When we see these attributes in others we’re able to make analogies with the attributes of God

Analogy of proportion: these properties depend on the nature of the being that possesses them

When we use words to describe God we’re describing an infinite being

When we use words to describe each other we’re describing finite beings

Therefore the meaning of these words can’t be the same

Tillich Religious language ought to be understood in a different way

Religious language is cognitive

We’re able to learn something about God from religious language, but our words become more symbolic

Symbolic: point us towards something else

Criticism – Randall Religious language is symbolic but non-cognitive

It doesn’t tell us anything about the external reality, only human experiences

Bultman A myth is the use of imagery to express the other-worldly

Myth: ancient stories unlikely to be true, but they convey the values and beliefs of a community

It draws the readers in and requires a response

They’re not the literal truth, but a deep truth

Language games – Wittgenstein Language is like playing a game with rules

There are agreed rules within the group on how words are used

Those outside of the game cannot understand the true meaning of the words

Therefore those outside the game believe that religious language is meaningless

Only those inside the game who understand the context of the word can know its’ true meaning

Supporter – Phillips He suggests that no one outside of the game can criticise the belief

Some problems caused by religious language exist because we take the language literally

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The ontological argumentA priori argument

God’s existence is different to that of humans

Humans are contingent whereas God is necessary

Anselm Theistic argument

Faith seeking understanding

Response to Psalms: “the fool says to himself, ‘there is no God’”

Began with his definition of God – God is a being that which nothing greater can be conceived

Premise 1 God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived

Premise 2 Something that really exists is greater than something just in thought

Premise 3 If there’s really nothing greater than God, then he can’t just exist in the mind

Premise 4 God exists in the mind and reality

Criticism – On behalf of the fool and the perfect island – Gaunilo Just because you can imagine a perfect thing (e.g. a lost island) doesn’t mean it exists in reality

We know it doesn’t exist in reality, as we can only imagine it in our mind

You would be a fool to think it did exist in reality

If Anselm’s argument can be used to prove the existence of a non-existent island then it’s flawed

Anselm’s responseYou can’t compare God to an island

Islands are contingent

God is necessaryPremise 1 God is a being than which nothing

greater can be conceived

Premise 2 It’s greater to be necessary than contingent

Premise 3 If God’s only contingent then a greater being could be imagined that doesn’t exist

Premise 4 This being would be greater than God

Premise 5 God is necessary

Criticism – Kant Rejects Anselm’s definition of God

A necessary existence is something that the non-existence of is impossible

Defence – Malcolm God can’t come into existence by cause or chance

If he doesn’t already exist then his existence would be impossible

If he does exist he can’t stop existing

God’s existence is necessary

Criticism – Davies Malcolm fails to realise the word “is” can be used in different ways

E.g. The horse “is” brown

E.g. There “is” such thing as a dragon

Descartes Even if a triangle had never existed, they’d still have distinct characteristics (e.g. 3 sides, 3 angles)

God exists as an idea in the mind

God is a supremely perfect being

God necessarily exists because that’s where our idea of God came from

As imperfect beings we can’t develop that idea ourselves, it was put there by God

Existence is a predicate of God

He must possess existence otherwise he wouldn’t be perfect

God must exist in reality

God without existence is like a triangle without 3 sides – it’s not possible

Criticism – Kant Existence isn’t a predicate

If we say something exists we’re not giving it characteristics

Unicorn analogy – we can’t conceive an existing unicorn not existing, so do unicorns exist?

I don’t exist!

Possible worlds – PlantingaGod is a being of maximal greatness

Such a being would exist necessarily

To exist contingently means to depend on other factors

However, this would mean God isn’t maximally great

This being’s existence isn’t impossible in an infinite number of possible worlds

Therefore, this being has to exist necessarily in all worlds