GOD’S WORDS READING GOD’S OTHER BOOK GOD’S WORKS.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
General Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God The argument that an all-powerful, all- knowing, and perfectly good God would not allow any—or.
Advertisements

The Fine-Tuning Argument One common response to this argument goes thus: Of course the universe is of a sort suitable for life. If it were not, no one.
Chapter 8 Three more questions to answer; evolution, eternal condemnation, and the problem of evil.
Soul Making & The Afterlife
The Problem of Evil: How Can an All-Good, All-Powerful God Exist and There Still Be Evil in the World? Dostoevsky: God and evil are not reconcilable: evil.
Discovering HOPE in the midst of evil SUFFERING AND THE HIDDENNESS OF GOD.
Rachels Chapter 4 Does Morality Depend on Religion?
When answering a part D question
Swinburne’s argument from design
The evidential problem of evil
Problems of evil.  Natural and moral  Moral evil: evil which results from a moral agent misusing his or her freewill such that the agent is blameworthy.
Balance: and trusting God through the uncertainty of life.
Defenses of God (“Theodicies”): How Can an All-Good, All-Powerful God Exist and There Still Be Evil in the World? 1.Pain is useful as a warning of injury.
Philosophy of Religion Michael Lacewing
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey.
Christians can use the Bible and the Church as sources of authority Reflect on your own opinion on the authority of the Bible and the Church. Christians.
Challenges We Must Face Every generation has their own challenges to face. Nothing new under the sun.
Why So Much Suffering? Robert C. Newman. The Usual Objection If God is all-powerful, He is able to stop suffering, isn’t He? If God is perfectly righteous,
Apologetics Session 2: The problem of suffering. “Apologetics”????  “…but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defence.
HUME ON THE PROBLEM OF EVIL Text source: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part
PHIL/RS 335 The Problem of Evil Pt. 2. Hick, “Soul-Making Theodicy”  Hick begins by owning up. Unlike Cleanthes, Hick is willing to testify to the vast.
Perspectives on Religious Belief: Evidentialism-1  Definition: belief in God must be supported by objective evidence  Natural theology: attempt to prove.
Philosophy of Religion What is religion? “Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as.
The God of the Bible on Trial Responding to Objections Robert C. Newman.
Irenaean Theodicy Irenaeus ( CE) A soul-making solution, earlier than that of Augustine, and less dependent on biblical traditions.
Belief and non-belief in God Objectives:  To introduce the section ‘Believing in God’ and keywords  To understand and explain what it means to be a theist,
Augustine of Hippo ( AD) Catholic priest We know a great deal about his life from his Confessions and Revisions; from a recent biography and from.
God as Troublemaker  Suppose that in a distant forest, lightning strikes a tree, causes a forest fire, and burns a fawn to death.  How can an all-
GOD’S WORDS READING GOD’S OTHER BOOK GOD’S WORKS.
Beyond reasonable doubt? week 7 - the problem of evil and suffering.
WHEN CHRISTIANS GET IT WRONG When Bad Things Happen.
Philosophy BY Mr. Anand Christi.
Believing in God (or not) THEISm – THEre IS a God (someone who believes in God is called a THEIST) Atheism – God DOES NOT exist (someone who doesn’t believe.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey.
HUME’S ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL RELIGION --Summing up Text source: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 12.
The Problem of Evil Recap/Revision.
Dictogloss Good and evil from a Muslim point of view.
Arguments against the existence of God Do you believe in God? Why or why not?
130 – 202 AD Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons 130 – 202 AD.
GGHS PHILOSOPHY 101 THE ARGUMENT FROM EVIL. FIRST VERSION (1)If God, were to exist then that being would be all-powerful, all knowing, and all loving.
Twenty Questions Believing in God Twenty Questions
Give definitions Give an opinion and justify that opinion Explain religious attitudes Respond to a statement – 2 sides.
Two central questions What does it mean to talk of, or believe in, God? –Is talk about God talk about something that exists independently of us? Or a way.
Philosophy of Religion What is religion? “Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as.
Week 11 Review. From Last Week… Proponents of moral relativism sometimes point to John 8:1-11 as an example of Jesus practicing moral relativism. How.
WHEN CHRISTIANS GET IT WRONG When Bad Things Happen.
Philosophy Here and Now: chapter two
Believing in God Unit 1 Religion and Life.
Philosophy of Religion
Key Words Theist Atheist Natural Evil Moral Evil Omnipotent Omniscient Omnibenevolent Inconsistent Triad Theodicy Privation Epistemic distance.
The Argument from Evil and Suffering
The evidential problem of evil
WHY IS THERE EVIL IN THE WORLD?
The evidential problem of evil
Problem of Evil: Why is there suffering in the world?
The logical problem of evil
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil
Is This World Big Enough For & GOD Evil ACTS 17:16-34.
The Existence of God & Revelation
Philosophy of Religion (natural theology)
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil
EVIL /SIN /SUFFERING.
Theology 2.3 Attributes of God.
The Problem of Evil.
Chapter 29 The Problem of Evil.
The Case for God’s Love September 19.
Starter for 5! Give three qualities of God that the evil and suffering in the world call into question. How does the First Cause argument try to prove.
What is God God = df ‘a single divine being that has all of the following properties: a) All-Powerful b) All-knowing c) Perfectly Good d) Eternal e) First.
Russell: Why I Am Not a Theist
Presentation transcript:

GOD’S WORDS READING GOD’S OTHER BOOK GOD’S WORKS

The Problem of Suffering The Apparent Problem: There is a vast amount of human and animal suffering, some of it very intense. Its distribution appears capricious. Whatever purposes such suffering may serve, surely an omnipotent being could accomplish them without (much of) this suffering. Theodicies: Possible, morally permissible reasons God could have for permitting human or animal suffering of various kinds. The Apparent Problem: There is a vast amount of human and animal suffering, some of it very intense. Its distribution appears capricious. Whatever purposes such suffering may serve, surely an omnipotent being could accomplish them without (much of) this suffering. Theodicies: Possible, morally permissible reasons God could have for permitting human or animal suffering of various kinds.

Biblical Clues Just as the Bible is not a science textbook, it is also not a philosophical treatise. So it does not purport to offer a comprehensive explanation of suffering. But it does give the Christian a variety of clues that constitute part of an answer. Why it is legitimate to appeal to revelation in the defensive task of theodicy. Just as the Bible is not a science textbook, it is also not a philosophical treatise. So it does not purport to offer a comprehensive explanation of suffering. But it does give the Christian a variety of clues that constitute part of an answer. Why it is legitimate to appeal to revelation in the defensive task of theodicy.

Some Biblical Teachings Concerning Human Suffering Angelic and human free will, not God, as the ultimate source of evil and of human suffering. Creation a ‘risk’ that makes possible the great good of a free and loving relationship with God. Some suffering as God’s ‘megaphone,’ a prod to see the folly of sin and estrangement from God. Some suffering as ‘soul-making.’ Some suffering as just divine punishment. Life on earth a prelude to eternal life. Angelic and human free will, not God, as the ultimate source of evil and of human suffering. Creation a ‘risk’ that makes possible the great good of a free and loving relationship with God. Some suffering as God’s ‘megaphone,’ a prod to see the folly of sin and estrangement from God. Some suffering as ‘soul-making.’ Some suffering as just divine punishment. Life on earth a prelude to eternal life.

Challenges to Constructing a Theodicy from These Teachings Horrific evils must not be gratuitous, a means to goods that could be attained with significantly less suffering. Distribution of pain and suffering must ultimately be just. How much suffering is required to accomplish those ends? Effects on character of grave suffering are often bad: Sometimes suffering drives devout people from God. Some suffering appears to be soul-breaking. Freedom and responsibility come in degrees. Perhaps it would be worth limiting the scope of human freedom in order to minimize the damage of its misuse. Horrific evils must not be gratuitous, a means to goods that could be attained with significantly less suffering. Distribution of pain and suffering must ultimately be just. How much suffering is required to accomplish those ends? Effects on character of grave suffering are often bad: Sometimes suffering drives devout people from God. Some suffering appears to be soul-breaking. Freedom and responsibility come in degrees. Perhaps it would be worth limiting the scope of human freedom in order to minimize the damage of its misuse.

Assessing Arguments from Suffering for Atheism “The Reason”: aggregation of all plausible, partial explanations of instances of suffering. Let us assume for the sake of argument: Plausibly, The Reason is not a comprehensive explanation of the suffering we observe. Impressive speech vs. Reasoned argument “The Reason”: aggregation of all plausible, partial explanations of instances of suffering. Let us assume for the sake of argument: Plausibly, The Reason is not a comprehensive explanation of the suffering we observe. Impressive speech vs. Reasoned argument

Two Arguments from Suffering 1. (Probably), there is no reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. 2. If God exists, there must be such a reason. 3. So, (probably) God does not exist. Q: What lies behind (1a) or (1b)? 1. (Probably), there is no reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. 2. If God exists, there must be such a reason. 3. So, (probably) God does not exist. Q: What lies behind (1a) or (1b)?

Two Arguments from Suffering 0. We cannot see a reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. So: 1. (Probably), there is no reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. 0. We cannot see a reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur. So: 1. (Probably), there is no reason that would justify God’s permitting a) …so much evil to occur. b) …horrendous evils to occur.

Noseeum Inferences Noseeum-style Inference: If we don’t see ‘um when we look for ‘um, they (probably) ain’t there. Crucial Q: When are Noseeum Inferences plausible? A: Just in those cases when it is quite likely that we would see X if X were there. A plausible case: when I search the fridge for juice. An implausible case: when I search my backyard grass for tiny slugs from my bedroom window. Noseeum-style Inference: If we don’t see ‘um when we look for ‘um, they (probably) ain’t there. Crucial Q: When are Noseeum Inferences plausible? A: Just in those cases when it is quite likely that we would see X if X were there. A plausible case: when I search the fridge for juice. An implausible case: when I search my backyard grass for tiny slugs from my bedroom window.

Noseeum Inferences Noseeum-style Inference: If we don’t see ‘um, they (probably) ain’t there. Noseeum Inferences are plausible just in cases when it is quite likely that we would see X if X were there. Q: Is a noseeum inference plausible or implausible when we search for divine reasons for evil?? Note: not required that theist show conclusion is false; it is enough to give reasons to doubt the inference. Noseeum-style Inference: If we don’t see ‘um, they (probably) ain’t there. Noseeum Inferences are plausible just in cases when it is quite likely that we would see X if X were there. Q: Is a noseeum inference plausible or implausible when we search for divine reasons for evil?? Note: not required that theist show conclusion is false; it is enough to give reasons to doubt the inference.

Reasons to Doubt Noseeum Inference in the Arguments from Suffering Reason 1: Our minds are finite, God’s is infinite. Supposing God cannot have a reason that we don't see is like supposing a physicist can't have a reason for believing a theory because I can't understand what she says, or a chess grandmaster can't have a reason for making a move that strikes me as crazy. Reason 1: Our minds are finite, God’s is infinite. Supposing God cannot have a reason that we don't see is like supposing a physicist can't have a reason for believing a theory because I can't understand what she says, or a chess grandmaster can't have a reason for making a move that strikes me as crazy.

Reasons to Doubt Noseeum Inference in the Arguments from Suffering Reason 2: The extent and composition of the ‘territory’ we’re looking in (for a reason) is largely unknown to us. Our life on earth may be only a prelude to a much longer drama, and our heavenly life may involve goods we cannot envision and which are integrally connected to our earthly suffering. Furthermore, our place in an overall divine plan might be more limited than we think. There may be goods connected to beings quite unlike ourselves. Reason 2: The extent and composition of the ‘territory’ we’re looking in (for a reason) is largely unknown to us. Our life on earth may be only a prelude to a much longer drama, and our heavenly life may involve goods we cannot envision and which are integrally connected to our earthly suffering. Furthermore, our place in an overall divine plan might be more limited than we think. There may be goods connected to beings quite unlike ourselves.

Reasons to Doubt Noseeum Inference in the Arguments from Suffering Reason 3: Some kinds of goodness are in part a function of complexity. There may be goods involving enough complexity to be beyond our ken. Analogies: ‘Barney’ tune vs. Mozart/epic Springsteen ballads Child vs. Adult chess strategies McDonald’s vs. Gourmet meal Reason 3: Some kinds of goodness are in part a function of complexity. There may be goods involving enough complexity to be beyond our ken. Analogies: ‘Barney’ tune vs. Mozart/epic Springsteen ballads Child vs. Adult chess strategies McDonald’s vs. Gourmet meal