Hiks Jonhson
Original Post, due 11/5. In at least 500 words, explain 4 things: (i) the argument from evil, (ii) Hick’s two theodicies (one for moral evil and one for natural/non-moral evil), (iii) Johnson’s or Russell’s objections to any theodicies, and (iv) why you agree or disagree with any one of the above views.
Two Responses, due 11/7. Read at least 3 classmates’ Original Posts and, in at least 200 words, engage with their ideas, explaining why you agree or disagree with them.
Angela please, do know second part. two resonaes.
1 classmate
If god is omnipotent, this world will be no evil. We will be living in a perfect world. Since evil existed, this world is imperfect, and god is not omnipotent, we can question if god really existed. People all familiar what god can do. He created the world, he created human. He is a creator. However, did he create evil? If he did not, then why evil is so powerful that can destroy what god created? If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able to, he is not omnipotent. If god able to prevent evil but not willing, he is malevolent.
What is evil? Hick define there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is what humans cause. In other word, humans create or contribute to the cause, such as murder, rape, racism, sexism, theft, lying, hatred, jealousy, greed, gluttony, pride, selfishness, etc. They are the action of what humans do. The other kind of evil is natural evil, which is cause by nature such as earthquakes, mudslides, hurricanes, disease, death, pain, etc. Humans are unable to deny them or manipulate them.
Johnson and Russell point out something they are questionable regarding god existence. Why does not god intervene to prevent evil, stop what people did to rape, torture, then murder the innocent child as on the news. If god is benevolent, he would have stopped those people with his mighty power, maybe erase those people who were became evil. If god existed, he should have prevented all suffering like hunger, illness, death, natural disaster, etc. Therefore, god does not exist.
After reading all the theories, I don’t believe the existence of both god and evil. This world is full of opposite; light and darkness, love and hate, poor and wealth, happy and sad, etc. Everything on this world is like a mirror reflecting each other. Without this, there is no that, or that not even exist. When people believe in god, the god people created or believe brough evil along. This is a reflection to express two different power, to guarantee if you believe in god, you admit evil existence, or the other way around. For example, if this world cover by darkness, we never see sunlight, we would never understand how warm and bright sunlight is. But without darkness, we would never appreciate having sunlight. If we just have either darkness or sunlight, the other one will never exist. In summary, to ensure people believe in god, we have to create evil. None of them can be stand alone by itself.
2 classmate
Hicks has an interesting take on God stating that God can not be both all loving and kind, and omnipotent. If he his all loving then why does evil exist he would get rid of it in all of its forms entirely. He clearly is not omnipotent in this scenario. Alternatively if god is omnipotent and has the ability to abolish evil but does not do so then he by definition is not all loving and kind.
The prevalent thought is that god made a world in which there is good and evil, right and wrong just so there are repercussions and consequences to our actions. God can not know what right or wrong choice a person will make until they actually make a decision. In that moment only is a choice being made and not prior to that.
Hicks states that the world is not a paradise for human pleasure and minimal suffering, but rather a harsh world trying to exist and be good and just. This is meant to be hard to forge a bond with God. To be great and kind, honest, helpful, generous etc. In a world without meaning or suffering there would be no innovation but rather stagnation. Finally all the suffering according to Judeo/Christian values is necessary to prepare you for your place in the afterlife in Heaven so to speak.
Johnson has the thought that why is it that it is considered just and moral to allow a baby to perish in a fire of a burning building when all powerful God can save the child. And the argument that states that yes it is bad but god has sent the baby to heaven is irrelevant the child should not have died in the now. Furthermore the baby would with its lack of intellect not even be able to comprehend heaven.
It seems that god ushers in these these tragedies to create an optimal so to speak amount of moral urgency. This is absolutely insane to think it is morally just for the world for God to essentially assassinate children and create evil and despair. The argument that blatant miracles will stunt peoples choices in regard to free will is also irrational. God could have given Hitler a heart attack or Mussolini a stroke. He can make sure wires don’t fray. Small miracles that would never be noticed by the general populaces. Either God is wrong for not helping or he is simply not capable of doing so in which case he is not all powerful.
Finally if God is good but allows evil to take place there has to be a reason to allow it that we can all grasp toerwise it is not in fact good.
I grew up as a religious Jew and over the past few years I have come to question my beliefs and practices. This class has really helped with the philosophical dilemmas I have been having. I find it hard to argue that innocent deaths can be justified. Perhaps there is a greater purpose but should be not be privy to why it has to happen?
3 classmate
If an evidential term is given to the argument of evil, what form should it take? In recent debates, there seem to be four key opportunities that have been proposed. The first, which may be called the direct inductive method, incorporates the notion that without contrasting theism with any alternative theory, other than the absolute rejection of theism, one may demonstrate that theism is unlikely to be true. At the core of this first approach, which William Rowe laid out, the idea is that what could be referred to as instantiable generalization is one sound form of inductive inference, where it is a matter of projecting a generalization that has been found to hold in all cases that have been tested so far for all instances whatsoever.
Theodicy does not give any account of moral evil. If other theodities could explain God’s allowing moral evil, then moral evil would not, of course, be a issue. But, as we have seen, there appears to be no adequate reason available. John Hick tries to explain the problem of evil in his essay “Evil and Soul-Making.” It is a theodicy found in the protection of free will. Augustinian in essence is the bulk of theodicies that have governed Western Christendom. God created man without sin and put him in a sin-free paradise, according to St. Augustine. As a result of his weakness in the face of temptation and his abuse of free will, the fall of man occurred. 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. Hick refers to this Augustinian Theodicy as the “majority report.” However, Hick believes that the Irenean tradition is more plausible.
One objection to the Free Will Defense is that it is possible for beings that are capable of doing evil to never do so. It is possible that a world full of such creatures will exist based on the omnipotence of God. This line of reasoning is used by those who object to the Free Will Defense to assert that either God is not entirely good or God is not omnipotent. Plantinga also offers Leibniz ‘s claim, which claimed that because before its existence, God had the luxury of making any of a multitude of universes, and it must be the best possible world because the omnipotent and all-good God chose to create this world. “Plantinga argues, however, that neither claim is true, and that while God is omnipotent, He could not just call into existence” any conceivable world He wanted. “Since people are free to make choices based on experiences, whether or not people perform good or evil is ultimately up to the human being, not God. 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.
