In
class we have been considering versions of the philosophical problem of
evil. In order to help us think more carefully about the range of
issues raised by this topic, I would like you to watch the series of
interviews found here.
In these eight videos, a brain scientist interviews both religious and
secular philosophers on the question of whether of evil refutes God's
existence.As you watch these videos, I'd encourage you to take careful notes. Listen closely. Jot down any questions that occur to you. Capture what seems to you to be the central claims made by these philosophers as they respond to the questions and arguments. In your comment(s), try to articulate as clearly and as precisely as you can your summary critical evaluation for each of the eight brief interviews.
Interact with each other. Push each other. Take seriously this opportunity to have significant conversations with your peers. Strive to learn from each other, and, as always, be gracious and charitable in your comments.
From the interview with Michael Shermer, I took his main idea to be that the existence of evil and the existence of God are simply incompatible. He says that bad things happen to good people, and that the innocent are often put into circumstances dealing with cancer, insufferable pain, and dead. If God cannot step into these situations, it should mean that he does not exist. Shermer does not understand why God causes or permits natural evil. He understands the concept of God as a designer, but does not understand why one would want to inflict suffering on another in order to build character. I agree with this point of view, because I have also raised similar questions myself. Moving on to Walter Sinnot-Armstrong, he believes that natural evil avoids free will. He poses a question asking why God would allow evil, even natural, to happen to undeserving people if he truly does care. I also agree with this point of view, as I have also asked the same question. There have been many circumstances in which a natural evil killed or displaced many innocent lives, but for what? A greater good that is never discovered? Robin Collins goes on to explain that theodicies explain evils. There are specific theodicies that explain certain groups of evils, however not all of them can be explained due to God knowing more than we ever could imagine. He sees the value in connection. When we share in the suffering, we are connected to that person for the rest of eternity in a positive manner, according to Collins. However, he also believes that even if we are connected in a negative manner, that this is where forgiveness comes in. Forgiveness transforms negative relationships or connections into positive ones, that are then with us for the rest of eternity. Nancy Murphy goes away from this idea, and attempts to answer the question, “Why does God not intervene?” While she does believe in divine intervention, she believes that evils are still allowed either because God lessens the evils at hand or he permits the evils to protect the genuine freedom he seems to have given us in terms of making our own decisions. I do not particularly agree with this. I believe that there are cases in which logic cannot be used as an explanation, but I do not believe in divine intervention in a case of lessening. He either permits the evils or he doesn’t. David Shatz believes that there cannot be suffering without transgression. He used the book of Job as an example to show that it is an insult to God to believe that he would allow pain and suffering. Shatz went on to basically say that we choose our own poison and we inflict out own pain. Not all suffering is a punishment for sin. I do believe this. I believe that we often times set ourselves up for pain and suffering through our choices and their consequences. Mahmoud Ayoub says that in some belief systems that one a certain amount of evils are overcome, we will be rewarded by God. In one case, he said that God is responsible for all good and evil, then at another point said that human beings are coworkers with God and we inflict the evils while God provides the good and we somehow balance one another out in the process. He believes that natural evil is put in place to make life better. I believe that natural evils have the ability to teach us lessons, but I also believe there are different ways to go about learning these lessons. John Leslie believes that God created a system. This system wouldn’t be so without evil, which could lead to regrettable actions that God could not prevent, but would have to either permit or deal with. God created the evils reluctantly because good can’t come without evil. Don Page believes that evil is the greatest challenge to Christianity. We can only have free will if we have evil. If we had free will but only ever made good decisions it would seem more robotic than anything. Page believes that the cosmos must be the best thing possible because all laws are made by God. However, he does say that laws made by God lead to evil. I do not understand divine causation of natural evil.
ReplyDeleteFrom watching the interview with Michael Shermer, I inferred that his main points was that the evils in the world conclude that thee can be no God. He states that some of the bad things that take place in the world would take place even if there was no God. He also made a statement regarding evolution. He said that through evolution we were created to be good and bad beings alike. Walter Sinnott Armstrong focuses on the logical and evidential reasoning as o why God doesn't exist. The logical version shows that theism is very inconsistent. How can there be a God if so much evil exists? He goes on to construct a scenario involving an online predator and how God could possibly exist. He says that if the predator were to try to lure children online to harm then, then God could crash their computer and stop the situation. He states that God could give us free will without giving us freedom of action. Robin Collins goes on to talk about theodicies. Just because we can't find the reason behind all the evil in the world doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a reason for it. God is so much more complex than mere humans. Only he knows all the reasons behind what happens in the world. He also states that all the evils in the world help us soul-build, and build connections with one another. Nancey Murphy describes that God gave us the freedoms that we have right now, and it is only logical that of all the people in the world, some individuals are going to abuse and misuse their freedom. She was also asked about the death of babies or young children who don't get a chance to connect with God. She believes that these individuals are given another chance in the afterlife to ultimately build a relationship with God. David Shatz believes that there is no suffering without sin. Ultimately, we bring about the suffering upon ourselves. He also believes that from a Jewish perspective that everything in the world results in reward or punishment. He states that the theodicies often talked about make piece with the evils in the world. Mahmoud Auoub deals with the topic from an Islamic standpoint. He uses the Quran as a tool of guidance and it also describes that natural disasters are a result of human trial and tests from God. John Leslie describes that the world is so complex that the result of a big bang is highly unlikely. He also believes in the idea of several worlds that contain different evils within each one. He says that all the worlds are different and in some cases, several worlds are better off than others. Don Page claims that the world we live in today is the best possible world that God could have created. Free will wouldn't be able to exist with the absence of evil. He also claims that all the laws within the universe are constructed by God so they must be the best ones possible.
ReplyDelete(Sal S. 2:00)
Michael Sherman begins his interview by stating upfront that the explanation, "It's God's will," is not good enough for him - there has to be a better explanation. The interviewer calls this view a superficial view of God, but Sherman sticks to his view: Why does God have to take the credit if a richer, greater quality of life could be achieved without His will? I can empathize with this stance as I have thought about it myself. Sherman's comparison to a dictator or president is a very good example of how hypocritical or biased that their beliefs seem to be: If a president were moving to pass a bill that would remove a population of people, assuming we learned something from Hitler and Trump, the people would put up quite a fight. But "God's will is God's will." I do not tend to agree with allowing one but not the other, regardless of whether or not "we understand" or not.
ReplyDeleteWalter Armstrong states from the beginning that the Logical Argument is a thing of the past. Similar to Sherman, he believes if God has the power, why would he choose to let people suffer? (More discussion on this with other interviewees)
Robin Collins introduces the Defense and theodicies. Defense arguments consist of the understanding that just because we don't know the answer, doesn't mean it isn't there. Theodicies are pictures as to why god might allow evils to exist. His partial explanation theodicy is a little out there for me. He explains that human connections somehow become entities that exist in the atmosphere around us, and that these connections weigh more than the suffering that brought their connections together.
Nancy Murphy brings up how the laws of nature would not cooperate with changes to one thing - being evil - and not changing the others. She brings up a valid point, and it’s something that we’ve already talked about in class: Removing evil would affect how everything else was perceived. She also states that, if we truly have genuine freedom, God must enforce it. To say they have freedom and then jump in before an evil can run its course wouldn’t be genuine freedom.
David Shatz begins with shedding light on some misconceptions of Jews, specifically: “Everything that happens to a person is either a reward or punishment.” Bringing up Biblical scriptures, he quotes the passage of Job and how God was insulted by their assumptions of his work. Suffering brought the Job closer with God, but it was not by punishment. With this view, I relate it to a parent-child relationship. The child may not understand a parent’s reasoning, but the parent knows, to an extent. However, the child thinks the parent, or any adult for that matter, is full of wonder, magic and never-ending knowledge. This, too, is a misconception.
Mahmoud Ayoub’s explanation is fairly simple. Of course God created/allowed evil. “If not, then who?” He is responsible for all of it, in the end. He also states that according to Islam, humans are coworkers of God, which I found a very interesting statement. If we are contributing to the work he does, of course there is going to be flaws. In the end, he thanks God for the ability to deal with the evil he is born with. That is truly inspiring.
(Ran out of characters. Moving to next blog. Sorry)
Meagan Rhine (1:00)
Again, sorry for being so long.
ReplyDeleteContinued...
John Leslie starts with the statement, “We can’t have all good simultaneously.” We can’t have genuine freedom but also have god intervening to take it away when a bad act occurs. This is one of my favorite statements arguing for the existence of God. Life can still be worthwhile even if there is evil. Leslie also discusses that God could/does remove some bad parts of the world and just leaves the “light beams” or illusion of evil, but even then, there is still something for humans to suffer over, whether it’s actually there or not. What is the point of removing evil and leaving an illusion if we’re still going to suffer from it? He theorizes that maybe God created evil, regretted it, but could not do anything about it once it went into action. I have a hard time believing that to be the case if he is omnipotent. Regardless of these things, I think Leslie was my favorite to listen to.
Don Page focuses on the mathematics of the world the way it is, and the elegance a complex system such as this creates. To create a world with less evil would not be mathematically possible, he says, and if he could do it, than it would not be as complex and elegant. My argument to this is that elegance is going to depend on the world we live in. The complexity and elegance of this world might be cave drawings to that of another. To lessen the evil here would just make our perceptions of complexity different.
Meagan Rhine (1:00)
In the first interview, Michael Shermer suggests that God having reason for all the evil in the world doesn’t make sense. Some evils that occur seem highly unlikely to have any kind of purpose or reason behind them. For instance, the long and grueling struggle of a very young child dealing with terminal cancer does not seem to encompass any greater good. Shermer then questions, if there is a God, why he can’t incorporate more non-fatal challenges in life instead of the destructive death consequence. The fact that there is so much pain and suffering in the world just contributes more and more to the idea that there really may not be a God. Shermer therefore, believes more that natural laws and science are to blame for natural evils as well as good doings happening in the world. Without God as the creator, evolution also seems a more logical idea to Shermer.
ReplyDeleteWalter Sinnott-Armstrong, during his interview, describes how it could be within God’s power to prevent evil in the world while still allowing free will. While this especially seems to be possible for natural evil, Armstrong wonders why God continues to allow natural evil anyway. Armstrong also explains that the logical form of evil has been slowly given up over the years and that the evidential form seems to be gaining popularity.
Robin Collins offers some good content in his interview. He offers the defense that just because we can’t find an explanation to why evil exists, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Collins also suggests his personal theodicies in the interview. He basically values human interaction and helping others. Those people that he cared for and loved in the present life will form more intimate connections with him and vice-a-versa in heaven. Another idea of Collins was that we can’t possibly know all of the reasons that God created the universe. This means that we have no way of knowing what evil is utterly pointless evil.
Nancey Murphy, another philosopher interviewed, suspects that God may have originally created an evil free environment. What broke this freedom was human sinning due to there being free will. Also, Murphy describes how if God changed natural laws to prevent natural evil, other natural laws could also be changed and have a whole other effect on the universe. This act could be viewed as a domino effect. With regards to what happens to young infants or children that were killed due to disease or murder, Murphy also has her own theory. She explains that these young beings do not automatically go to hell, but rather have a chance to show that they belong in heaven.
Mahmoud Ayoub makes several good points in his interview. He talks about how if we are patient and persistent we will ultimately be rewarded by God. Ayoub, being a blind man himself, says that he does not thank God for his blindness, but he thanks God for giving him the ability to deal with it. This statement does not support the fact that God promotes evil and creates it just to cause us trouble. God creates evil to demonstrate our patience and love for him.
John Leslie’s interview provides some great insight regarding God and evil. He suggests that our world may be far from the ideal world that God may have created. This suggests that there may be other worlds on which life exists at a more desirable measure with less evil. On a different note, Leslie suggests that God did create this system and that the system would not be possible without evil. Therefore, God created the opportunity for evil and not evil itself.
In Don Page’s interview, he believes that this world created by God is the very best. This, being in terms of maximum good with minimum evil. There must be some evil if there is to be good. Page also believes that God made the most elegant mathematical laws to control our environment and that changing any of these laws would diminish his original laws’ elegance.
James Donner (2:00)
Michael Shermer focuses on the type of evil such as disease. It is hard to see how there is a greater outcome that comes from a young child getting cancer. Shermer believes that either God must not exist or that God is simply not able to prevent this evil in which he would not be all powerful. Shermer mentions that he does not like the idea of evil. When someone does something bad it isn’t because they have something in their body pushing them to do it. Each person has both good and bad inside of them. It is also mentioned how both this good and bad is needed in order for cooperation to occur.
ReplyDeleteWalter Sinnott-Armstrong goes over the logical and evidentiary theories for god and evil and then also goes on to talk about moral evil and natural evil. Walter thinks that if God was all powerful then there would be a way for him to allow free will and to prevent evil at the same time. Walter also believes that God has complete control of natural evil as well and if God does exist then why does he allow for suffering when he could’ve chose a universe without it.
Robin Collins discusses how some people have to types of answers to the problem of god and evil and these two answers are defense and theodicy. A defense believes that although there is evil this does not show that there is no God because God is so great he must have an explanation behind his actions. Theodicies are reasons that people have come up with to try to explain why God has done what he has.
Nancey Murphy believes that two problems with our inverse are the human evil and natural evil. Murphy mentions that there is a chain of instructions that starts with God, angels, humans, and then nature and as soon as that chain is broken then order is lost. Some wonder why God doesn’t intervene to halt those evil individuals. Some explain that God is intervening to a small extent to weaken the evil. However this is believed to be a very weak argument.
David Shatz is a Jewish philosopher unlike the other Christian philosophers. Shatz mentions that it is seen in the stories that justice comes to whoever has wronged God. When people go through suffering they often come out seeing God in a new light. This backs up the previous thought that justice is served for those who have done wrong. God knows that the people who are doing bad does not believe in him to the full extent so suffering is done in order for that person to better see who God actually is and gain better faith.
Mahmoud Ayoub discussed Islamic religion and how it is the most unrealistic. Natural evils are seen as human trial. Therefore God sends natural disasters to see how humans will react to them such as work together or turn against each other. This being said it almost seems like all evil is given to the faults of humans throughout time.
John Leslie is asked how evil can be avoided. Leslie mentions that there is no way that people have free will and to have a God where he is able to take away the foolish acts that you are about to do. If people are given free will and then God is not expected to step in at every single second when evil is about to occur because this would be against free will. Leslie goes on to talk about the value of our universe and how some wonder if we are doing good on our universe or if we should press the annulation button and destroy it.
Done Page states that he thinks Christianity and the problem of evil is more challenging than any other piece of science he has looked at. Page believes that God created the laws and only rarely changes them because of how elegant they are. The laws that God has created is the best case which leads to the less evil, however unfortunately some evil must still occur.
Ashley L. (1:00)
Michael Shermer is unsatisfied by the fact that there is a higher being that is putting evil on us for some reason that we find out the reasons for evil in after life. I think this was a good example to put on the table because we are living life to someone's standards, which may not include our own because we are looking for the release of pain and suffering. God is there to help us through and maybe we don't find our true happiness until we die and regain establishment in the afterlife, but Shermer does not think this is right. He also made a good point in referencing a silver lining in life, but that silver lining is blinded by what humans do not want to see.
ReplyDeleteWalter Sinnott-Armstrong stated that logical evil is theology that is internally inconsistent and natural evil is not caused by humans. Logical says that humans cause moral evils because of free will, but God gives us our free will so how can we put anyone at fault for any of the logical evils. Natural evil is something such as earthquakes or birth defects and people question why God allows these evils to exist also. Walter states that there is no good reason for any suffering from either evils, which creates a bigger problem.
Robin Collins says that people explode with emotions on belief of God. He also talked about defense and theodicy. In the theodicy part he describes that humans have circles in their evils, including free-will, soul building, God is infinite, and his creation of connection building. Within connection building we must make ourselves better and all humans create connections with each other. The connections can be positive or negative, but most of the negative ones will turn into positive if all evils were to be forgiven. Evils could be reversed if everyone were to have positive connections and forgive each other, just like God forgives our sins.
Nancey Murphy has the thought of divine intervention, which is that God has to permit us to do what we want. From this, evil sinners will be punished, which is supposed to remove the ability for free-will, which goes against the point of our life. Due to divine intervention, we have post death opportunities that can allow us to have the free-will after death, but we ,must do what God wants us to do until then. This goes against what God is supposed to allow us to do.
David Shatz believes in the reward or punishment way in life. He does question the effects of suffering on life, which creates a punishment for the human and eventually a feeling of suffering. Does this mean we should stop sinning? Probably, but lets be honest, that won't happen to have total utopia.
Mahmoud Ayoub believes that humans must endure the evils with patience and steadfastness in order to receive a reward. If we were to join doing all good, then would evils vanish? I don't think so because not everyone can do good because all they are taught is to do evil. Ayoub believes that God does allow evil to happen, but he thanks him for the ability to deal with the evils.
John Leslie states that we can't have all goods simultaneously, which is so true. We must have some evil to our good or we would never learn anything. There are solutions to evils, but we should just allow them to cause pain and suffering in order to live our life and listen to what/do what God wanted us to be on earth for.
Don Page states that elegance is what pleases God, so we must be elegant in every aspect of life. But, we have evils from the laws God created because we do what God wants us to do, but he allows evils to happen because of his thoughts and lass he has created. The only way for our world to be good is if God appreciates us and what we do as who he created us as. We must have life and after life full of appreciation in order for our world to be good and full of Gods love.
Catherine Kramp (2:00)
Michael Shermer made a very good argument when he attempts to shut down the idea of having evil because there is a greater good. He says it is easy for someone to argue for a greater good when they are not the one experiencing the evil. As an example he compared it to trying to explain that philosophy to a parent whose child is diagnosed with leukemia. Although I agree with his thought on this, I also believe that people who are put through evil often times seek Gods help. They may question why He is putting them through the suffering but they continue to ask for prayers and in several cases the family becomes more religious after.
ReplyDeleteRobin Collins touched on the idea of God having reasons behind every evil and that just because we can't always find an obvious explanation for the evil does not mean there isn't one. Also, he brought up his idea that God allows evil in order to connect people because in times of suffering there are typically those people that come to help you through the suffering which creates a bond. Although this may be a stretch for why evil is allowed, I think it is a very interesting outlook. There may be a time where two people have a falling out until some kind of evil takes place in one of their lives that allows them to reconnect and realize each others importance. To add on to his idea of connections, I think God must allow some evil to take place in order to prevent everyone from simply taking Him for granted. If He was able to remove all sources of evil there would be no reason for anyone to seek God because he would continuously keep everyone safe from suffering and it is human nature to eventually take things for granted when its been handed to you all your life.
Nancy Murphy provided not just faith driven explanations for the existence of God but also brought in physics which I found to be very helpful. She reasoned that it has been proven through physics and the laws of nature that the world is made the way it is in order to have life existence. If God were able to alter these laws of nature, say to prevent gravity from being strong enough to break a bone, the earth would not be able to support human life. I think this is extremely cool and reassuring that there is a God who, although is all powerful, cannot prevent all causes of evil.
Amanda W. (1:00)
Michael Shermer believes that natural evil discredits the existence of God. There are evils that an all-powerful, all- loving God should never allow. He uses examples like a child suffering from leukemia, the holocaust, and the occurrence of natural disasters. These evils seem pointless, and couldn't God make his point another way without causing immense pain and suffering. He has no limitations.
ReplyDeleteWalter Armstrong states that most people no longer focus on the logical problem of God and evil, but largely on the evidential form. He says moral evil, is usually explained by free will, but argues God could still allow free will without allowing evil. God would not allow a online predator to talk to underage kids on the internet by crashing his laptop. "Tinkering", but still allowing a person to make those decisions.
Robin Collins explains how theist use defenses and theodicies to explain the existence of God. One defense Collins mentions is that God is far above us. He knows everything, and since we can't see his plan, it's likely that we are mistaken about evil and why pain and suffering exist. Collins also developed his own theodicy about how suffering can lead to building relationships and intimacy with others that would not have existed without the suffering. He says the act to hurt someone allows the wrongdoer to experience forgiveness.
Nancy Murphy argues that moral evil is explained by free will. She also explains that natural evil occurs because without the laws of nature life would not exist. She explains this with an example about gravity. Gravity must exist and order for us to stay grounded to the surface of the Earth, if God alters this, life would not exist.
David Shatz states most punishment is because of our wrongdoings or sins. He mentions that not all suffering is from sin, but is explained because God knows all and his plan is incomprehensible for humans. God only desires for the belief in him.
Overall, the problem of God and Evil is a strong argument against God's existence. There seems to be evils that are pointless and yet still occur. How could a all-loving, all-powerful God allow birth defects, cancers, and the mass murdering of a culture? Isn't there another way that God could produce the same outcome, remember God can do anything. Most theist philosophers provide reasons why God allows evil. Moral development, and the natural laws of physics are examples to explain why evil exists. Still isn't the sheer amount of overall evil staggering, why is there so much? Why doesn't God limit these evils, he can do anything, and remember he cares about every single one of us.
Ryan W. (2:00)
Michael Shermer supports the claim the logical form of the problem of evil, stating that both God and evil can not coexist. If there is a god, why would he allow all these evils? Especially naturally occurring evils that seem to have no point. He questions why God would design such a world. He doesn’t buy the explanation that it would create a more richer world with richer people. I also thought it was interesting how he said he didn’t like the word evil because it made it seem like there was some outside enmity that was making the person commit whatever evil they were doing that was labeling them as evil. And what if there is? Maybe bad people do things because of their own free will, but what if evil people had some kind of outside thing driving them to do what they did.
ReplyDeleteWalter Sinnott-Armstrong discusses the two forms of the problem of evil: logical and evidential. He also talked about the difference in moral, free will, evil and natural evil. He understands moral evil, but doesn’t see how an all-loving, all-powerful god would allow these to happen. He also talked about how if God is a tinkerer, answering prayers and stepping in to perform miracles, why doesn’t He allow the evils in the world. Why doesn’t He stop them?
Robin Collins explains defense and theodicy. Defense is finding explanations to evils and theodicies try to explain why God allows evil. He also talked about connections formed between people, both positive and negative connections.
Nancey Murphy talked about moral and natural evils. It was kind of hard to follow her.
David Shatz talked about how there is a reward/punishment for the evils people go through. There is no death without sin. He gives the example of the Book of Job from the Bible.
Mahmoud Ayoub states that God is responsible for both the good and the evil. Some may think that humans are the authors of evil, but if God is responsible for both good and evil, humans and God are coworkers of evil. If God didn’t create evil, then who did? He states that evil is the divine human trial and should be endured with patience and steadfastness. Those who do this will be rewarded. He also discusses some about what the Quran says about humans’ responsibility to be good and not bad.
John Leslie states that we can’t have all goods at once. We can’t have the elegance of the physical world, but also miracles through God that defy the physical laws. We can’t have freedom, but also God to interfere at every instance. Leslie states that a negative world is better than nothing. He says that God created the system. And he created the opportunity for evil.
Don Page brings up the Book of Job. He states that this world is the best possible world. That when God was planning this universe that he considered several different designs and that this one was the best option. He discusses that the laws of nature are held at a high value. These laws are elegant as they are and God only rarely changes them.
Courtney B. (2:00)
Michael Shermer’s views were that some of the bad things that take place in the world would take place even if there was no God. Micheal Shermer also made a statement regarding evolution. Shermer says that through evolution we were created to be good and bad beings alike. I feel you can’t have a world with out it being good and bad. God can’t step in and stop trouble every time something bad is happening. He is the creator of the universe, not a super hero. Robin Collins goes on to talk about theodicies. Collins states Just because we can't find the reason behind all the evil in the world doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a reason for it. Evil and bad are two different things. God is so much more complex than humans. Only he knows all the reasons behind what happens in the world. I feel everything happens for a reason, god has a plan behind all evil because there is usually positive that comes out. For example, if you have a family member die in a car accident your family is more likely to wear a seatbelt everytime they get in the car. So in the end they might lose a family member but it could open their eyes to car safety and save their life. David Shatz believes that there is no suffering without sin. Ultimately, we bring about the suffering upon ourselves. Which is true, because of the saying “beautiful is in the eyes of the beholder.”, well so is evil, depends on how you look at it. He also believes that from a Jewish perspective that everything in the world results in reward or punishment. He states that the theodicies often talked about make piece with the evils in the world. Don Page claims that the world we live in today is the best possible world that God could have created. Free will wouldn't be able to exist with the absence of evil. He also claims that all the laws within the universe are constructed by God so they must be the best ones possible. I agree with this because by humans having free will, there can only be two outcomes, good or evil. Mahmoud Auoub deals with the topic from an Islamic standpoint. He uses the Quran as a tool of guidance and it also describes that natural disasters are a result of human trial and tests from God. I’m not a Muslim but I agree with Auouob. Walter Sinnott Armstrong focuses on the logical and evidential reasoning as to why God doesn't exist. His logical version shows that theism is very inconsistent. A question is, How can there be a God if so much evil exists? Sinnott goes on to construct a scenario involving an online predator and how God could possibly exist. He says that if the predator were to try to lure children online to harm then, then God could crash their computer and stop the situation. But I feel, why would God crash your computer because you were harassing someone? There would be more computer crashes if that was the case. He also states that God could give us free will without giving us freedom of action. Nancey Murphy describes that God gave us the freedoms that we have right now, and it is only logical that of all the people in the world, some individuals are going to abuse and misuse their freedom. She was also asked about the death of babies or young children who don't get a chance to connect with God. She believes that these individuals are given another chance in the afterlife to ultimately build a relationship with God. I would have to disagree here, I wouldn’t say just because a baby dies before he gets to meet jesus doesn’t mean they get an afterlife to learn about him. This makes other questions arise. For example, Is the baby considered evil because it never met Christ? Is there not a God because the baby died to early to be able to know him?
ReplyDeleteDemondre B. (2:00)
The interviews presented during the series of videos was to discuss the varying view points about the idea of evil and the existence of God. Several of those interviews were commented on from a theistic perspective (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) while others were talked about from the perspective of a philosopher with no appreciation for the concept of God.
ReplyDeleteIn the first two video series, the premise formed by the two individuals was identical to the argument posed in class. If there is a God then there can be no evil, but since there are evil acts there cannot be a god. Michael Shermer was the most insistent that there wasn’t a god even more so than Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. He brought into the equations the ultimate evils such as cancer affecting a child. Though his statement was true, in that its terrible for an evil such as this to affect a child, he was increasingly dogmatic about his statement and consistently continued to say ‘its not good enough for me.’ Though his initial statement was sound, he never continued his argument to describe his feelings. Armstrong continued this argument by taking the concept of freewill and dismissing the theistic view of freewill as an excuse. He believes that an omnipotent god should be able to take away the evil, but allow people to act towards them. He described a pedophile trying to solicited a young person over the internet, but god would shut off his computer before he can act on it. This statement struck me more than any other. If a person can be evil, but not act on it, what is the difference? If God would eliminate sin altogether and allow freewill then he wouldn’t allow the action to take place.
The next several videos showed the perspective of theists in terms of evil and God. Many of them were Christians, who tried to explain the concept of natural evil versus moral evil. One defense was through the use of theodicies, in which certain theodicies would combat some evils, while other combat other sins, but there is always the mysterious evils. The ultimate statement and argument posed was that the fate of the world, whether it be an act of a person or the state of the world, is so above our heads that we cannot possibly understand the greater good. John Leslie and Don Page bring up some examples. If the world is like a machine and through the process of operation parts to the whole turn evil is it better to remove those parts and stop productivity towards the goal or do it and let people remain in ignorance of what they perceive to be happiness? The fact of the matter is that there is no way of knowing.
These interviews showed me one thing about the perspectives of believers and nonbelievers, they just don’t know. One of the things mentioned by John Leslie that stuck to me was his statement about goodness, ‘You cannot have all good simultaneously.’ To eliminate evil in order to get all the good without working towards it is selfish. The concept of freewill is very prevalent to me. We were put on this earth to hopefully find God and get our reward in the afterlife, period. It might seem dogmatic, but just saying there is no God doesn’t mean there isn’t one as well as saying there is evil so there is no God. Yes, you can make the opposite argument as well, but it’s a vicious cycle that will never be resolved no matter how long we talk about it. For me, the theistic approach to this problem makes more sense. God has a plan for everyone’s’ lives. In terms of freewill, God might open doors and give you the opportunity to walk through them. Same can be said for the Devil. It is our choice to walk through them and make morally responsible choices or not. Evil in the world doesn’t mean there isn’t a God, it just means that there are trials that everyone needs to face.
Tyler C. (2:00)
While listening to Nancey Murphy's interview specifically about how theists react when talking about God and the possibility of him actually creating this universe that we live in, I was interested to hear what she had to mention about "human" evil. As humans, we create our own evil with the fact that we have free will. God has no say in the evil we humans create. She states specifically, if we are free, than its inevitable we will use our freedom. In some cases, to do evil. Whether the evil is done purposely or accidentally.
ReplyDeleteRobin Collins states that theists have two different types; defense and theodocies. A defense would be people explaining God can still be even with evil. When explinations do work about why God exists, that is a theodicy. A reason why God does these things, and people are just okay with it.
David Shatz says some things about judiasm and that everything seems to happen for a reason and that its happening for reward or punishment. "If you are suffering, its gotta be because you did something wrong."
in class, we talked about the fact that people have free will, and therefore, God does not decide what we do or whether what we do is good or evil. However I personally beleive that if God does exist, he lets us suffer because suffering can bring good upon people. As a result to suffering I beleive that people become better people. God watched Jesus suffer and Jesus suffered for our sins and therefore suffering is not always a bad thing.
From watching the interviews I concluded that the main points were that the evils in the world conclude that thee can be no God. Michael Shermer seems to state that some of the bad things that take place in the world would take place even if there was no God. Walter Sinnott Armstrong’s lecture seemed to be based on the logical and evidential reasoning as to why God doesn't exist. The logical version shows how can there be a God if so much evil exists? He created a thought having an online predator, getting children to meet them and then harm them, the why didn’t god do something to destroy the computer to stop this horrible situation. Robin Collins lecture seemed to be about just because we can't find the reason behind evil in the world doesn't mean that there isn't a reason for evil. He made a comment that said that all the evils in the world help us build connections with one another and build on ourselves as people (soul). I find that to be very true, and very interesting. If you think about in a scenario like a grandparent dying—saying someone murdered them—which would be considered an evil, all your family gets together and forms a tighter bond with one another—building connections with one another, as well as it also makes each person of the family to think and consider their own lives—which makes them soul search. Nancey Murphy’s interview stated that God is the one who gave us the freedoms that we have and that it’s logical that of some all the people in the world are going to abuse their freedom. Murphy says that she only believes that they are given another chance in the afterlife to have a relationship with God, when asked about babies/children not connecting with God. David Shatz interview states that he believes that there is no suffering without sin, and that we bring the suffering onto ourselves. Mahmoud Auoub’s interview is more about topic’s from an Islamic view. He views that their bible is useful tool of guidance. John Leslie’s interview was more about how complex the world—focusing more on the big bang theory as unbelievable/unlikely. He made a comment that says that all the worlds are different and in some cases, several worlds are better off than others. I like that he put that into perspective. It makes you think of peoples’ viewpoints and on the other side of the spectrum. Don Page’s interview says that present day is the best world that God has created, as well as that all the laws within the universe are constructed by God so they must be the best.
ReplyDelete(Katherine S. 1:00)
I feel this everything we entirely covered in class. It keeps deleting my comment and I have no idea why, therefore this is not as eloquent as it originally was.
DeleteOf course, Michael S. covers the idea of telling the idea of "greater good" to the parent of the child with leukemia. Why doesn't God step in and stop these things? It's because he can't, because he doesn't exist. Moral evil of free will and accidental evil are both present but the natural things happening argue more against the existence of God. He mentions that the word "evil" isn't even good because it makes it seem as if it is a part of us causing these bad things yet evolution makes it apparent that we are both evil and good. Theology does not explain the facts of life clearly. He states that why would one add a component of death, suffering, and complete misery to a society that you've created, yet we must believe that God does this. It doesn't add up that we state he is a great and merciful person.
Water S-A mentions the logical version as it shows theology is internally inconsistent since God is all-good and evil shouldn't exist. He then mentions that most claim the amount and variety of evil provides evidence against an all-powerful God-"evidential argument." The two kinds of evils are "free-will" choices like rapes, murders and deaths. God allows free will as it's valuable though it is abused by the people upon Earth. It is within an omnipotent person's capability to take the evil from the Earth yet still allow free-will. He gives the example of the man with the computer luring a young child that gets crashed by God. The man has free will but is unable to commit the action. As God is a "tinker-er" he answers prayers so it would appear he could take evil away. Natural evil makes the "other" evil unnecessary. Why would God allow this evil as there is no good evil for an entire universe to a child with a birth defect to be purely evil.
Robin C states the evil in the world does make it difficult to believe in God. However, he states there are good answers to the argument against the co-existence of God and evil. Evil does not offer good reasons to disprove God. We wouldn't expect to find the reason for evil as God is so far above us. This would only be a "retreat" if we couldn't find any reasons as all for the allowance of evil. All the different theodyssies can account for different evils, each having a number of them within the immense number of evils. Suffering can create a "forever" connection between those who experienced the suffering together. This is present even after life. The value then keeps accumulating forever and it outweighs the value of the evil. When asked if one caused the suffering, how can that be something good; Robin stated it also creates a connection but it is a negative connection that is turned positive from forgiveness. Though it could be seen as rationalization, it points us in the correct direction seeing how certain evil is beneficial.
Nancey was very interesting as she mentions human and natural evil as always. She mentions the free will as well and how she believes a child will not be damned to hell for something that really isn't their fault.
David S mentions the book of job. He states how God is actually upset with those who argue against Job because they thought he would label him as evil. As if, he would not be labeling certain things as evil.
My favorite was Mahmoud A as he kept reminding me of a cute grandpa. He mentions that God, in their bible, has created all good and all evil. My favorite was the change in the demeanor of the
Part 2
ReplyDelete, has created all good and all evil. My favorite was the change in the demeanor of the investigator while he interviewed him. he mentions not thanking God for his blindness but thank god for the ability to handle it! That spoke volumes and is something I think daily with my own issues.
For John L, I agree most with how Ashley summarizes it. I feel he's the only one who is truly a theologist as he is the only one to mention the multiple worlds etc.
Don P was very interesting as he's a physicist. He mentions that science makes it hard to believe in the power of God but he has created such an elegant world with such elegant laws he rarely changes them. he is a mathematical genius who sees such beauty in the current world there is need to change it.
Mariah Vasquez
After watching each of the interviews, I can agree with the stance taken by my fellow classmate, Tyler C. He seemed to grasp the same conclusion that I reached: all of these philosophers and professionals who have different views on God’s existence can’t fully conclude the best solution to the problem of evil. I also think his personal realization of a theist solution best aligns with my personal views on the matter. This argument will always be a vicious cycle, yet I think the faith in God’s plan for all people triumphs the negative consequences of evil in the world.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Michael Shermer, he takes the approach to evil saying that God doesn’t exist. If “God” cannot step in to eliminate all natural evil, like a little kid getting Leukemia, then reasons provided to why he exists, like “he works in mysterious ways” are not sufficient enough to prove that he exists. He concludes that if you were to elect a leader of the country, you wouldn’t elect one who allows such evil, so why should God be viewed as a leader? Similarly, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong also has views against God’s existence, with the given intensity of the evil that exists. God can be a “tinkerer” because he is omnipotent, yet he believes that God should be able to eliminate ALL evil and still allow free will. Natural evil is the main problem, and shouldn’t exist with an all-powerful God.
Robin Collins takes on a theist approach to say despite evil, it is not a good reason to dismiss God altogether. There is no one explanation because both evil and God exist forever. However, Collins says that all evil can be turned into a positive thing with forgiveness. Nancy Murphy’s interview enlightened us on the idea that there can be past-death experiences to justify the evil that happens on Earth. She says that natural evil is no longer viewed as caused from sin, but can be determined by the laws of nature as an explanation. The question is: does God intervene with moral evil, or should he?
David Shatz gives a Jewish take on God’s existence and motives. Everything that occurs is viewed as a reward or a punishment of some kind. The main point he brought to the table is with an example: if someone commits an evil crime, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love that person anymore, but he has just strayed from God. Compared to Jewish views, Mahmoud Ayoub inputs views based on the Islamic teachings. Natural evil exists as a part of human trial, and if you deal with it with patience, you will eventually be rewarded by God. He also brings forward the co-existence of humans and God, meaning both are equally responsible for some evils. Finally, Professor Ayoub is blind, a certain kind of evil inflicted upon him. While he doesn’t thank God for that evil he must deal with, he is still thankful to God for giving him the ability to deal with it, and doesn’t once deny God’s existence.
The final two viewpoints, we hear from John Leslie and Don Page. Leslie doesn’t necessary believe in God because the whole system of religion is kind of worthless and nonsense to him. We can still be successful despite evil, but if there is a God, he should be able to rid the world of all of it. On the other hand, Page is a Christian and concludes that this concept of God and Evil is one of the biggest challenges. However, given what there is in the universe, he thinks it is the best possible world God could give us.
With all of these varying opinions, it is tough to decipher whether God truly exists and if he does, why he would allow such evils in the world. There is no perfect solution to this claim, but I personally believe your faith plays a huge role in it. I consider myself to be religious, yet I still question the evil in the world. I think we will forever question the possibilities.
Sara B. (1:00)
All these interviews seemed to point to a common conclusion: there can be no perfect God. I found some the view points of the interviews very interesting and really opened my eyes to how others view their personal God.
ReplyDeleteMicheal Shermer's interview caught my attention because he tries to explain how positivity can come out of evil. He says there is always a greater good even if we do not see. I found this interesting when he used the example of disease. He says evil happens to people only to help bring them closer to God. He basically tries to find the good in everything.
Robin Collins seemed to agree with Shermer. She explains that Evil is happening for a reason and God does indeed have a plan. Sometimes it may be hard to see the plan doesn't mean its there. This particular interview reminded me of the "mouse in the field" idea. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not there.
David Shatz seemed to be the most real to me. He explains there is no evil without sin. He says evil is happening because of people sinning. Well how else are we going to learn if we don't screw up every once in a while. I found this to be easy to connect to. Also, he mentioned how no one will die without sin. Sin is always referred to as a bad thing, but can it be good? I don't mean good as in right but we have to learn from our mistakes or others. NO one is perfect!
Overall, the interviews seemed similar and seemed to mostly agree.
~ Danielle Tester
MWF 1:00
The videos starts off with Michael Shermer who follows the logical form that God does not exist. He says that it does not make sense for God to exist when there is so much evil in the world. He feels bad things should not be able to happen if God existed and that if God were going to have trials (evils) God should not let these evils be fatal. Shermer claims the ideas of evolution make more sense. I understand how Shermer feels about all the evils in the world, but I do not agree with him that there should be no evil in the world. John Hick gives us a good idea of what the world would look like if laws of nature would change so that we would not get hurt, having no free will to make bad choices, and having no consequences for not doing something. I feel like that would be a stagnant world in which we would not be able to grow or learn about the laws of nature and science. In the next video, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong says that if God did exist He should not allow evil. Armstrong feels that especially moral evil should not be allowed and that God should ‘tinker’ before someone does something bad (like make someone go into a coma right before they go to kill a bunch of people). He feels that this is no different from when God answers prayers. Once again I understand Armstrong’s problem with evil, but I feel that if God took away our ability to actually go through with moral evils, we really would not have freedom, because God would be stopping us from doing what we want to do or what feel is right. If God did not let us have free will we would be no better than robots that are shutdown when we malfunction. Next, we hear from Robin Collins who claims that there is not just one explanation for why God allows evils to occur, but the reasons can be explained through many theodicies. The evils that cannot be explained through theodicies he says still have a purpose, but that we have less cognitive abilities to see things than what God does (he is supposed to be omnipotent after all and humans are not omnipotent). I feel like Collins explanation makes sense, but that it can be frustrating not being able to see the reasons for why God would let evil things to occur. (Continued in next post)
ReplyDeleteHannah K. 1:00
(post continued)
ReplyDeleteThe next person was Nancey Murphy who says that natural evils and moral evils are necessary. She believes that God wants us to relate to Him and so we must be free, and since we are free we can use our free will to do evil if we so choose. She also believes that God cannot lessen the amount of moral evil in the world, because them we, as humans, would not be truly free. She also believes that natural evil are necessary, because basic principles and laws are necessary for the world to function and natural evil is also used as a punishment for human sin. I can see where Murphy is coming from, for the world to have certain laws and principle, there must be consequences or evils that occur, and if God controlled or intervened on our own moral actions then we really would not be morally free to make our own choices. Next, we hear from David Shatz who claims that not all evil is a punishment for sin, but rather that it can bring something better out in a person. Shatz uses the example of Job to explain this theory. He also claims that people should not think of themselves as victims of evil and use theodicies to try and explain it away, but rather that we should think of ourselves as active agents that are always trying to be better. I understand what Shatz is trying to say and I feel that it makes sense, but I feel that sometimes we need an explanation for why things happen, and that it can be hard for humans when they are suffering to not to see themselves as victims of evil. After Shatz we hear from Mahmoud Auoub who thinks that humans and God are responsible for evil in the world. He thinks that is humans are co-workers with God to try to use evil to make the world a better place. He says that natural evils are used as trials and if people can endure them, then eventually they will be rewarded. I think that Auoub has some good points, but that he contradicts himself about who created evil and some of the purposes of why there is evil. Next is John Leslie who says that God cannot stop us from doing something evil or foolish, because it would take away our freedom, and then we would not be truly free. He also believes that God created evil reluctantly when He was creating the world. Leslie also believes that there are many worlds with different levels of evil. I agree with Leslie’s concept of why there is moral evil, but I feel like his answer for natural evil is confusing. There is no proof or any major beliefs that show there are other worlds, and if God did not want to create evil, He has no plan for evil, and He is all-powerful, then why would God have not found a way to create a world without evil or create all the worlds with the least amount of evil? Lastly is Don Page who thinks that humans do not truly have free will, but that natural evils are necessary for the world to be beautiful. He says that he thinks that this world is the best possible world and that there is evil, because it is a consequence of God maximizing good. He also thinks God allows evil to exists, because God values the beauty of the world, and without the evil, the world would not be as beautiful as it is. I do not agree with Page. I feel like he does not make any sense, if we do not have free will then why does God allow humans to do bad things. I do not feel that humans doing bad things would make this world more beautiful. I feel like his explanation does not explain why there is moral evil. I also do not feel like Page gives a good explanation of why there is natural evil. He thinks there is natural evil, because God values the beauty of this world, and so He allows evil to occur. If God is all-powerful, all good, and all loving, why would He not create a less beautiful world without evil and suffering? Would he not value the living beings He created and loves them over the beauty of the world?
Hannah K. 1:00
I agree with Danielle's conclusion of all of the interviewees, there cannot be a perfect God. As human, we will never be able to think a person is perfect, we will always think that the way someone else does something is not correct because it is not how we would do it or how we would like it. I think that based on that, we are not even able to fathom that God really is perfect. I do feel that a perfect God is a possibility; however, I think that we will just never really truly know until we have died and moved on to the next stage of death. I did like the way that Nancey Murphy explained her views on evil and God in regards that, if God were to hold back someone who is about to commit evil then he would have to hold back everyone. In order for people to still have freedom then evil is bound to happen because evil is a choice that you make. Growing up religious, I will always have faith that God exists, that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving despite not always understanding why he does the things he does.
ReplyDeleteRachel F. MWF 1:00
All the interviewees had one thing in common, and that was that there is no perfect God. Michael Shurmer was the first person interviewed and he brought up the point that there is no God and bad things just simply happen. furthermore, those bad things happen to good people as well and even the innocent like newborn children. If there was an all good and loving god, then why would children die at birth and people get cancer? But then again that is life and that's how its always been. In a way, it's population control and the unfortunate people who suffer that fate are those our society learns from to better ourselves. That brings up another point of why wouldn't you just make a society that challenged humanity instead of making some of those challenges fatal? For example, we wouldn't elect a president if he said that he will improve society and cure all illness, but first, he has to sacrifice some people and make others suffer. Also if you look in recent history, there has been a lot of natural evil taking place with climate change on the rise. For example the 2004 tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people and left about that many more homeless. Its not just tsunamis but hurricanes are getting stronger and tornado outbreaks are more rampant. You can say this is all a test from God as warning signs to take care of the earth that he created or you can take it as there must be no God. Then there is the issue with infants who die. If they are too young to even understand the concept of God, what happens to them? Some believe that there are post death opportunities for those who die to young to be tested of their faith after death. I do say I hope that is true because I believe everyone deserves a chance to prove their worth. I personally will always have faith that God exists because I believe everything happens for a reason. We are all here for a specific purpose.
ReplyDeleteMatt S.MWF 1:00
The first interviewer makes a point of why would you make a fatal end as a struggle or hardship. I think that this is an odd concept, because if you never made a big enough mistake to make such an impact, would anyone even care. If you never had the chance to suffer and possibly die, would anyone care? Like imagine, if nobody died from horrible suffering than what would people fear? I could hit someone walking in a cross-walk, but don’t worry we can die like that, so it doesn’t matter. Just an odd way. How many times did you care when you were a kid, if your mom looked at you and said stop or ill spank you, but it never happened? You wouldn’t care if you she said it once or ten times. It never happened? Nothing of consequence happened. Without this suffering nobody would care, it shows you how bad things can be so you can truly appreciate how good they can be. Near death experience, humbling. The second interview was equally interesting, he stated that God could still maintain freewill, by sometimes limiting freedom of action (when he talked about crashing the pedophiles computer). But then we wouldn’t be truly free is we were limited in our actions, if he crashed our computer. I also feel that often God doesn’t send the fast or quick cure. He allows people the ability opportunity to stop pedophiles and those pedophiles the choice to do something not “evil”. If you ask God to give your courage he doesn’t make you courageous, he gives you the opportunity to be courageous, thus leaving you your freewill to choose that path or not. With the third interview I just still find it a problem with the idea that people want to decide what is utterlessly pointless evil or not. God is the only omnipotent being, who knows all, how can we claim to know better than him. Just a frustrating part of this topic for me because I’m Roman Catholic, I feel like we are taught not respect him and his ways and not to challenge him, but fear his wrath. With the fourth interview, I feel that God has always shown his wrath or discontent for human nature with natural disasters, the Great Flood! She talks about innocent people being hurt, maybe in his eyes we aren’t innocent. Maybe he sees us as sinning people who disobey him and create evil between others. Just food for thought. I totally feel that with the fifth interview I agree that the suffering of man can in able a heightened feeling of better moral standing. That God allows suffering because it allows man to develop and grow into a better human being on an individual. Make peace with evil. With the fourth I agree that threw true suffering you are to endure with patience and pray for help and to see the reasons behind all pain. I think it is truly a lesson that needs to be not only taught but learned. With next interview I thought that it was weird how everyone keeps going off of physical scientific laws, as if man cannot be wrong. What if everything we’ve ever learned is wrong? What if the one thing that the law doesn’t apply to has yet to be discovered or found? What if we are not as smart as we think? After all we came up with these laws, and we are not all-knowing. The last interview definitely gives one a lot to think about and to try to decipher what exactly he is saying was sort of difficult. I think that God doesn’t change the world, because he’s not have to prove that he exists to anyone or anything. We fell from heaven to prove we were worthy of being saved by him and to freely love him and his creations, not to disprove or prove his existence.
ReplyDelete~Erika M 2:00
This is the first part, I had too many characters.
ReplyDeleteIn Michael Shermer’s interview, much was said about natural evil as the reason that God does not exist.. Shermer believes that God’s plan is unsatisfactory, that there is really no greater good that can come from a child getting cancer. He states that the law of numbers is a much better explanation for natural evil than some all loving being that exists and is supposed to be taking care of his creations. He states that cancer happens just the way it would happen if there were no God at all. So it can be concluded that Shermer has strong beliefs in the idea of evolution and natural order. My question for those that believe that God’s plan can not possibly outweigh the evil that exists is how do you know for sure? Obviously these people could not possibly be aware of the plan due to cognitive distance, so how can they say that these evils are not in some way necessary if they do not even know the plan? There are other interviews that prompt this same question below.
In Walter Sinnot-Armstrong’s interview, the central idea still revolved around the existence of natural ideas. He states that the pure amount, variety, and intensity of evils in the world are enough to argue against the existence of God. When questioned on the existence of free will, he stated that an all powerful being should be able to allow free will and still eliminate evil. For example, he stated that if a child predator tried to draw in a child online, then God should simply be able to crash the predator’s computer and be done with it. In doing so, he still allows free will, but takes away the evil. He also believes that you should not even need moral evil because there is so much natural evil in the world that doesn’t result in human acts of free will.
In Robin Collin’s interview the ideas of theodicy and defense are discussed. In short, a theodicy tries to explain why God allows evil to exist. A defense states that even though the reasoning or answer is not right in front of our noses, it can still be present.
Nancy Murphy brings up topics in her interview that we have discussed in class. She brings up the idea that by removing evil, our entire world would be completely different. She also states that our freedom would not be true freedom if God were right over our shoulders, ready to intervene the moment some evil occurs.
David Shatz talks quite a bit about the story of Job in his interview. The entire story is an example of how suffering can affect an individual. In this story, Job is almost pushed to blasphemy by his suffering, and his friends are the ones that end up getting ridiculed by God instead of Job. Job had not been able to talk or see God prior to his suffering, but after he had suffered, he gained a heightened sense of perception. So a greater good came out of his suffering. This can also be connected to something we talked about in class, and that is the idea of a parent allowing their child to go through some sort of suffering in order to grow as a person. Shatz also talks slightly about the idea that the more beautiful and easy the world is for people, the less initiative they have to go out and achieve something.
Alexis Locke 1:00
Second part:
ReplyDeleteMahmoud Ayoub comes right out and states that God is fully responsible for both the good and evil in the world. He states that natural evils that we experience are part of a trial given to us by God, and when an individual approaches this trial with patience, God rewards them. He states that the Quran is a book of guidance, and that the human population must work with God in order to make the world a better place. If humans are supposed to help make the world a better place, it is no wonder that there is evil! Humans are not perfect by any means, so of course there will be flaws in this world. Ayoub also addresses his blindness, stating that while he does not thank God directly for his blindness, he does thank Him for giving him the ability to deal with it. This is incredible to me, this man has no anger towards God for his blindness, and instead thanks him for what he has been given in order to deal with it. I believe that everyone should take something away from that.
In John Leslie’s interview, he again brings up the idea that if God has given humans true freedom, then he cannot be looking over our shoulders, ready to intervene the moment life gets a little tough. He also talks about the idea that God took away the worst of the evil, and just left small parts of it. This still presents suffering to humans, but it is no where near as bad as it could have been.
Don Page was an interesting man to listen to, and I enjoyed listening to his view of the world through a more mathematical mind than my own. He believes that if God took away evil, then the world would lose its complexity, and when the world loses its complexity, it loses its elegance as well.
Alexis Locke 1:00
In the interview with Michael Shermer, he talked about how we only know what “good” is because we know that there is evil. I think this goes along with what we have been talking about in class in that “evil” is something god allows for our growth and to teach us. Without it we may not know what is truly “good”.
ReplyDeleteWalter Sinnott-Armstrong talks about the idea that if God is allowing certain evils to happen to teach us, then why does he allow natural evils such as children with cancer? Perhaps he is trying to teach us something from those cases but it’s rather hard to think that God is truly “good” if he allows that to happen. Sinnott-Armstrong also touches upon the idea of that is God is truly “omnipotent” than he could eliminate the existence of evil without eliminating free-will. I think that has to be true, so it begs the question of whether God is truly “omnipotent” or wether he is just allowing evil to exist?
Along the same lines, Nancy Murphy brings up the question of why God would allow natural evils? She talks about how the laws of life are the way they are so that there is “life”. However, I think this ties back to the idea that if God was “omnipotent”, why can’t he take away the natural evils without destroying “life”?
Don Page talks about how maybe evil is not necessarily connected to free will and how there is no good answer to the argument. I agree with him, there isn’t a good answer that will appease everyone. It may be out there but at this moment we don’t have the ability to find it.
Mahmoud Ayoub talks about how “evil” is a test for us from God. I understand where he is coming from in that he may be making us stronger by presenting us with evil and being able to deal with it’s existence. However, I don’t understand why God would throw evil onto children who have barely had any time to live and experience the world?
John Leslie brings up some very interesting views on the topic in his interview. He talks about a different worlds God may have created that don’t have evil and how we should appreciate the world we have, even with evil, because it is better than nothing. It is an interesting view because in a way maybe this is one of the better world that is much happier. Maybe this is the best outcome. There’s no way to know but it’s interesting to think about.
Lastly, David Shatz ultimately talks about how we won’t really know the answer to this. Not that there isn’t an answer but, as of right now, we do not have the ability to reach that answer. There isn’t any good way to wrap this up so everyone can be satisfied. There is so much to ponder on the subject.
-K.P. (1:00)
There was a lot to take in with this collection of interviews. Definitely a lot to take in and ponder on.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems to come back and forth constantly is the question of free will. Shermer tended to believe in the idea of "God the tinkerer" someone who was constantly interfering here and there, but not in any huge manner. I tend to agree with that. I believe that while we have a free will, God is interfering here and there. Never in a way that would be totally showing his presence to us, because that would interfere with free will.
I also agree with Shermer's interpretation of multiple theodicies. I believe he is right in saying that not just one theodicy can answer all of the problems.
Shermer's idea of the Connection Building Theodicy was ver thought provoking. I definitely believe that making connections with people is an important part of this world. Is it so important that it is a reason to support evil? That I guess is the question.
I like that many of the theologists discussed the story of Job, because that really is an important story to consider. The story of Job definitely supports that suffering doesn't stem from sin, because Job was a very good and honorable man.
Towards the end, I really enjoyed listening to the ideas of multiple worlds and Christianity. It was definitely interesting to think about. I don't know if I'm ready to jump on board with the idea of multiple worlds, but I am sure I will look in to it all more now.
-Tom R. (2:00)
Of all the interviews, I found Michael Shermer's to be one of the more personal approaches to answering the question of the problem of evil. I felt that he holds a lot of frustration as to why an all-powerful, all-loving God allowed innocent people to suffer and this became the overall theme of his arguments. He also expressed that quotidian responses about God working in mysterious ways or evil having a greater good are simply unsatisfactory and not good enough. I felt that his responses had a lot of personal weight to them. Shermer's response made me think about the necessity of evil in this world in order to have good. Can we really have one without the other? If not, then both kinds of evils are bound to affect us in some way. Furthermore, when it does affect us, I consider it a joy to have a loving God who has promised to carry me through it.
ReplyDeleteIn Walter Armstrong's response he expressed his belief that it is possible for an all- powerful God to prevent evil and still have free will. To this point, I would have to disagree. I see the prevention of evil as a whole as (in a way) removing our right to choose between right and wrong. If we have free will, would we not also (dark as it may sound) have the freedom to choose between good and evil?
Robin Collins was asked "How does a theist deal with evil?" In all, I found his approach to a theodicy to the problem of evil to be quite intriguing although not necessary ideal for explaining. The "big circle" with evil in the center is composed of different theodicies that explain their own separate parts of evil. This is a very interesting way of looking at it, but I don't think that a non-believer would follow. Also, to say there are multiple theodicies would not sound very convincing to people.
Nancy Murphy seemed to discuss the differences between moral and natural evils the most. She posed the question: What if things had to be this way in order for us to exist at all? This caught my attention and I believe God has what is best for us in mind, but still allows us to have freedom to choose our own paths.
David Shatz opened with expressing the common misconception that the Jewish believe that everything that happens is as a reward or punishment. I liked his example of Job and how in his suffering he could still find reasons to trust in God. I also agree with him that the role of theodicy is to make peace with the problem of evil, but I also believe that it is an earnest attempt t persuade people of the true nature of the all-powerful, all-loving God.
I liked listening to Mahmoud Ayoub's perspective in his Islamic POV if only because there is still so much about the extent of their beliefs that I am unaware of. However, I disagreed with his statement that God himself is responsible for both good and evil. I cant seem to understand how God would be responsible for evil. Did not Mankind choose our path? Go did not create evil. I believe it has always existed. Ayoub also admits that there are some holes and contradictions within the Quran about who exactly is responsible for evil.
I liked John Leslie's point about not being able to have all goods all at once. I think it important to note that if God were eliminate every bad thing, we would never learn or grow. He , along with Don Page seemed to have beliefs about multiple worlds/universes in which the aspect of evil might be different that it is here. I had never heard this belief before, but I cannot say that I believe that alternate worlds exist. Don Page also grasped my attention when he described his disbelief in free will. It made me wonder if he literally believes that our future actions are set in stone, or not.
Brianna E. (2:00)
Michael Shermer stated that evil is a problem and asked why there was evil if there was a God. He posed an important question wondering why innocent people, like children get leukemia or suffer terrible painful deaths. I disagree with his stance. I believe that evil is a part of this world because that’s what God intended. He allows us to have free will, therefore there is evil in the world.
ReplyDeleteWalter Sinnott said that it is not logically possible to have a real God if there is still evil in the world. Moral evil is evil that occurs because humans have free will. If God allows online predators to have access to computers to lure people, then surely he can crash the computer before this person causes harm. I believe that God allows people to have free will which means that there is going to be evil. There is no way to prevent evil while still allowing people to have free will.
Robin Collins stated that it is difficult for people to believe in God while there is evil in the world. I disagree with this statement because I think that some evil is necessary. How are we ever supposed to enjoy good times if we don’t have bad times? While I do not think it is fair that bad things happen to innocent people, I also believe that it is all part of a greater plan that God has that humans are not capable of understanding.
The rest the interviews also touched on why things happen. Shatz stated that things happen either as a reward or punishment to humans. Ayiub said that evil, pain and suffering is a test from God. If you are patient, you will be rewarded by God. Murphy believes that natural evils such as tsunamis, and hurricanes happen to punish all of human sin although many innocent people and animals suffer due to such great tragedies. I really have been thinking about Leslie’s statement. He said that God created this world because it was the most perfect world he can. He could have created many worlds making one perfect and without evil, but instead to create just one. Page also believes that this is the best possible world that God could have created.
Victoria W. (1:00)
My favorite interview by far was the interview with Michael Shermer. I agree with very much of what he has to say on this issue, and probably share very similar beliefs with him. I appreciate the fact that he talks about how science has a way to explain the cause of many natural evils. We understand why cancer exists and we know how earthquakes work but religion has no evidence for why God would allow such things. The fact that people can be quick to claim God is the cause of something is just an impediment on our progress to figure out the true cause of many “miracles”. I also enjoyed his thoughts on his omnipotence. Why would an all-powerful force us to go through so much suffering, torture and sometimes death for our personal and sometimes others growth? Why not give us trials that involve less suffering and death? Shermer does concede in the beginning that he’s not talking about moral evil because the greater good and free will make a compelling argument against moral evils. I tend to disagree with this and share views similar to Mr. Sinnott-Armstrong. Sinnott-Armstrong talks about how there is a separation between freedom of will and freedom of action and that God could prevent certain evils from happening while still maintaining free will. I myself am not so sure about this proposition but I do not think that it would be impossible for an all-powerful being to eliminate evil while maintaining free will. I’m also doubtful that some monotheistic religions even claim we have free will but that’s a completely different argument. The interviews with theists were very interesting. Some had better arguments than others, but one thing I (and the interviewer at some point) noticed was that people had to try very hard and stretch very far to come up with reasons for why God would allow evil. It seems that many theists interviewed here are grasping at straws to explain the presence of evil and God. This struggle to answer many challenging questions is why I appreciated some of Mr. Ayoub’s statements. He says that in Islam, evil is thought of as a trial for humans. Those who endure evil with patience will be rewarded by God in the end. He says that God is responsible for good and evil and that evil is here to push us so that we can be rewarded. I feel like this makes God less of an all-loving being and more of a being looking for entertainment but it does make more sense than some theories presented. I also liked what David Shatz had to say about theodicies. He mentioned that a theodicy is an attempt to make peace with evil and explain its presence. If there is a reason for all evils, why do we try to lessen those evils? Wouldn’t it be better for us to allow all evils that way we aren’t impeding the progress of the greater good? I don’t believe this is the point he was trying to make, but this argument could very well be used against him and other theists I feel. Overall, I feel like all the interviewees had good points but the atheists of the group made a much better case than the theists. One in particular, Mr. John Leslie, even stated at one point that he “understands why any sensible person would hold that view” in reference to the doubtfulness of God’s existence.
ReplyDeleteCody F. (2:00)
I feel as if everything in these interviews similarly reflected the things we covered in class. The interview with Michael Shermer covered the idea that God cannot exist simply because of all the evils in the world. Shermer made it very clear that he believes that if there is a God then he simply cannot stop the evils from happen. He then purports that either that is true or God does not exist. Shermer claims that the things that happen to human beings are some act of randomness that cannot be helped and that God would play no significant role in what happens to humans even if he did exist. Shermer believes that the excuses people give for the evil that happens in the world are simply unsatisfying and that evolution is a better explanation to the majority of controversy that is brought about. Shermer brings about a good point when he says that if we were to create a world we would not willingly impose the evils that we have in this world and we would choose some alternative options that are not fatal. This is his reason to think that if God is all-loving and good then why would he pick fatal options?
ReplyDeleteWalter Sinnott-Armstrong says that the issue that is focused on more today is not the logical fallacy of the argument but the amount and the extent of the evil that exists. Walter believes that freewill is granted because it is an extremely valuable aspect of humans even though it is sometimes taken for granted. He also states that freewill can exist in the absence of evil. He believes that if God is omnipotent then he would make it possible for freewill to exist even without evil existing. He also proposes the idea that if God is wholly good why would he pick a universe where a child with leukemia has to suffer instead of the universe where that child does not suffer.
Robin Collins has a whole new idea of theodicy that relies on the idea of connection with others. He believes that if you create connections with your neighbors in the time of suffering, then the connection will last forever and the value of that connection outweighs evil. It is also brought to attention that a negative connection in the time of suffering opens the possibility for forgiveness. Collins states that to explain evil in the world it would take a series of theodicy and still then it cannot be explained because there is a part of the series that only God can understand.
Nancy Murphy claims that the moral evil, the misuse of freewill, can be taken of at an intellectual level. She believes natural evil is just an explanation of the ordinary working of the laws of nature. She claims that the natural laws must remain exactly how they are so that life can exist at all. Murphy also states that children that were never given a chance on this earth are given a post-death opportunity to create a relationship with God.
David Shatz mostly spoke about the book of Jobe. I thought the moral of his story was to tell that if you speak unto others the ideas and the beliefs God holds than you yourself have the wrong concept of God and he who was spoken unto must pray for you.
- Sierra L. (2:00)
continued:
ReplyDeleteMahmoud Ayoub says that God is responsible for both good and evil. Ayoub claims that God tests people with the good and evil. He questions that if God did not create evil then who did? He also claims that people are coworkers of God. Therefore, if people are the source of evil then God must be the one who allows evil.
John Leslie believes that the system would not be the system without evil and that it would be impossible for everything to be good. Leslie also brings up the idea of all the physical laws and how there would be no miracles against physicals laws if there weren't evil. He admits that God created opportunity for evil but he claims God did not create evil minds that work in evil ways. According to Leslie, God could not avoid natural evil and he cannot just bring in miracles to solve all of the evil in the world because if he does it once then the miracles will never end.
Finally, Don Page claims that the world we live in is the best possible world that could have been created. Page does not believe in freewill and he argues that God created the laws that we live by now. Since that is true God believes the laws are so elegant that they cannot be changed. After all, God created everything we know and everything we have from absolutely nothing so why would he not believe his creations to be elegant, according to Page.
- Sierra L. (2:00)
The philosophers question the problem of evil in different aspects.
ReplyDeleteThe first is the explanation of science:
Don Page’s explanation is that of science and mathematics. He says that God is a lover of elegant mathematic equations. The equation that created our universe was impossible with evil being mixed in, for the elements that created us also create cancer and natural disaster.
Nancey Murphey alludes to the laws of nature for the explanation of evil. If a child falls from a tree and breaks their arm, it is not evil that caused this, and it is not an act or ignorance from God that caused this child to be in pain. Gravity caused the child to fall, and it is simply science that causes these natural disasters.
Michael Shermer explains that science can explain everything said to be God’s will. There is science to defend evolution that explains our existence, and there is science of tectonic plates to explain natural disaster. Saying that God has an overarching purpose we cannot see is not satisfactory to say to a mother who is grieving her child who has cancer. God cannot stop evil, or he does not exist.
Next is the explanation deeply rooted in religion:
Mahmoud Ayoub explains that God tests humanity with good and evil. Natural disasters were seen as trials to test mankind due to sin. However, he goes on to say that God allows good and evil to exist, but humanity is the author of evil. Together, evil is created by God’s will and mankind’s choice.
David Shatz has a similar statement about God and allowing evil. He says that while suffering isn’t the result of all sin, it is likely that suffering can emerge from sin for the betterment of mankind. Evil exists to make humanity better and live a better life under God’s ruling.
Robin Collins defends God’s existence with a case of Noseeum. Just because we cannot understand God’s greater purpose does not mean there is not one being executed. Evil is not meaningless.
The last two deal with free will:
Walter Sinnott claims all evil can be put under moral evils. God allows free will because it is invaluable and his creation cannot properly love him without it. However, free will does not mean God could stop evil. He could intervene in a manner that allows free thought of his subject while preventing him from carrying it out. If he intervenes with prayers, he should also be able to intervene with these common evils.
John Leslie states that you cannot have two things at once when it comes to God and evil. You cannot have every kind of ultimate good at once, and you cannot have free will and also a God to tell you when to not act on evil thoughts. Evil is therefore the fault of God, because he states that once free will is given it can not obviously be controlled.
-Meghan K (2:00 pm)
The interviews conducted with 8 different people brought about a whole slew of responses from the interviewees. Michael Sherman believes that the existence of God with the existence of evil is impossible. Bad things would definitely happen without God’s presence, so why is odd to assume this may be the case. He believes that simply bad things happen to good people, and that if God were to exist why would he allow one invention to destroy another in order to build character – this seems a little out of place. Walter Sinnot-Armstrong discusses free will, and how God would intervene in awful situations that go beyond the evil he permits, but that would go against free will, which is a definitive right of being a human under God. Typically, moral evil is attributed to free will, but Walter believes God could allow free will without evil present. Robin Collins discusses theodicies, and how due to God’s cognitive distance we are unable to see the value in pain and suffering. Dealing with these hardships is where forgiveness, compassion, and patience come from. Evil helps with soul building and making relationships worth it, and even if we can’t specifically see these reasonings doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. Nancy Murphy discusses why God doesn’t intervene in tragic situations. God permits evil to protect the free will he gave us in making our own choices. By giving this free will it is apart that at least some will misuse and abuse this right. If God were to alter certain things life may not exist, like with the example of gravity she presented. David Shatz discusses how suffering and pain is a result of sin and wrongdoing. It’s wrong to think God just simply allows evils, and not that you have earned that punishment in some manner. As humans, we make choices and we must deal with the consequences that may come from those decisions. Mahmoud Ayoub discusses how natural evil was put in place to make life better. The good that God inflicts in our lives is balanced by the amount of evil we inflict. In this sense, natural disasters are a result of human wrongdoing. Evil should be endured with patience and this will be rewarded. John Leslie believes that God created a well running system, and that this wouldn’t run properly without evil being permitted. Good cannot come without evil, and since God gave us free will he gave us the ability to be evil, and preform with misconduct. Don Page discusses how we can only have free will if we have evil, and how the laws constructed by God are the best ones possible. Evil is one of the greatest challenges to religion, but life without it would be so much different, mundane, and routine.
ReplyDeleteOverall each of these individuals presented valid opinions on the topic of evil refuting the existence of God. Personally, I don’t believe in God, or religion as a whole, really. And maybe this is due to evils I’ve endured, or maybe just due to lack of caring, but I choose to believe in being a good person. To do unto others as I want done to me. Bad and evil things will always occur in life, but I choose to take those endeavors with an open heart and an open mind, and to make the best of even the shittiest situations. It’s interesting to think about the existence of God, especially in the presence of evil, but I’d rather stick to the factual aspects of life.
- J Burke (1PM)
The first interview I watched was with Michael Shermer and he was asked about the correlation between evil and God. He states that if God is all powerful, all knowing, and bad things happen, then those things are not compatible. Shermer doesn’t understand why good things happen to innocent people and why they have to endure insufferable pain. For example, he doesn’t thing that it is fair for an innocent child to get leukemia. His answer to these evils is that God isn’t powerful and doesn’t have the ability to stop them or he doesn’t exist. There are two types of evil, moral evil and accidental evil. Shermer believes that accidental evil weighs more against God. Although, evolution explains moral evil very well. Furthermore, in a perfect world it would be impossible for people to build character. Having evil in our world allows us to understand the good things that also occur.
ReplyDeleteWalter Sinnott-Armstrong touches on the different versions of evil; the logical version and the evidential version. Moral evil occurs because of human acts of free will. Walter believes that free will is the cause of all evils. Natural evil are things like earthquakes and birth defects. Natural evils are necessary in the world for the greater good. He also mentions God being a tinkerer. God comes in a fixes some small things by answering prayers, but he can’t fix everything.
Robin Collins starts off by saying that all the evils in this world make it difficult to not believe in God. There are two defenses to God and evil; defense and theodicies. Defense is despite the evil, there is no good reason to not believe in God. In a theodicy there are reasons to why God allows evil. Collins believes that when a person is there to help another person through their suffering a connection is made. It creates an appreciation in which the value of that appreciation lasts forever and outweighs the evil. Weather it is at first a positive or negative connection, it will eventually become positive.
Nancey Murphy finds two major problems with God and evil; Human evil and Natural evil. A human evil is an easy problem to deal with. Due to the fact that we are free, it’s inevitable for humans to misuse their freedoms. Natural evils are more difficult to deal with and the reasoning behind them used to be because it was punishment for human sin. Murphy was asked why there is suffering in this world. Her response was that they are due to the ordinary workings of the laws of nature. Basic laws of nature have to be the same to have a world at all. If God intervened with all evils, it would mess up the genuine freedom that we have.
The rest of my post is going to be in the comments.
Morgan H. 2:00
David Shatz is a philosopher that studies Judaism, where everything bad that happens is for reward or punishment. If someone is suffering, it is because God believed they needed punished. God says if you think his standards regard Jobe as a bad person, then he is insulted. God had never actually met Jobe until he began his suffering. Shatz doesn’t believe that anyone but God has the right to stop someone’s suffering, because it’s happening for a reason.
DeleteMahmoud Ayoub is a philosopher with a defect, he is completely blind. He believes that evil must be differentiated. That evil is a divine trial that people must endure with patience. It is a person’s own responsibility to persuade away from evils. If they don’t, then they deserve any evils that come to them. Ayoub believes that God is an author of good and humans are the author of evil. He also thinks that natural evils, in the end, make the world better. Lastly, he doesn’t thank God for his blindness, but for the ability to successfully deal with it.
John Leslie believes that you cannot have all good simultaneously. If you things were good all the time, then God would have to be interfering with something and he can’t be constantly doing that. God could create a world where a coin always lands on heads, but that creates an infinite number of worlds. Leslie was then asked if a negative world is still worth having over nothing. He agrees that anything would be better than nothing and that evil is a privation of a greater good. Leslie was then asked if God creates evil. He believes that God created a deliberate system and it wouldn’t exist without evil, but God couldn’t change it. For example, 2+2=4 and no matter what God did, he could never make it equal to 5.
Don Page believes that evil is a big challenge to Christian faith. He doesn’t think he can describe the reasons of why evil exist. Although, he also thinks that free will doesn’t exist because God created everything from nothing, which means there are no free choices. Evil is a consequence of trying to maximize the total good. If God changed the law of physics, he could eliminate some evils, but then the laws lose their elegance.
Morgan H. 2:00
Shermer takes a logical form, that it doesn't make sense that God exist if there is all this evil in the world. He also believes that if this was a perfect world there still would need to be evil to keep it in balance.
ReplyDeleteArmstrong takes a similar view like Shermer that if God exist, then why does he allow this evil to occur.
Collins focuses on defense and theodicies arguments. For defense just because we cannot see the answer to something doesn't mean it's not there, we might just need to look deeper into the situation at hand. He thinks that theodicies are proof that God might allow evil to exist. When evil takes place it usually brings people closer together, to help overcome the evil that took place.
Murphy presents that God did create the perfect world in the beginning. It wasn't until humans ruined with when they began disobeying God and his plans. He inflicts evil to let us know he is all powerful and we must obey his plan.
Unlike the others, Shatz comes from a Jewish background. He believe that a person will see no evil if they obey God. It isn't until they disobey when the people see evil. The evil is to help them get closer to God and believe in him to their full extent.
Ayoub believes that God allows natural disasters to happen so people can come together. Each natural disaster that I've seen, people come together and help overcome what has just happens. Ayoub was born blind and he thanks god for allowing him to overcome this disability.
Leslie rhinks that there is no way to avoid evil and it will always be something that we have to deal with. When evil comes up in our life we have to be able to take that and put it behind us and allow it to make us a stronger person.
Page believes that God thought out building this world and gave us what he believed to be the best options.
Jeremy (1:00)
As I was listening to these eight philosophers speak on the problem of evil, I took notes and noticed that a lot of them focused on the same aspects even if they didn't have the same views. My favorite interview was with Michael Shermer. Not only was it easy to understand, but I agreed with a lot of what he said. Shermer talked about natural evil and how it is explainable by geology, by why would God let them happen in the first place? I agree with this because if God has the power to stop such evil, why doesn't he do it? He's causing all of this pain in suffering to the people involved when he can be preventing it. He asked the question "Would you ever wish X upon somebody?" (X is any kind of evil) but the answer is no, because if you wouldn't want to experience pain and suffering, why would you wish that upon anyone else?
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting interview was Robin Collin's. He said that Evil makes it difficult to believe in God. This might be difficult for some people, but for me, although I might question God and ask him certain questions, I have never not believed in God. Collins said that there are 2 sides to the problem of evil. The defense side and the theodicy side. The defense side says that even though there is evil in the world, Good does exist because he's so far above us that there is no evidence that he doesn't. The theodicy side says that there are reasons for why God allows evil such as free will and soulbuilding, etc. This explains different parts of evil. I don't agree with the idea of theodicy because I don't think that God really has a reason for letting evil happen, I think that it just happens.
Another interesting interview was the interview with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. I found this interview interesting because he thinks that God can eliminate evil while still allowing freedom and free will among the people. I somewhat agree with this because if he takes away the evil that is being placed, then it takes away free will. But if this person abuses this freedom to commit acts of evil, then why should they even have that freedom?
I found all of these interviews really helpful in understanding the problem of evil.
-R. Harvey (1:00)
I found the first interview with Michael Shermer to be quite interesting. I felt that his main view was that if evil exist then God does not exist. Why would God want humans to suffer from aliments such as cancer and disease? He also states that humans are naturally good and evil, it just depends how one chooses to live their life. Shermer also makes a comment that if God allows for evil than he would be considered evil as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the interview with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, he makes valuable statements supporting the fact that theism is inconsistent. Like Shermer he makes the argument that if God exist then evil would not occur. Walter also discussed the importance of free will. Although some people may abuse this power it is still important. Walter also expressed his ideas on why God would allow natural evils to occur such as a birth defect in an infant.
The interview with Robin Collins focused on theodicy and defense. Defense argues that despite the evil in the world it does not disprove the existence of God. Theodicy can be seen as the reasons why humans try and discern for why humans believe why evil occurs. Collins also makes it apparent that there will always be evil in the world that we cannot explain and do not see a point to but we must understand that God has a reason.
In the interview with Nancy Murphy, the main focus is on sin and evil. She explains that human’s purport ate evil on one another. If we are free it is likely that we will miss use our freedoms and go against the good of God. She also goes on to explain natural evil by saying that God made the basic laws of physics so that life on Earth could be sustained. I personally felt that her arguments were not logically sound and it was difficult for me to believe anything she said.
David Shatz, the Jewish philosopher discusses the book of Job and the suffering that occurred. He describes that not all suffering is necessarily a punishment of someone’s sins. He also speaks about how we need to be acting agents and be kind to thy neighbor.
In the interview with Mahmoud Ayoub he states that people should endure evil with patience and in turn will be rewarded by God. He goes on to explain versus that make God responsible for evil but in others it is human responsibility. In essences humans are coworkers with God.
The last interview with Don Page is focused on the idea that God has created everything to the best of his abilities. Unlike many of the other philosophers interviewed Page does not feel that we as human beings have free will. Essential no free choices exist without the presence of God. Page states that evil is a consequence of trying to balance the maximum totally of good. God created the laws and those laws are the best possible.
Lacie (1:00)
In watching the interview with Michael Shermer, I took the main point to be that the theological view that God creates evil for a higher purpose is an unsatisfactory answer. I like the idea Shermer presents about how while God works in mysterious ways doesn't seem to give a clear answer, evolution and statistics certainly seem to make more sense. I appreciated that he gave an alternative thought. I also thought that the idea of a society where evil is necessary to function properly would only be created by an evil being. In Walter Sinnot Armstrong's interview I liked that he didn't actually use the free will argument. Instead he mentioned that the argument essentially doesn't work if god is omnipotent. The most intriguing idea however was the thought that perhaps people do have free will but perhaps not the freedom of action. Robin Collins' interview seemed like it ws focused on the value of certain actions. For instance, is there value placed in suffering? And, if we suffer together, does it create an intrinsic value that increases over time? I thought that it was a unique take that I hadn't heard before, though I didn't feel like he necessarily had enough information for me to entirely believe his idea. In fact, he did mention that at some points it seems like people cause other people's suffering, instead of sharing in it, which I thought derailed his argument a bit. I found Nancy Murphy's interview the most difficult to follow and understand. I thought that she drifted from topic to topic and I didn't really feel like she totally answered the questions presented. I did however like that she mentioned the historical ideas of why evil existed like atonement for our sins or that God cannot intervene in natural situations. In David Shatz's interview he focused on coming at the question from a new perspective, as he is Jewish. I thought that the idea he brought up about suffering without transgression was interesting. I can understand his theory that the effects of suffering on a person could increase their religious understanding or otherwise lead to an ultimate payoff. I also liked that he mentioned a theodicy is really just making peace with evil; accepting it. Mahmoud Ayoub also came in with a non- Christian perspective, as a Muslim. He talked more about how in his monotheistic culture, that God is in fact responsible for both good and evil, which is a departure from the traditional Christian thought. I also liked that he said the quran is more for guidance than an actual theology. I think that it would be wise advice for other religions to adopt that belief. I also was fascinated by his thought that people are like co-workers with God as opposed to serving God. John Leslie's interview was a strange mix. I found most of it vague and somewhat confusing, and then other things seemed very clear. I thought the best part was when he discussed that if God had created the world differently to prevent evil, or if the big bang had occurred differently, and the particles had been rearranged, that the world would not be the same one we know now. I also thought his questions about whether having a world with evil was better than nothing was very thought provoking. I had some trouble though with the idea that while God created the opportunities of evil, he wasn't actually creating evil. I find it hard to distinguish why creating opportunities for evil isn't inherently evil itself.
ReplyDelete(2:00)
DeleteThe interviews that were linked onto this blog took a look at the crisis that is of god and the presence of evil and different approaches on how this issue is looked at. The first interview that was conducted was from a scientific approach where it is not logical to look at the presence of god, due to the world making more sense if god does not exist. The second interview by Walter he discusses that people of the Christian faith look at god as a tinkerer by changing the outcomes of only some of the instances and not all. This interview also made the point that if god were to take away all evil then it would take away the possibility of free will. Anther interview that was looked at was one By a woman named Nancy where she stated that if anything were to change meaning being able to not get hurt by a fall that it would have to change many factors leaving us living in a completely different world. She stated that the world was at its optimal level of balance. The Jewish approach to this issue approached by David stated that good an evil is based upon a reward system then went on to talk about the story of Jobe. The Islamic approach stated that religion is there for guidance to balance out evil. The last interview stated that if every outcome were to occur then there would have to be an infinite number of worlds where every outcome happens to achieve perfection. Overall these different approaches all state that there is an inconsistency with how religions portray the issues of god and evil where god possibly takes this issue on in many different ways. There is also the possibility where god just does not exist because it would take out that factor completely.
ReplyDelete-(Anthony PHIL100_02)
The common theme to me seems that the philosophers can go in circles with their argument regardless of their position. Some believe that the evil created could be limited to an extent or that God could intervene randomly to prevent larger evils. But the next philosopher inadvertently rebuttals that argument by saying if we saw this interference happening there really isn’t the freewill we assume there to be. Then there is the issue of natural evil which should be able to be prevented but isn’t. Why do children have to die? Why do people have to suffer? I feel like whenever a philosopher tries to answer one question, ten more pop up. One philosopher did bring up physics and I thought that it was interesting since we think if we could just change one thing other evils couldn’t happen, but physics says that if everything was not as it is, then life would cease to exist. The different philosophers also have different views on what happens after life, and they range from limbo to hell to a place of understanding and forgiveness. I personally believe the people that have a good relationship with God will meet up with him in heaven and the others have their own fate whether that is purgatory or hell. I also think that God tries to show us that he is there with small gifts to show that we are not totally alone but he also stays back far enough that we can still choose him or evil.
ReplyDeleteRachel K. (1:00)
Looking at a few of the other comments, I also support the idea that those interviewed will not be able to come to a common conclusion. People’s individual thoughts and beliefs on the matter will always conflict with someone else, and we, humanity as a whole, will likely never come to a common conclusion on the matter unless God himself comes down to explain to us what it all means.
ReplyDeleteThinking on the “works in mysterious ways” and “greater good in the end” arguments seem like a cop-out to me. It seems too easy to rationalize such events into this argument, as it simply covers everything at once, leaving difficulty responding to it.
I do however like the idea presented by Mahmoud Ayoub, that of evil being a test for humanity. This is something I have thought about before, and came to accept as a child. Though of course a reply I saw to this would be the question of why some children and innocents are thrown into terrible situations such as cancer and shootings, leaving holes in the idea.
My personal view now would be that God is simply God, neither good nor evil, perhaps above it all. I find support in this idea when Ayoub mention verses in the Quran that Ga is responsible for both good and evil in the world.
Perhaps my favorite part of this was seeing the ideas of everybody, and the variation between each answer, between both philosophers and classmates, though I took too much time looking into each one and realized so too late.
Austin Hackworth (1:00)
While listening to these interviews it seems that they all come to the conclusion of there being no perfect God. Michael Shermer’s interview was the most appealing to me because he said that there is always a greater good even if you cannot see it. He brought up an interesting point that he believes evil happens to the people who need to be brought closer to God. Finding the greater good.
ReplyDeleteIn Nancy Murphy’s interview there seemed to be an agreement with Shermer there is a difference between moral and natural evils. Although in John Leslie’s interview he states that you cannot have all goods at once. If God were to eliminate all evil we would not learn from our mistakes. I believe that it all happens for a reason but I believe in karma not God. This also refers back to the interview of Don Page where he states that our future actions are set in stone, I do not believe this because how will I know what I am going to do in the future. I do not know what I will do wrong or if it is wrong it may be right at the moment. But in the moment it could be right and end up leading me on a bad path.
Chloe Johnson (1:00)