🔥FINAL🔥 Flashcards
Know the Evidential Problem of Evil
It claims that the apparent existence of certain kinds of evil, namely gratuitous and pointless evil, provides good rational evidence the the theistic God does not exist.
- Probably pointless evil Exists
- An omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good being would under no circumstances permit pointless evil.
- Therefore, probably there is no omniscient, omnipotent, wholly wood being
What are Rowe’s reasons for thinking that premise 1 (Probably pointless evil exists) is true?
- Cases of apparently pointless suffering do not prove that premise 1 is true.
- We are in no epistemic position to know that presmise 1 is true with certainty.
- Even if 2 is true however, it is just not reasonable to believe that there is some greater good intimately tied to certain instances of suffering such that God could not have obtained that good without allowing the kind of suffering under consideration, let alone that much or to that degree.
- Surely it cannot be reasonable to explain away every single instance of intense suffering occuring daily in our world.
What are
Riwe’s rweasons for thing that premise 2 of the Evidential Problem is true (An omniscient wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it culd, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.)
Rowe claims is “in accordance with our basic moral principles, principles shared by both theists and nontheists”
It is not reasonable to try and explain away every instance of evil as well as it’s degree
What are the three resopnses a theist can make against premise 1 of the Evidential Problem? Which one does Rowe think is the best?
- Show that we have no good reason for accepting premise 1. 2. pose a direct attack (theodicy) or 3. Indirect attack (The G. E. Moore shift.
Rowe thinks the G.E. Moore shift is the best:
(not-3) There exists an omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good being.
2. A wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(not-1) There, it is not the case that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without therby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bed or worse.
Even with the G.E Moore Shift, why does Rowe ultimatly believe that atheis is more rationally justifiable over theism?
While Rowe thinks theisit can have rational justification for their beliefs, he takes the view that those beliefs are still false.
How is it possible for someone to be rationally justified in believing a claim that is false?
Calculater example, plane crash example. In a word, missing information.
what are the two models of creation that Hick discusses (Augustinian vs Irenaean)
Augustine:
1. Majority report- 1 stage
2. Regards man as created in a finished state who then fell away from this perfection
3. involces an understanding of evil, free will, Divine a\plenitude and aesthetic harmony in God’s creation.
Irenaeus:
1. minority report- 2 stages
2. regards man as still in a process of creation
3. Gradual spiritualization
Why, according to Hick, is God not able to create creatures “ready-made” in the likeness of Himself?
Hick; “The ultimate point of human life- life on this earth- is soul-making.”
“for personal life is essentially free and self directing. It cannot be perfected by divine fiat, but only through the uncompelled responses and willing co-operation of human individuals in their actions and reactions in the world in which God has placed them.”
Hick notes that the Irenaean model brings along with it a certain value-judgment. What is that judgment?
“One who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virture.”
There is value in humans choicing the good as part of the gradual spiritualization
Given his analysis, what is the ultimate point of human life, for Hick? What do the “antitheistic” writers think it is?
Hick thinks the point of life on this earth is soul making, while the “antitheistic” view is pleasure.
Why does Hick believe that dysteleological suffering must exist?
If all evil suffered was deserved, then
A. Human’s would give no sympathy or sacrificial help.
B. There would be no good for its own sake.
Freurbach suggests that religous people confuse consciousness of object with consciousness of self. What does he mean>
Freurbach is suggesting that people project themselves onto the Universe and create religian in their own image.
What does Feuerdbach mean when he says that “religion is man’s earliest and … indirect form of self-knowledge?”
Since religion is a reflection of ones self, according to Feuerdbach, then it is also a form of self-knowledge. He thought you could learn about a person based on their religain because it was a reflection of themself and their ideals.
What in general does Feuerbach think about the traditional “properties” of God?
Traditionally, God is viewed as being practically unknowable, which Feuerbach thinks is an exucus for not having enough facts.
According to Freud, what is the basic explanation for our belief in the existence of God and religion?
“Frued argues for neurosis. God is just a psychical father-figure, hence religion is an illusion of wish-fulfillment.” For Freud, religian comes from the childish need to be protected.
Explain the difference between an illusion and a delusion. Which does Freud thing “religous doctrines” are?
Ilusions are derived from human wishes, or ways we would like the world to turn out.. They may be possible, but are not supported by rational ecidence. Psychological illusions are possible scenarios, but highly unlikely ones, given the empirical structure of reality.
Delusions are more complicated than illusions: it is essential to eny delusion that is is in contradiction with reality, or involves extreme perceptual distortions about reality.
Illusision Might be true, and delsuions work directly against fact about the world and the way it is.
Freud thinks religous doctines are illustions. There is not enough evdience to support them, but they can not be verified.
What would Freud say against the person who claims that religious doctrines are in fact rational to believe, since they cannot be verified or refuted by science?
“Scientific work is the only road which can lead us to a knowledge of reality outside ourselves”
Science is the only way to form rational believes.
Does Fraud believe that religous doctrines are in fact false? Why or why not?
Fraud believed that religous doctrines are just extremlly unlikly, but since science can’t prove them wrong he doesn’t think they are false. They aren’t lies, just not the truth.
According to Alvin Plantinga, what id naturalism?
there is only Matter and it’s configuration, addition, subtration, and rearganment.
Why is naturalistic evolution its own epistemological defeater? Explain the reasoning behind Plantinga’s argument, particularly with respect to the problem of belief formation.
we can’t know for sure weither or not our minds are trust worthy, if they can comprenhend reality.
The theory is trying to give proofs for why there are no proofs. Even if it is true, it is unreasnable to believe, because it underminds all belief.
According to Clifford, what is the relationship between belief and action?
Clifford believed that all believes affect a person’s actions. there are no private belives, and there are no insignicant beliefs.
Are there insignificant or private beliefs for Clifford? Why or why not?
No. Clifford thought that every belief effects other belives. if someone lazyly adopts one belief, they are more likely to do the same next time and become content wwith not having truth. This effects the people aroudn them and altemtly the whole comiitty and human race.
What is Clifford’s Rule? If we take it seriously, what are we to say about the notion of faith?
“It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
If we took this rule seriously, we would say faith is not only irrational, but morally wrong.
