Life After death Flashcards
What is natural evil
natural disasters
Suffering caused by natural phenomena
people are wholly innocent of the reasons for that suffering
what is moral evil
human evils- murder/ torture
Evil in which suffering is causes by intentionally malicious actions of others.
Human beings are free to carry out such acts on one another
Human beings are free to cause suffering
Irenaus’ Theory
It was developed by Hick later. Is often thought of as a ‘soul-making’ theodicy
the idea is, essentially, that human beings have the imagery of God but not the content of God.
Human beings were created imperfect in order to develop towards perfection
Adam+ Eve were unrefined material that God was then to build on in subsequent creative work
The Fall, is seen as an un-anvoidable part of growing up and maturing an additional part of that maturing process (on Hicks version) is that we as humans are evolutionary culmination that has grown into the possibility of living in conscious fellowship with God.
Involves making reasoned choices
Objections to Irenaus’ Theory
A much more powerful objection to this line of argument centres on the claim that goodness can only properly arise out of evil.
If we are to accept this claim, then it needs to be shown that all evil results in goodness; in other words, evil is justified by the goodness it produces.
Many people who experience terrible evil end up suffering for the rest of their loves perhaps from physical and mental trauma. There are evil acts that don’t end in goodness. Some people come out of badness and convert to Theism.
The Problem of Evil
works on the standard definition of christian God:
Omnipotent: all powerful
Omniscient: all knowing
Omnibenevolent: all good
God can be two of these things but not all three.
‘Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot then is not all- powerful: if he will not then he is not all good’ the presence of evil in the world logically contradicts the possibility of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God
Objections to the problem of evil
How can Adam and Eve be held accountable for what they did if God created them knowing that they would eat of the tree of knowledge
If God was all powerful and all-knowing, he would know about future natural disasters and be able to stop them. If he is all good why does he not do so?
What is the Free Will Defence
This defence states that in order for human beings to properly understand good and evil they need to encounter given forms of each.
One cannot appreciate a sunny day without experiencing a rainy one after all, so one cannot appreciate goodness without evil
God, therefore, had to give us free will in order for us to learn and understand the meanings of our actions more fully.
One could push this defence further and say that such evil is necessary in order to allow for certain acts of profound goodness
We are at liberty to choose to live wherever we like. Theologians suggest that it is our choices that brings us suffering, not God
We choose to live in an earthquake zone or in the shadow of a volcano- it is up to us
A moral argument for the existence of God
‘If God does not exist, everything is permitted’
The moral argument for the existence of God: God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties
P1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist ( this premise is meaningless therefore in invalid)
P2) Objective moral values and duties do not exist ( it is not clear what objective even means here)
Therefore God exists
The sllyogism is valid in that the conclusion necessarily follow from the premises.
What is a sound argument
Is a valid argument in which the premises are true
What is a valid argument
Is an argument in which the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises
What is Hastings Rashdall say about moral law
We are born with knowledge of moral law
this moral law has been programmed into us (it is a form of innate knowledge)
Only God would be able to programme us from birth
We are aware (through our conscience among other things) of morals; this is evidence of such programming and, therefore, evidence of God
Thus, objective morality, implies belief in God
Moral Knowledge and Evolution
Moral Knowledge comes from how we have evolved
we have learnt cooperation in order to survive (social contract) it pays to be socialble.
Morality is nothing more than an evolved attitude.
It does not mean we have objective moral values as it links morality morality to coherency- just because we accepted it doesn’t mean its objective or morally true
Our emotions play a part in our desire to cooperate- this is an evolved characteristic to be sociable
Evolution does not tell us what is right and wrong, we cooperate in ways that are not morally acceptable and benefit from them. Thus: morality determines which forms of social cooperation are socially acceptable. We use morality for our own ends but we also ignore it for the same reasons
Augustine’s Argument- Free Will against the Problem of Evil
St A claimed that natural evil was born out of moral evil. By eating of the tree of knowledge Adam+ Eve altered the nature of the universe- this included human relationships between one another and human and animal relationships.
Objections to Augustine’s Argument- Free Will against the Problem of Evil
God would have known and altering the universe would have been apart of Gods plan so we cannot blame Adam+ Eve
Whether or not the Fall actually occurred, if not then there is the difficulty of natural evil occurring in the animal kingdom
If so then are we to take Genesis literally and abandon Darwinian and geological accounts of evolution
If we accept the events in Genesis, it seems rather unjust that animal suffering and that of human beings is considered separately. Is it just to avenge the wrong-doing of parents by harming their offspring? Are we then forced to play the mystery card again?
The afterlife
Hick argues that the idea of hell is not to be understood literally; a benevolent God could not eternally punish people
Swinburne argues that death is an essential part of a reasonable theodicy; it is only if our choices are limited by time that they acquire significance. There will always be another chance
What does D.Z Phillips say about the afterlife
Rejects Hick and Augustin as soul making theodicies involve an instrumental use of evil by God
It cannot be morally right for a good God to permit evil often in a big scale in order to bring future good.
He argued that eternal life in heaven may be compensation but it does not correct Gods immorality
