Philosophy of Religion Final

Present a response to the problem of divine hiddenness. How does this response attempt to answer Schellenberg's concerns? Do you think it's successful?

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" - Howard-Snyder God is like noseeums Only God knows enough to know why suffering is right This is not successful

What is the difference between the logical and evidential problems of evil? Is one more effective than the other?

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 2. An omniscient, 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. ∴ There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being The logical and evidential problems of evil have the same premises, except that with the evidential problem of evil, we say based on the evidence we have, there are no instances of intense suffering and thus based on the evidence we have, God does not exist The evidential problem of evil is more effective because we are not omniscient so we cannot know premise one is definitely true, so the evidential problem of evil is easier to prove (Plantinga disproved the logical problem of evil)

What is religious exclusivism? Must everyone be a religious exclusivist with respect to at least one religious belief? Explain.

A religious exclusivist is someone who believes that the religious tenets or some of the tenets of only one religious system to be the truth and other religious perspective's false. One has to be a religious exclusivist if they hold a particular doctrinal belief to be true. Contradictory propositions cannot simultaneously be true, to not violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, one has to that they believe the beliefs which contradict their specific religious view to be false.

What does the skeptical theist think we should be skeptical about? Does their position get them into epistemic trouble? Explain.

First, skeptical theism is the view that God does exist, but we need to be skeptical of our ability to recognize why God does or does not do certain things (or allows/does not intervene). "We should be in doubt about whether the goods we know of constitute a representative sample of the goods there are," The skeptical theist thinks that evil cannot be considered evidence of God's nonexistence. This view is a response to the evidential problem of evil by rejecting the central premise, which says God (Omni x3) and evil are incompatible. The theory says we have to be skeptical about our own ability to understand or know God's reasoning, therefore. At the same time, it appears there are instances of gratuitous evil in the world; we cannot rationally use this to determine if God does or does not exist. Skeptical theism can raise epistemic issues, with the claim that we are not justified in our belief of gratuitous evil. One argument is that we should be able to have a reasonable belief in our ability to discern what are unnecessary evils. Evil can be observed in the world, and if we deny this, we must begin to question our proper functions. If we accept skepticism, theism makes it so empirical evidence of evil cannot be used when trying to disprove the existence of God. Which raises the concern that skeptical theism will lead to widespread global skepticism The reply: Reformed epistemology ( Bergmann/Plantinga) is used to respond to these objections, saying that religious beliefs, and belief in God, can be rational to hold even if that belief is not based on other beliefs, arguments. These beliefs are called properly basic beliefs.

What is the free will defense? How is it supposed to answer the problem of evil?

Free Will Defense is an argument made by Plantinga to explain the existence of evil The existence of free will justifies and causes evil Argument rests on the presumption that it is impossible to guarantee that a being will always and freely choose the good and on the definition: free will means that you can either do X (Evil) or refrain from doing X (Evil) evil exists because it is necessary to allow the choosing of goodness; free will requires evil

Does religious pluralism necessarily pose a problem for any particular religious belief you have? Explain.

If I really thought it out, then yes because there are many different religious beliefs that all claim to be true, so why would one religious belief be more plausible than. However, I think each religious tradition has value to those that believe in it.

How does Rea think that either the nature of relationships or God's personality explains why God might hide or be silent? Do you find this convincing? Why or why not?

In relationships, we shouldn't be slavishly devoted to the good of other, so neither should God God must be better than us in terms of relationships and silence may be indicative of an important type of relationship I do not find this convincing because God is silent all the time, not just sometimes and that is not how to form a good relationship

Present one key ethical assumption endorsed by a proponent of a problem of evil. Must the theist accept it?

One key ethical assumption endorsed by a proponent of the problem of evil is that there appears to be a large amount of intense suffering that seems unnecessary (in that it does not prevent a greater evil or bring about a greater good) The theist could respond by saying this intense suffering does happen, but it is for a reason: to build character or bring one closer to God; as finite, imperfect beings we do not have access to God's reasoning, so we have to trust that God is not causing unnecessary suffering

What is a noseeum inference, and how does Howard-Snyder think these inferences are used in arguments from evil? Does Howard-Snyder think these inferences are legitimate?

Rowe: there are some entities about which absence of evidence of their existence = evidence of their absence. This is a noseeum inference. For instance, big dogs in small tents. If you don't see a big dog in a small tent, this is evidence that there is no big dog in the small tent. However, there are other entities which this seeability test is inapplicable to. For instance, noseeum flies. If you don't see them in a tent, you cannot conclude they are absence, because they have low seeability. Rowe: given the greatness of God and the nature of a perfect being/suffering relationship, God is an entity which, if he does exist, would have very clear evidence of his existence. Because this evidence is absent, there is evidence for his non-existence Howard-Snyder: the method is right, but Rowe's analysis of God's seeability is wrong given the nature of a perfect being, it has access to reasons we cannot hope to understand to justify evil in a perfect being/suffering relationship → god is a type of being which may have low seeability limitation is in humans for being unable to understand that relationship, not a fault in God

What is a greater goods defense and how is it supposed to answer the problem of evil?

The Greater Goods defense explains the existence of evil as being necessary for some instances to produce a greater good. It is typically used to respond to the evidential problem of evil. In answering the problem of evil, the defense claims that God allows evils to occur that are smaller in value than the greater good, which they will produce. If God eliminated the evil, he would have eliminated the greater good as well. Therefore making evil necessary. The Greater Goods defense is combined with free will defenses, which suggest that having free will itself is the greatest good, and for people to have free will, they must have the option to do evil.

What is the Hypothesis of Indifference and what relationship does van Inwagen think it has to the problem of evil? What does he think we should conclude?

The Hypothesis of Indifference states: "Neither the nature nor conditions of sentient beings on Earth is the result of benevolent or malevolent actions performed by non-humans." Van Inwagen is saying that evidential arguments for the problem of evil cannot be considered. So the argument for the problem of evil fails since we need to assume that God does not cause the evil affecting sentient beings.

Can the soul-making theodicy account for the problem of divine hiddenness? Natural evil?

The Soul-Making theodicy accounts for divine hiddenness and natural evil because they form components of the larger problem of evil. Faith in the face of divine silence is more fulfilling and spiritually meaningful than worshipping a God you know for a fact is real and can see. It forms another component of the soul making process Likewise, natural evil serves as another obstacle Believing in a divine being, i.e. God, and the goodness of creation in the face of natural disasters and unavoidable human suffering from natural events, for the soul making philosopher, is a far richer and more developed faith and spirituality than believing in a good God in a comfortable world. A potential issue here, and with the larger Soul-Making Theodicy, is the question of whether or not we live in the best of all possible worlds Could our cage be comfier? Is this amount of evil necessary?

Consider Rowe's case of the fawn dying in the forest. What is this case meant to show? How might the theist try to account for the case?

The fawn is meant to show natural evil. Since God is supposed to possess the 3 Omni's, this being should prevent the occurence of suffering and evil. Given the evidence, Rowe believes that the perfect being, God, doesn't exist The theist would respond with the argument that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence Snyder and skeptical theists with no see-um example

What is the soul-making theodicy? Does the proponent of this theodicy think that evil is necessary? If so, how?

The soul-making theodicy is an adaptation of a theological position held by one of the church fathers St. Irenaeus. Irenaeus states that, when understanding the phrase "image and likeness of God" we must view "image" and "likeness" as separate aspects of this descriptor. In essence, we are made in God's image by our physical form at the time of genesis. Although our forms are diverse, they share the same core structure. In contrast, who we are, as humans, is deeply personal. In this way, likeness—in contrast to our external form—becomes deeply personal as well. As such, it can't be created instantaneously or given a-priori. Rather, as both Hick's and Irenaeus asserts, it must be forged through our actions This makes our likeness/goodness more real and fulfilling Because this soul-making is the ultimate good, John Hick' soul-making theodicy states that evil and sin are necessary They serve as temptation and challenges for our personal development. If God made us perfectly moral beings, we would not be free to grow as individuals through experiencing temptation and our relationship with God would be less rich and fulfilling on both ends

What is the difference between a theodicy and a defense? Is one more helpful than the other?

Theodicy: can be non-comprehensive (gives a reason instead); A more positive task of offering credible reasons to think that theism makes plausible sense of suffering and evil. They attempt to justify the ways of God to man by showing how or why God allows evil. Defense: Establishes that a given formulation of the argument against God from the problem of evil fails; defensive strategies are designed to show that evidential arguments against God on the basis of evil are unsuccessful in establishing that theism is improbable, unlikely, or implausible. Greater Good Defense: a greater good results from this evil so that it outweighs the evil (good generates free will) Free Will Defense: free will is a great good that outweighs the evil of suffering (evil justified by free will, free choices generate good)

Present one version of Schellenberg's argument from divine hiddenness. What does Schellenberg think we can conclude?

There are people who are capable of relating personally to God, but through no fault of their own fail to believe If there is a personal God, then there are no such non-capable people No such personal God that Exists God doesn't exist because of divine hiddenness , and the suffering it brings A being perfect in love and morality, having a personal relationship with us, the last thing we should expect is absence of evidence and silence