What is the problem of evil? What are the problems that J.L. Mackie finds with the freewill solution to the problem of evil? Are there possible solutions to the problems that Mackie raises? The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists.
While he may provide light-hearted examples of deductive reasoning, Kalanithi also uses this rhetorical strategy to deliver controversial arguments and profound realizations. For instance, Kalanithi proposes the disputed claim that since “There is no proof of God; therefore, it is unreasonable to believe in God” (168). Through deductions, Kalanithi is able to present a sensitive topic and explain the reasoning behind his claim, creating support for the argument, as well as a more receptive environment. He also presents an epiphany through this strategy: the connection between
The divine command theory is a theory of an act is morally right because it is commanded by God and an act is immoral because God forbids it. The divine command theory has faced significant arguments that arose from Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma. In Euthyphro, the dialogue started with Socrates questioning Euthyphro what is the state of nature, of being pious, in response, Euthyphro declares that being pious is the good with whatever the God or superior commands. This arose the following question, “Are acts pious because the gods love them, or do the gods love actions because they are pious?” (Landau pg67). Specifically, does God command us to do whatever because it is morally right, or is whatever we do morally right because God commands us to
If he can find the universal definition of piety, he would be able to defend himself in on trial. Socrates then tries to learn the essence of piety from Euthyphro by questioning him over several definitions of what it may by using the process of elimination. Euthyphro’s first definition of piety was prosecuting the wrong. However, Socrates points out that examples of pity are not definitions can cannot define piety itself.
When encountered early in the book, the implication of this religious imagery is not fully apparent. However, once viewed in the context of the later Christian allusions found in A Clockwork Orange, it becomes clear that this is the proclamation of Burgess’ intent in this novel. Burgess views humanity as an organic thing, full of great potential to please God, and he sees the implication of conditioning, specifically, or more generally anything that would sap the essential ability of humans to choose, as a detriment to God’s
To better elaborate, Euthyphro was trying to explain to Socrates, what his belief on piety (the quality of being religious or reverent) and impiety (lack of piety or reverence, especially for a god) were. This was brought up due to the topic of Euthyphro thoughts of murdering his father. Proceeding onward, Socrates thirst for knowledge and comprehend made him pose the questions of what piety and impiety really mean. Euthyphro did
His definition equivocates knowledge and courage itself, rather than saying knowledge is necessary for courage. However, knowledge is not the only necessary condition for courage in his definition. Thus, the particulars of fearful and hopeful become problematic for Socrates. As Socrates points out through further questioning if one were to have such knowledge as stated by Nicias - one would have knowledge of all virtues, “of practically all goods and evils put together” (199d1). The elenctic method draws out contradictions in Nicias beliefs, leading again to a conflicted answer.
To refute this, Socrates asks Euthyphro “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods.” This brings to mind the concept of causality proposed by Immanuel Kant, so the question arises, who loves who, do the gods love the people because they are pious or do the people love the gods because they are the gods, and it is pious to love the gods. Causality tells us that event A causes event B, which is an effect, it should also be mentioned that event B cannot come before event A. Socrates further complicates the matter by stating, “nor is something carried because it is something carried, but it is something carried because it is being carried” in this case the carried thing is changed because it is carried
Brahmin does not accept happiness from being brainless. While Socrates think knowing ignorance of one self is a key of happiness. Socrates usually uses questioning technique to find out the logical mistake people have. He treats it as a way to find out truth. In contrast, Brahmin addresses his own interception toward the world and revises his answer to people who ask question about human life.
If the first is culled, it would implicatively insinuate that whatever God commands must be good: even if he commanded someone to inflict suffering, then inflicting suffering must be moral. If the latter is culled, then morality is no longer dependent on God, vanquishing the divine command theory. Also, if God is subject to an external law, he is not sovereign or omnipotent, which would challenge the orthodox conception of God. Proponents of the Euthyphro dilemma might claim that divine command theory is conspicuously erroneous because either answer challenges the competency of God to give moral
He particularly uses the fictional religion of Bokononism and again the quote “Call me Jonah….They called me John” to highlight the fallacy in the belief, following and creation of religion as well as the saving grace which religion possesses. The name of John may be intended to echo that of two Biblical prophets, John the Baptist and John of Patmos. The former foretold the coming of Christ and ended up dead for his troubles. The latter saw elaborate visions of the end of the world but did not truly understand them. The John of Cat’s Cradle is also a prophet of the latter type as he does not truly understand the end of the world.
The atheists seek to exploit the existence of human suffering in the face of an Omni-benevolent God as a contradiction, and since human suffering exists then God must not exist. Indeed, this is a challenging subject and Brother Warren devoted this book to