Growing up, I loved riddles—at least riddles I could solve. Few things were more satisfying that sharing a riddle with a friend and having them give up in defeat. Over the years, I’ve learned some riddles are puzzles that entertain and some are puzzles that instruct us. Most riddles are little more than innocuous puzzles to help pass the time. Some force us to confront life’s deepest mysteries. Even the attempt to resolve such riddles often leaves us confused and perplexed. Sometimes our attempts to answer such questions move us into great faith but almost as easily they move us into the foreboding shadows of darkness and doubt. Few willingly confront such questions, but ultimately we must confront our deepest doubts and fears. More often than not, these questions come when we’re most vulnerable and exposed. In such moments, our entire outlook can be transformed.
No riddle, no question may be more daunting than questions about the existence of evil and human suffering. Only the most calloused heart is untouched by images of suffering children. Only the most hardened heart can see a child’s belly swollen from starvation and not ask why. Few scenes create more hopelessness than a weeping mother cradling the mangled, lifeless body of her child amid the destruction caused by yet another senseless, indiscriminate suicide bombing. Daily we’re inundated with images of nature’s wrath against those least able to protect themselves. Confronted with such powerful images of human suffering, we cringe, weep, puzzle, and even scream out against the senselessness. We deaden ourselves against the carnage, but eventually we can no longer avoid such hard questions. Theist and non-theist alike confront their doubts, seeking some kind of answer tha...
... middle of paper ...
... sole governing principle of public policy. Less “evolved” people must be eliminated—evolution is by necessity racist. If evolution solves the mystery of human existence, then logically some humans are more advanced than others. These individuals must be identified, their breeding encouraged even as we restrict breeding by lesser humans. Non-theists might recoil from this legacy but it is theirs. Today, major non-theist ethicists propose just what their philosophical fathers suggested. Children deemed unfit should die; when individuals become useless their lives should end. Resources should be committed to eliminating those who drain resources from the deserving. The world of the non-theist is harsh and uncaring—the natural outcome of their worldview. Harsh, perhaps, but logical and consistent with their protestations God not only does not exist, He is unnecessary.
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
A second and stronger objection to Mackie’s version of the problem of evil is explained to us using the terms 1st and 2nd order goods and evils. 1st order goods/evils are purely physical. Examples are pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. It is claimed by many theists that 1st order evils such as pain and suffering are necessary for 2nd order goods like courage and charity. However there exists what Mackie calls a “fatal objection” to this claim and that is that along with 2nd order goods there must also exist 2nd order evil...
If people were always kind and obedient to those who are cruel and unjust, the wicked people have it all their own way: they would never feel afraid, and so they would have it all their own way: they would never alter, but would grow worse and worse. When we are struck at w...
The Canadian philosopher J.L. Schellenberg has recently put forward an argument for atheism based on the idea that God is supposed to be perfectly loving and so would not permit people to be deprived of awareness of his existence. If such a deity were to exist, then, he would do something to reveal his existence clearly to people, thereby causing them to become theists. Thus, the fact that there are so many non-theists in the world becomes good reason to deny the existence of God conceived of in the given way. I first raise objections to Schellenberg’s formulation of the argument and then suggest some improvements. My main improvement is to include among the divine attributes the property of strongly desiring humanity’s love. Since to love God requires at least believing that he exists, if God were to exist, he must want widespread theistic belief. The fact that so many people lack such belief becomes a good argument for atheism with respect to God conceived of in the given way. Some objections to this line of reasoning are considered, in particular the claim that God refrains from revealing himself to people in order to avoid interfering with their free will or to avoid eliciting inappropriate responses from them or some other (unknown) purpose. An attempt is made to refute each of these objections.
A consequentialist response to Alyosha's refusal to consent to trade the suffering and death of one innocent in exchange for universal harmony is that, in the present inharmonious order, many innocent children will die horribly, not just one. Alyosha's tender conscience will cost thousands of innocent children their lives. And so the debate continues.
One’s worldview is usually dependant on how the particular individual interprets life and its occurrences. Additionally, if one believes something to be so, it will be so to them. It’s all a matter of perception. However, which perspective is truly accurate: Agnosticism, Theism, or Deism? These three worldviews have been the subject of countless debates throughout history and that have yet to be concluded. The purpose of this philosophical essay is to suggest that theism is likely to be considered the correct worldview.
The meaning of religion can be different for everyone; some use it to justify events happening, while others use it to turn people against each other. As Kurt Vonnegut describes tragic events during World War II, unrealistic adventures in space and destructive scientific advances, he shares his unique perspective on life and religion. Although many of his works were set during 20th century, Vonnegut satirically addresses issues that are present in today’s society. Despite efforts to prevent wars, people have not found a solution to do it. And while mankind progresses toward scientific way of life, the destruction of life is inevitable. New machines are invented every day to make genocide easier and faster. So, in Cat’s Cradle and Slaughterhouse
With his knowledgeable insight on the world and its origin, Whitney Harris’ belief that human existence is in peril imposes on my perspective of the world. Harris points out the logical points that modern day science has proven. The Earth was created by the explosion informally known as the “big boom”. What caused this eruption is still debated, but Harris claims it was the touch of God. He asserts. “To ignite the spark of life required the hand of God.” This challenged my personal beliefs because in my faith, God created the entire universe in seven legendary days. I was also raised to believe that God is forgiving and accepting to all. Harris challenges this, he believes that “...if man desires to destroy himself…God will not save him.” Murder and even suicide are both considered violations to the Fifth Commandment in the Catholic faith. Although it is a sin to disobey the Ten Comman...
Jim Tilley uses humor to create a philosophically serious poem in The Big Questions. Tilley states in the poem that big questions are big only because they have never been answered. Using the comparison of a bear’s big questions to a human’s big questions, he brings up some good points. The bear is eyeing the human as the answer to his only big question, and he has figured out the answer. As compared to human’s where everything is much more complex. We worry constantly about miniscule problems and are always looking for answers to life’s big questions.
The question of why bad things happen to good people has perplexed and angered humans throughout history. The most common remedy to ease the confusion is to discover the inflicter of the undeserved suffering and direct the anger at them: the horror felt about the Holocaust can be re-directed in the short term by transforming Adolf Hitler into Lucifer and vilifying him, and, in the long term, can be used as a healing device when it is turned into education to assure that such an atrocity is never repeated. What, however, can be done with the distasteful emotions felt about the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Surely the citizens of those two cities did not themselves directly provoke the government of the United States to deserve the horror of a nuclear attack. Can it be doubted that their sufferings were undeserved and should cause deep sorrow, regret, and anger? Yet for the citizens of the United States to confront these emotions they must also confront the failings of their own government. A similar problem is found in two works of literature, Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound and the book of Job found in the Tanakh. In each of these works a good man is seen to be suffering at the hand of his god; Prometheus is chained to a rock by Zeus who then sends an eagle to daily eat Prometheus' liver while Job is made destitute and brought to endure physical pain through an agreement between God~ and Satan. To examine the travails of these two men is to discover two vastly different concepts of the relationship between god and man.
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
"Each contact with a human being is so rare, so precious, one should preserve it."(Anais Nin). This means that every person one comes in contact with has an influence on his life. One should never forget the people who go out of their way to be nice to them.
... their parent, or guardian, or the person they look up to. The influence of religion is significant because it gives people a single minded approach towards death, dying, other religions, and the world. Having a single minded approach towards religion can stop a person from living life and experiencing things other would tend to. The influence of religion can be very dangerous, such as religious persecution. But things like religious persecution usually happen when, again, religion is single minded, or one only practices in one religion. In Morrie’s case, religion was helpful
The abstract idea of life cannot be explained by such simple ideas as being animated, breathing, or speaking. Ordinary machines in this century can perform all of these basic functions. The quandary with defining death is not as abstract and elusive as that of life. The problem of defining life and death has plagued philosophers and the religious bodies for thousands of years for one reason; each philosophy or religion has tried to define the meaning of life and death from only their certain perspective. The seemingly appropriate approach to this problem would be to understand the ideas presented in various philosophies and religions and through this knowledge create a new definition for each idea of life and death. The movie Blade Runner has taken this exact approach in its attempt to finally define life and death in a logical and un-spiritual manner. By taking the position that death is a concrete idea that can be explained, Blade Runner accomplishes the task of interpreting the idea of life in terms death. Through this approach, the meaning of life is redefined to accommodate for the existence of the replicants. Also, as a result of this novel notion of life, it is apparent that humans and replicants never actually live, even though they are alive.