More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between good and evil
The relationship between good and evil
The problem of evil as an argument for the problem of evil
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The relationship between good and evil
Stacey Gaskin Prof. Charles Kay PHI 220 – Exam 2 4/28/14 Question #1: Compare the Ways that Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley each deal with the problem of evil and human error in a world created by an omnipotent and perfectly good God/creator. The Problem of Evil is the question that asks if God is perfectly benevolent, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then how can he allow evil to exist? Many philosophers have tried to answer this age-old question, often focusing on the intellect and the will. This essay will explore and compare the ways in which Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley each attempt to solve this dilemma. Descartes initially, in his fourth meditation, states that God does not create a faculty in which humans make mistakes (AT, IV 55). God, after all, is perfect and thus, his creation is perfect as well because God is not a deceiver. Descartes does not believe that error is the negation of perfection, but rather the lack of perfection. He offers several answers as to why humans lack perfection and the capability of fully understanding God's will. Descartes believes that ...
... God alone remains; and, given the truth of the principle that whatever exists has a cause, it follows, Descartes declares, that God exists we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or that the idea of a supremely perfect – that is of God – is in me, that the proof of God’s existence is grounded in the highest evidence” Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of him, and that God innately implanted the idea of infinite perfection in him.
In, “The Problem of Evil,” Eleonore Stump holds the belief that the existence of evil in our world does not automatically disprove God’s existence. The belief that God cannot live alongside evil is considered to be the Evidential Problem of evil and this is what Stump is arguing against in her paper. Stump argues, the ability to fix our defective free will makes Union with God possible, which overwrites all the un-absorbable evils in the world, showing both God and un-absorbable evils can coexist. In this paper I hope to show that God can exist, but also show that human free will is limited.
The problem of the evil deceiver leads Descartes into determining where God exists, who Descartes believes will discredit the notion of an evil deceiver. Descartes does not only have to prove the existence of God, but must attribute one essential quality to God: omnibenevolence. For God to trump this evil deceiver, God must possess the highest quality of goodness. Thus, the existence of God as an omnibenevolent entity voids the existence of an evil deceiver, for an all-good God would not deceive humans. In turn, by proving the existence of God, Descartes disproves the existence of the evil deceiver and solidifies Descartes understandings of truth. After discussing the necessity of assuring God’s existence, Descartes follows his piece with the actual argument proving the existence of God. Desecrates provides several lines of reasoning for proving God, but one of the most compelling ones revolves around the idea of formal realities versus their existence as ideas and the associated hierarchy of the finite and and the
Although their methods and reasoning contrasted one another, both philosophers methodically argued to come to a solid, irrefutable proof of God, which was a subject of great uncertainty and skepticism. Through Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes and Berkeley paved the way towards an age of confidence and faith in the truth of God’s perfect existence actively influencing the lives of
Final Paper In the following paper I will argue upon whether the Humes’ or Descartes’ philosophical position on the existence of the external world is stronger than the other. I will first present each philosopher’s position, and then I will argue that Hume has a stronger position on the existence of the external world for the reasons in this paper. Descartes argues that we can know the external world because of God, and God is not a deceiver. Descartes’ core foundation for understanding what is important comes from three points: our thoughts about the world and the things in it could be deceptive, our power of reasoning has found ideas that are indubitable, and certainty comes by way of reasoning.
In the first meditation, Descartes makes a conscious decision to search for “in each of them [his opinions] at least some reason for doubt”(12). Descartes rejects anything and everything that can be doubted and quests for something that is undeniably certain. The foundation of his doubt is that his opinions are largely established by his senses, yet “from time to time I [Descartes] have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once”(12). First, Descartes establishes that error is possible, employing the example of the straight stick that appears bent when partially submerged in water, as mentioned in the Sixth Replies (64-65). Secondly, he proves that at any given time he could be deceived, such is the case with realistic dreams. Further, Descartes is able to doubt absolutely everything since it cannot be ruled out that “some malicious demon … has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (15). The malicious demon not only causes Descartes to doubt God, but also sends him “unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom or swim on the top”(16). Descartes has reached the point where he must begin to rebuild by searching for certainty.
Descartes announces, “I make mistakes because the faculty of judging the truth, which I got from God, is not, in my case, infinite” (54-55, Meditations). Descartes believes errors of judgment are given to him from God, but in the end the choice is up to no one but himself. He takes full responsibility for his decisions, the ultimate attribute of free will.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Moving up the tower of certainty, he focuses on those ideas that can be supported by his original foundation. In such a way, Descartes’s goal is to establish all human knowledge on firm foundations. Thus, Descartes gains this knowledge from the natural light by using it to reference his main claims, specifically the existence of God in Meditation III, and provide an explanation to his radical thoughts. In Meditation III “The existence of God,” Descartes builds his foundation of certainty in the natural light through the examination of God’s existence.
In Descartes’ second meditation, he offers up an argument for Defective Nature Doubt that brings forth the idea that we can’t be certain of anything we perceive being actual and real (153). Descartes thinks that there is a possibility that we are constantly being deceived due to the fact that we don’t know, with perfect certainty, know where our ideas originate from (154). He tries to describe a method in order to dispel this Defective Nature Doubt by giving an argument for the existence of God. I think that the argument he gives for the existence of God is valid, yet I find it to be unsound due to the fact that a few of his premises are can easily be debated. In order to express this opinion, I will first provide explanations of the premises and conclusions of the argument, and then I will critique the premises that I find to be inadequate in order to support my opinion that Descartes’ argument is valid but unsound.
In his third meditation, Descartes expresses doubts about whether he can be absolutely certain of things that seem “clear and distinct.” He finds it necessary to doubt whether even such obvious propositions as “Three plus two equals five” are true because there might be, he says, a supremely powerful deceiver who is causing him to “be deceived even about matters [such as “Three plus two equals five”] that [seem] most evident.” He goes on to make an argument for the existence of a perfect God, reasoning that if such a God exists, he cannot be a deceiver and will therefore make sure that Descartes is not deceived about things that seem to be true.
Descartes’ “evil genius scenario” provides the possibility for the existence of an evil genius that is in control of our world in place on an omnipotent god. By in control, I mean that he would in some magical way compose our lives by his own will, thus making any certain knowledge about material objects impossible. This scenario presents some real questions with Descartes’ argument because it basically completely rules out the possibility of any god.
Next, in the fourth meditation, which leads into Descartes’ thoughts on himself in God’s view. It is important to compare the third meditation. A second point of view of not just an idea, but now Descartes himself. He asks why a perfect being such as God does not make a perfect being like Descartes himself. He questions why he is not perfect in that sense.
Although philosophy rarely alters its direction and mood with sudden swings, there are times when its new concerns and emphases clearly separate it from its immediate past. Such was the case with seventeenth-century Continental rationalism, whose founder was Rene Descartes and whose new program initiated what is called modern philosophy. In a sense, much of what the Continental rationalists set out to do had already been attempted by the medieval philosophers and by Bacon and Hobbes. But Descartes and Leibniz fashioned a new ideal for philosophy. Influenced by the progress and success of science and mathematics, their new program was an attempt to provide philosophy with the exactness of mathematics. They set out to formulate clear and rational principles that could be organized into a system of truths from which accurate information about the world could be deduced. Their emphasis was upon the rational ability of the human mind, which they now considered the source of truth both about man and about the world. Even though they did not reject the claims of religion, they did consider philosophical reasoning something different than supernatural revelation. They saw little value in feeling and enthusiasm as means for discovering truth, but they did believe that the mind of an individual is structured in such a way that simply by operating according to the appropriate method it can discover the nature of the universe. The rationalists assumed that what they could think clearly with their minds did in fact exist in the world outside their minds. Descartes and Leibniz even argued that certain ideas are innate in the human mind, that, given the proper occasion, experience would cause...
Descartes then states that he wishes to extend his knowledge through knowledge in his own self. He judges things that he once knew as fact to possibly now be doubtful and uncertain and that all his prior knowledge could have just been a work from a deceitful God. If then he wishes to learn from within himself and a deceitful God does in fact exist how can he affirm any knowledge within himself or even any knowledge he has affirmed through his meditations? If ideas that he once had now seemed uncertain then does that not mean all he knows can just be a work of a deceitful God, if of course a God does exist.
Leibniz’s Problem of Evil says if evil occurs, then one of the three following statements must be true; God is not all good, God is not all powerful, God is not omniscient. They mean, respectively; if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good; if God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all-powerful; if God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it, he must not be all-knowing. Each of these scenario’s go against the definition of God; therefore, he does not