Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
St augustine in problem of evil
St augustine in problem of evil
Augustine theory on evil
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: St augustine in problem of evil
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Augustine’s and Ireneau's Theodicy
‘Evil did not come from God, since God’s creation was faultless and
perfect’ (St Augustine)
St Augustine was a man wrote a theodicy about the problem of evil and
suffering based on the Creation and Fall of Genesis in the bible, he
believed that evil was caused by something that was outside the
omnipotence of God. God himself is all powerful but after creating the
world, he Himself would not be able to control the actions that human
beings create in changing it. When God created the world, with
absolutely no evil and suffering, he saw what he had done and saw it
was all good.
God did not deprivate the world from having evil and suffering and he
has no reason to have any blame for it as God created the world with
nothing bad inside it. Evil is not a substance that could have been
created by God, therefore he cannot be responsible for it. I think
that this was a weak point in Augustine’s theodicy because he cannot
truthfully call evil a substance as humans do not know how much more
God could have done to create the world.
Human beings have chosen to make the world an evil place, they have
turned away from God and what he has created to make other beings
suffer. God did not put wars onto the world, human beings caused them
to happen over being greedy and selfish. Other humans want what other
humans have because of jealousy. For example; Why take a innocent
persons life just for the sake of it in less economically developed
countries? Is it just for the pleasure or fun of it? God left the
world in the hands of angels and human beings and they have just
abused...
... middle of paper ...
...of millions of people dying for the greed and jealousy of
other humans. Love from God cannot be expressed by the death of
people, that is not right. People dying of natural diseases that
cannot be helped and going to heaven is not as sinful as people dying
for no apparent reason and going to heaven.
‘Gods gift of free will is in no way an excuse for the existence of
evil’ If God knows the consequences of the humans that he had created
then why give them the choice of free will. Humans are like robots,
their actions can already be concluded before even having chosen them
yet. Therefore God would have known what the consequences of evil and
suffering could be. For example; wars, dying, the Holocaust and less
economically developed countries. An omnipotent God would not have
made humans suffer from evil for any purpose.
Since laws put certain restrictions on a human’s free will, it should not stop humans from doing what he or she wants to do. He also expresses how society and nature should not determine one’s own free will, because it can never be taken away from humans. This, roughly speaking, is the principle of transfer of nonresponsibility. Now, an argument can be generated to show that causal determinism rules out moral responsibility.
God is someone who encompasses all good things which means he must be a good God, and a good God would not want evil in our world. Humans having free will is a claim brought up by Stump to show Plantinga’s “Free will defense,” to possibly answer the problem of evil. Plantinga believes the response to the logical problem of evil is, the possibility of having free will and using it for good rather than evil, is a value that has the potential to outweigh all the evil in the world. Stump revises this claim because it leaves the existence of evil mysterious and does not fulfill the entirety of the response to the evidential problem of
At first glance, I was immediatly inclined to argue in epictetus' favor, because it pains
434). This is saying that the act of will cannot actually occur without something causing that action. If there is no cause, the will cannot act. This solidifies the idea that the will is not actually free. If the will were free, it would not be dependent on any cause or series of causes. Rée brings about a worthy argument involving a stone which aids in the illustration of the nonexistence of free will. In order for the stone to change position from where it sits at that very moment, whether it be by being thrown or by being kicked, its necessary cause must be present. As Rée states: “The stone will fly through the air if it is tossed” (Rée, p. 434). In this case, the cause would be the tossing of the stone, and the result would be the stone changing its position by flying through the air. This example proves that free will is nonexistent. The stone does not decide whether it is tossed or not. If the cause of the motion is present, then the will acts. However, if the cause of the motion is absent, then the stone would not move at all and would still sit at the same place. I agree with this argument. The motion of the stone is predetermined and there is nothing it can do about it. If the cause is present, the action will take place. Rée further argues that the will is subject to the law of causality and
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
Some believe in the power of grace and almost do not believe in the existence of free will. There are those who grace creates the best in people, while free will plunges us into sin. And the last kind of people are those who believe there is a clear need for, and free will is a myth. God said that If you obey my commandments - will live - if not, you die. Here God tells us what to do as I command and get reparation, if you disobey, you will get punished. Is not that what can be called free will - the right to choose their own destiny (Erasmus, 1961, pp.
It has been sincerely obvious that our own experience of some source that we do leads in result of our own free choices. For example, we probably believe that we freely chose to do the tasks and thoughts that come to us making us doing the task. However, we may start to wonder if our choices that we chose are actually free. As we read further into the Fifty Readings in Philosophy by Donald C. Abel, all the readers would argue about the thought of free will. The first reading “The System of Human Freedom” by Baron D’Holbach, Holbach argues that “human being are wholly physical entities and therefore wholly subject to the law of nature. We have a will, but our will is not free because it necessarily seeks our well-being and self-preservation.” For example, if was extremely thirsty and came upon a fountain of water but you knew that the water was poisonous. If I refrain from drinking the water, that is because of the strength of my desire to avoid drinking the poisonous water. If I was too drink the water, it was because I presented my desire of the water by having the water overpowering me for overseeing the poison within the water. Whether I drink or refrain from the water, my action are the reason of the out coming and effect of the motion I take next. Holbach concludes that every human action that is take like everything occurring in nature, “is necessary consequences of cause, visible or concealed, that are forced to act according to their proper nature.” (pg. 269)
limitedly free beings; to say that a certain world is more valuable than any other appears to be simply an arbitrary statement. Moreover, it is necessary to contemplate whether humans are indeed free, as Augustine argues. There is always a possibility that we are totally determined. After all, one may argue, humans do not freely decide to be born, do not freely decide to be the recipients of a free will, and do not freely decide to live in a world dominated by a God that in the end decides whether one receives punishment or reward. In other words, if one looks at the world this way, i.e., a place created and totally dominated by God who decides what is morally good, who ultimately decides the fate of every human being, it seems that humans are not significantly free after all, unless one considers freedom from God’s perspective.
.... ... middle of paper ... ... Nevertheless, as I stated earlier, for something to be determined, I believe that God is required. So, by saying that one needs to eliminate a God and other requirements to have free will, then one falsifies determinism, thus making this view incorrect.
may be free to choose our own path. The fatal flaw in this argument is that
God is the source of evil. He created natural evil, and gave humans the ability to do moral evil by giving them a free will. However, had he not given people free will, then their actions would not be good or evil; nor could God reward or punish man for his actions since they had no choice in what to do. Therefore, by giving humans choice and free will, God allowed humanity to decide whether to reward themselves with temporary physical goods, and suffer in the long run from unhappiness, or forsake bodily pleasures for eternal happiness.
In St. Augustine’s book entitled Political Writings, one could see that Christianity plays a very important role in his view of politics. His opinion on the morality or lack of morality in politics, to me makes it more evident that Christianity persuades his views. Although it seems his writings have become quite well known and admired, not everyone fully shared his beliefs. Niccolo Machiavelli, for instance, seemed to believe in a government that was not driven by morality, but more by practicality. In, The Prince, Machiavelli stresses that the moral fibers of government should not be so soft. Like St. Augustine, his work went on to become one of the most famous books ever written about politics. Throughout the two works there are some similarities and differences regarding politics, however it their view of Christianity and morality that many find most intriguing.
One thing that philosophers are great at is asking big questions, usually without providing answers. However, Saint Augustine has a more direct approach to his speculation, often offering a solution to the questions he poses. One such topic he broached in The City of God against the pagans. In this text, Augustine addresses the problem of free will and extends his own viewpoint. Stating that humankind can have free will with an omniscient God, he clarifies by defining foreknowledge, free will, and how they can interact successfully together (Augustine, 198). Throughout his argument, he builds a compelling case with minimal leaps of faith, disregarding, of course, that you must believe in God. He first illustrates the problem of free will, that it is an ongoing questions amongst many philosophers, then provides insight into the difference between fate and foreknowledge. Finally, finishing his argument with a thorough walk-through on how God can know everything, and yet not affect your future decisions.
Furthermore, God had no free will in creating the universe, (from Cor. 1 Pr. 32, p.142 as
The concept of free will has developed slowly, though ancient philosophers did address the subject when trying to reconcile intentional action with religious concerns about human and divine freedom. It wasn’t until the end of medieval times that the modern-day understanding of freedom as a completely undetermined choice between alternatives was introduced. However, it is unclear how to reconcile contemporary science that acknowledges the in...