God and the Problem of Evil
Question 1
I do agree with the argument by Rowe (2001) that it seems improbable that all cases of great suffering by people and animals result in greater good. This is especially true if the achievement of the said “greater goods” is to be looked from the standpoint of the person or the animal that is undergoing the pain and suffering. There is no doubt that, from the many experiences that all of us have gone through, some instances of intense suffering indeed lead to some worthy good. But there is also enough evidence to prove that some forms of suffering do not bring any benefit. For example, when some soldiers face terrifying battles, get painful injuries, or even die as they protect a country from invading enemies, the intense suffering can be seen to indeed bring some greater goods because the soldiers may feel they are suffering for greater goods.
The example is true because they feel their actions are utilitarian as they have prevented more suffering that could have faced them if they did not risk suffering. But when a terrorist kills a multitude, including a child who has never committed evil, it is clear that many individuals suffer without the suffering attaining any meaningful gain. Therefore, I concur with Rowe that some instances of intense suffering do not lead to greater good. For an omniscient and omnipotent being, my belief is for that it is possible to achieve any good without the intense forms of suffering that we witness. This is because the being has all the power to do anything he wishes while attaining very great things that cause peace for all.
Question 2
The soul-making process is a theodicy that was developed by Hick, in which he argued that the evil and suffering found in this world was allowed by God with a view of developing human beings into creatures that are virtuous and can follow his will (Rowe, 2001). My opinion is that this argument is not very valuable in providing an explanation for all the suffering witnessed by people and animals. This is because, if God wanted people to obey him and follow his will, he would let them choose to glorify him without coercing them. Also, some people undergo a lot of pain when they are about to die, meaning that the pain they undergo is not meant to behave in a certain way when they are alive. The suffering undergone by animals is another proves that problems faced by people are not supposed to force them follow the will of God. Animals do not have the ability to make rational decisions because they do not differentiate good from evil.
Question 3
I believe that the criticism provided by Rowe (Rowe) of the soul-making process is not cogent. This is because the criticism can only be seen to make sense by an atheist but not a theist. Although the soul-making process has its own weaknesses, the opposition provided by Rowe is equally weak. Rowe basis his argument against the theodicy on the fact that God, being omniscient and omnipotent, would have the ability to prevent evil while still prevent people from excessive suffering (Rowe, 2001). From a theist point of view, the greatest good that can be achieved is the glory of God. The glory of God may not be understood by everybody and thus there is a likelihood that, although not all suffering brings this glory, the glory requires some suffering to take place according to the law that existed before suffering came to the world. This implies that the argument that God cannot allow animals and people to suffer because he is all-good is not acceptable by all sides of the debate. A theist can argue against the criticism by explaining that if evil had already come into the universe by the time he created living things, he could still allow the suffering to exist in the world for a greater good that nobody understands. Therefore, while the soul-making process argument can still be disapproved, the criticism provided by Rowe is not cogent because suffering can still exist even when an all-powerful and an all-good being exists. Suffering can occur if the omnipotent and omniscient applies a law that requires suffering to happen if it was already broken when life on earth began.
Assignment 2
Question 4
According to Kant, it cannot be logical to claim that an idea that existing in a person’s mind is greater than a similar idea that exists in the same mind. Existence cannot be taken as a perfection or property of great making. It is not possible for a purely formal matter to function as a predicate. Since a being is not a conception modified by adding another conception, it does not amount to an actual predicate (Rowe, 2001). Rationally, a being can be said to be a copula of a judgment because it involves the positing of particular determinations or things. In other words, saying that “there is a God” or “God is” uses a person’s conception to posit an object, “God.” Therefore, Anselm’s Ontological Argument treats the notion of existence as an incorrect logical type.
References
Rowe, W. L. (2001). God and the Problem of Evil. Philosophy Documentation Center.