Critical Analysis: Evil as evidence for Christianity
Evil as Evidence for Christianity is Gregory E. Ganssle’s attempt to logically explain and disprove the claim that evil points toward there being no God. Ganssle claims exactly the opposite, that evil by definition points toward the existence of God with much more substantial evidence than the latter. Ganssle states that there are “three ways in which our thoughts about evil represent facts that point to God ”. Humans have moral objections of good and evil, evil distorts good reality away from its objective purpose or end, and the objective nature of evil rather than the concept of evil points to God.
An enjoyable yet short and to the point argument of Gods existence the author captures the attention of the reader and does a great job of defending his claim that evil points to the existence of God. Through strong logical argumentation, presented evidence and showing how evil supporting atheism is a weak defense Ganssle does not appear to show inconsistency in his work.
Evil as Evidence for Christianity begins by giving a scenario that explains the use of and substantiation of evidence. Evidence being a fact that supports a truth claim. Although weather the claim itself may or may not represents truth it does point toward the direction of truth. The chapter continues with the three reasons why evil points to Christian theism. Humans have a sense of the way things should not be, assuming that there are a way things should be and anything that is not is a deviation from this way, evil. Good takes primacy over evil and evil is corruption. The point is it makes absolutely no sense to say something like there are certain ways things have to be or should be if there is no objective ...
... middle of paper ...
...al security at stake. He does not show this lightly, although giving unbiased facts and support he is also concise and stern in that belief in God is of upmost importance. By the end of this chapter the audience will understand the vitality of this argument and the weight that it holds.
Ganssle ends with this “thus the deep human desire to participate in the stopping of evil also points in the direction of the truth of Christianity. ” This sums up what has been said about humans having moral objections to good and evil, evil distorting good reality and evils objective nature. This chapter urges the reader to think deeper about the creation of the universe and why there is so much evil in it, weather Christian, atheist or anything else you cannot deny the logical facts given that prove the existence of evil is just one more thing that points to the existence of God.
It is perhaps the most difficult intellectual challenge to a Christian how God and evil can both exist. Many of the greatest minds of the Christian church and intellects such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas spent their entire lives trying to solve this problem, and were unsuccessful (Erickson, 2009, p.439). However, this dilemma is not only an intellectual challenge, but it is emotional. Man feels it, lives it. Failing to identify the religious form of the problem of evil will appear insensitive; failure to address the theological form will seem intellectually insulting. This conundrum will never be completely met during our earthly life, but there are many biblical and philosophical resources that help mitigate it.
H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview.
Tim LaHaye is one of the most influential religious leaders in the United States today. In 2001, Evangelical Studies Bulletin named him as the most influential Christian leader for the past quarter century. He is mostly known for the Left Behind series of apocalyptic fiction, which he co-wrote with Jerry B. Jenkins. However, this paper will talk about LaHaye’s book, The Battle for the Mind, which is one of his most important works but was not included in the Left Behind series.
Carus, Paul. "The Philosophical Problem of Good and Evil." The History of the Devil: With 350
It appears that the problem of evil is a substantial one. While arguments exist that can challenge assumptions of the problem, it sometimes requires some definition contorting and does not answer all the challenges evil presents. The greater good defense presents some key insights into how we must perceive God’s actions but does not completely defend against the presented problems of evil. Therefore, a more plausible defense is needed to eliminate the problems evil creates with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
This thesis is shown by John Hick in his article Evil and Soul-Making. As Hick explains, humans already exist in God’s image but have “not yet been formed into the finite likeness of God . . . Man is in the process of becoming the perfected being whom God is seeking to create. However, this is not taking place – it is important to add – by a natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous adventure in individual freedom . . . this involves an accumulation of evil as well as good” (Hick 1-2). In other words, humanity is slowly progressing toward a world in which evil does not exist, as implied by the term “finite likeness of God,” but in order to reach that state, we must first deal with acts of evil, in order to learn what good truly is. On a personal level, this is known as soul-builder
The problem of evil arguably the most personal and haunting question in apologetics. No heart is untouched by the sting of another’s words and the ultimate display of evil, death. For some, like Elie Wiesel in his autobiography Night, the full scope of human evil is unbearably clear as they are faced with the full measure of human evil. This reality of evil often leads to two responses: “since there is evil, there cannot be a god” or “if there is a god, he cannot be loving or powerful, or worse, he enjoys evil.” By exploring the nature of evil, developing loving, Christian responses, and historical evils like the persecution of the Jews, the problem of evil and the hope depicted in scripture comes into focus.
In conclusion, McCloskey attempted to defeat the cosmological and teleological argument and tried to persuade the readers to embrace the view of atheism. That there is no God and that this life is the only one a person can have. He tried influencing people by asking why a perfect God make an imperfect world. Or why did God not make humans to choose the right decision automatically, so that they can avoid suffering? However, in the end, although his arguments are sound and he made very reasonable points. The facts remain that there must be something out there that made the universe and that has created us complex beings. This same being must have be able to give man the choice to make his own decision, even if it were the wrong one. There is only one possible being that could do that and that is none other than God.
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.
To explain the argument about evil, I am going to use David Hume’s Argument from Evil. The character Philo doesn't deny that what we see in the world is consistent with the existence of a very good and powerful finite God. But he insists that the world we see isn't the sort we would imagine if we came to the universe anew with only the knowledge that such a God created it. That means that we could never infer the existence of such a God from what we see in the world. In fact, Philo says, there are four hypotheses about the causes of the universe: that they are endowed with perfect goodness; that they have perfect malice; that they are opposite and have both goodness and neither malice; that they have neither goodness nor malice.
Davis, Stephen T., and John B. Cobb. "Free Will and Evil." Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy. Atlanta: J. Knox, 1981. 74-89. Print.
generations of science that they shouldn't tamper with science because. of the consequences and whether we should be rational or ethical. which is proved with Lanyon's sight of Jekyll's transformation. Religiously, evil is represented in many forms, firstly in the subtle . form of Utterson's forename, which is Gabriel, which is linked to the name.
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.
Meynell's strategy in his chapter on the relevance of theism, he begins by arguing that belief in God does have specifically moral effects upon those who have. It enables us to act upon our beliefs about what it is right for us to do, and enables us to correct our pressing and depressing tendencies toward self-deception and self-interest. And he then argues that philosophical challenges to this view of the relations between theism and right action fail. The principal challenge he has in mind is the claim that Socrates' question in the Euthyphro-whether the gods love what is good because it is good, or whether what they love is good merely because they love it- cannot be answered. The main point of the chapter is not that theists are better people than atheists. It is concluded that theists do not agree to abandon their belief that theism is relevant to moral beliefs and actions.
If evil cannot be accounted for, then belief in the traditional Western concept of God is absurd” (Weisberger 166). At the end of the day, everyone can come up with all these numerous counter arguments and responses to the Problem of Evil but no one can be entirely responsible or accountable for the evil and suffering in a world where there is the existence of a “omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God.” Does the argument of the Problem of Evil or even the counter arguments help the evil and suffering of innocent human beings across this world? No. However, the Problem of Evil is most successful in recognizing the evil and suffering of the world but not presenting a God that is said to be wholly good and perfect to be blamed and as a valid excuse for the deaths and evil wrongdoings of this world.