Pride is the absence of humility, unrighteous anger the absence of temperance, and so on. This idea is evident as he writes that the ability to be corrupted is what makes something good, not i... ... middle of paper ... ...d appear to be unrestrained and unpunished because their wickedness and the lack of true happiness that is associated with it is their punishment (Consolation of Philosophy 94). To both Augustine and Boethius, God is completely good and sovereign. However, He allows men free will and the punishment or rewards that come with these free decisions. Both Augustine and Boethius agree that evil could not, by definition, come from God.
Pelagius’ views were not mere inconsistencies with the teachings of the Church. In essence, Pelagius’ beliefs can be concluded as a denial for the necessity of God’s grace because he felt a man’s free will enabled him to be in total and absolute control of his own actions. Augustine’s rebuttal emphasized the importance of God’s grace throughout a man’s life. Augustine felt human free will was limiting, in respect to putting the desire for virtue into action, because what actually allowed man to reach virtue was God’s grace. Therefore, as Pelagius denied the need for God’s assistance, he ultimately denied the need for Christianity.
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).
Ernest Barker. Oxford: 1995.
For many, it is more obvious to acknowledge a God who is limited in power, as opposed to a God that allows innocent and wicked suffering. In stark distinction, God in the Book of Job is the opposite. He is not limited in power, he is omnipotent, but not virtuous or righteous. The God in the Book of Job is followed not out of love, but out of fear. How can a God like this be adored?
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. Meynell... ... middle of paper ... ...stressing is Meynell's apparently blithe ignorance of the best recent constructive work by Christian philosophers on topics of central concern to him. In addition to those I mentioned in the first paragraph of this review, Meynell should take some account of the work of such as Robert Adams, Bill Wainwright, and Bill Alston.
In all, one should reject both that it is right because God commands it and God commands it because it is right. Whatever is “right” is good to the degree that it fulfills its purpose. Based upon God’s standard of goodness, this is true because He is the ultimate creator of everything. The Euthyphro Dilemma is not an atheistic view on religion or the existence of God by any means, but rather an issue for deeper thought. Overall, this leads us closer to believing in Christianity and more so, God Himself.
(Pratchett 51)” To the average person, it seems as though there are two choices of religion; to believe in God or not to believe in God. Pascal’s theory is that it is better to believe in God, even without reason, because in so believing, you lose nothing, whereas if you do not believe, you stand to lose significantly. On the surface, this wager seems to make an adequate amount of sense, but upon further examination, the argument begins to break down. Pascal states, “According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. (Pascal 444)” He does not think that reason is sufficient to prove God’s existence, nor is there solid evidence one way or the other.
Contrary to popular belief, there is not so much a “war on Christianity” as there is a war on the first amendment by the religious and atheists. However, if we are to have this discussion properly, we must assert which is better for moral and ethical teaching. Paul Kurtz in his article, Atheism Teaches Morality and Ethics, argues from the view that—though it is quite obvious from the title—atheism is the best source for these teachings; Stephen J. Pope argues from the opposite view in his article, Only Religion Can Teach Morality and Ethics. Although I do not believe either writer quite gets it right, these two present quality perspectives from both sides of the aisle. The consensus between both writers seems to be that there is no possibility