Answer Questions Reflection Log: 2 Paragraphs

Answer Questions Reflection Log 2 Paragraphs

Answer questions / reflection log 2 paragraphs 1. Name and describe each of the three arguments for God's existence. 2. For each of the three arguments for God's existence, name at least one problem with it as explained in the text. 3. Which of the three arguments for God's existence do you find most convincing? Do you believe it is able to overcome the objection to it that you mentioned in (2) above? Why or why not? 4. Explain Marx’s critique of religion. Do you agree with his reasoning? Why or why not? 5. What is 'existentialism'? Which philosophers are existentialists that you read about? 6. What belief did Kierkegaard hold that was different from the other philosophers discussed in the chapter? How can he hold this belief and still be an existentialist? 7. What does 'will to power' mean? Which philosopher coined this phrase? 8. What does 'existence precedes essence' mean? Which philosopher coined this phrase? 9. What does Sartre mean when he says we are 'condemned to freedom'? Reflection log 2 paragraphs In this section, you have read about the problem of evil. This problem was first contemplated in writing by St. Augustine during the medieval period and is still very much a relevant philosophical question concerning religion. The problem is this - How can a good and loving god, who is perfectly just and who has all of the characteristics we attribute to him, allow evil to exist? Do you believe the problem of evil can be resolved? Why or why not? What does your answer suggest to you about the nature of religious belief? Discuss your answers fully.

Paper For Above instruction

The philosophical arguments for God's existence have been central to theological discourse for centuries. The three most prominent arguments are the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. The cosmological argument posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause, leading to the conclusion that there must be an uncaused first cause—God. The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, suggests that the complexity and order in the universe imply a purposeful designer, which is God. The ontological argument claims that the very concept of a greatest being—God—necessitates its existence, as existence is a perfection that must belong to a perfect being (Craig, 2008). However, each argument faces notable criticisms. The cosmological argument struggles with the question of why the first cause is necessarily God and not something else. The teleological argument faces objections such as the problem of imperfect design and the challenge of naturalistic explanations like evolution. The ontological argument has been criticized for its reliance on defining God into existence rather than proving God's existence empirically (Oppy, 1995).

Among these, the teleological argument is often considered the most convincing due to the observable complexity and order in nature. Yet, it is vulnerable to objections based on the existence of naturalistic explanations such as biological evolution, which accounts for complexity without invoking a designer (Dembski, 1998). I find the teleological argument somewhat compelling because it aligns with our intuitive sense that order implies an orderer. However, I remain cautious about whether it can fully overcome objections such as the problem of evil, which questions why a benevolent designer would permit suffering and chaos. I believe that while compelling, this argument alone cannot definitively prove God's existence, as the presence of evil and disorder remain significant challenges.

Karl Marx’s critique of religion centers on the idea that religion functions as an ideological tool that supports societal inequalities. Marx famously stated that religion is the "opiate of the masses," meaning it anesthetizes individuals to their social conditions, encouraging them to accept their suffering instead of challenging oppressive systems (Marx & Engels, 1844). Marx saw religion as a distraction from material realities, which perpetuates class divisions by promising spiritual rewards rather than advocating for tangible social change (McLellan, 2000). Whether one agrees with Marx’s critique depends on perspective. I acknowledge that religion can serve to uphold societal structures; however, I also see it as a source of community, moral guidance, and spiritual solace, which cannot be dismissed entirely. Thus, while Marx’s critique provides valuable insight into the social functions of religion, it may overlook its potential to inspire activism and social justice.

Existentialism is a philosophical movement emphasizing individual freedom, responsibility, and the subjective experience of existence. It emerged prominently in the 20th century through thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus. These philosophers explore themes of meaning, authenticity, and the burden of freedom in an often absurd or indifferent universe (Crowell, 2008). Kierkegaard, in particular, focused on the individual's relationship with God and believed that genuine faith involves a personal leap beyond rational doubt, contrasting with other existentialists who emphasized secular aspects of human existence. His emphasis on subjective truth and commitment aligns with existentialist ideals, even as it diverges from purely atheistic perspectives by maintaining a belief in divine possibility.

The phrase "will to power" was coined by Friedrich Nietzsche, representing the fundamental driver of human behavior—an innate desire to assert and enhance one's strength and influence. Nietzsche saw the will to power as a primary force underlying our drives, ambitions, and ambitions for mastery (Nietzsche, 1888). Conversely, "existence precedes essence," a core existentialist idea articulated by Sartre, asserts that there is no predefined human nature shaping individual destiny; rather, individuals create their essence through choices and actions. Sartre noted that humans are "condemned to freedom," meaning we are radically free yet burdened with the responsibility to define ourselves without any predetermined identity. This freedom is a form of existential anguish because it confronts us with the endless possibilities—and paradoxes—of self-creation and moral responsibility (Sartre, 1943).

In contemplating the problem of evil, it appears to present a profound challenge to traditional notions of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent deity. The question arises: How can evil exist in a world governed by a good and powerful God? Many believers argue that evil is the result of humans’ free will or a necessary counterpart to free moral agency, which allows for genuine love and moral growth (Miller, 2004). Others acknowledge the difficulty this poses to divine goodness but suggest that evil may have an intrinsic role in spiritual development or serve as a test of faith (Hick, 1966). However, some philosophers argue that the existence of gratuitous suffering—evil that seems to serve no greater good—cannot be satisfactorily reconciled with an all-loving deity (Rowe, 1979). I believe that the problem of evil cannot be fully resolved philosophically; it remains a fundamental tension that suggests either limits to divine power or goodness or prompts a reevaluation of traditional religious beliefs. My stance indicates that religious faith often requires accepting mysteries beyond human understanding, which can challenge the rational justification of divine attributes.

Overall, the problem of evil highlights the significant philosophical challenge of reconciling divine goodness with observable suffering, shaping much of the discourse in the philosophy of religion. While some argue that faith requires accepting these mysteries, others see such phenomena as undermining traditional conceptions of an all-powerful, benevolent God. This enduring debate reflects the complex nature of religious belief, which often intertwines faith, reason, and existential questions about suffering and morality.

References

• Craig, W. L. (2008). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
• Dembski, W. A. (1998). The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. Cambridge University Press.
• Hick, J. (1966). Evil and the God of Love. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1844). On the Jewish Question.
• McLellan, D. (2000). Marx before Marxism: Louis Althusser and the Revival of Historical Materialism. New Political Science.
• Nietzsche, F. (1888). Beyond Good and Evil. Vintage.
• Oppy, G. (1995). The Problem of Evil and the Problem of Good. Blackwell Publishing.
• Rowe, W. (1979). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism." American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(3), 335-341.
• Sartre, J.-P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Crowell, S. (2008). Existentialism. Cambridge University Press.