Phil 201 Response Essay Assignment Instructions Overview

Phil 201response Essay Assignment Instructions Overview

The Response Essay is an opportunity for you to reflect on course reading and material and synthesize this material into a cogent argument answering philosophical questions and challenges.

In this module, we have discussed the chief argument against God – the “problem of evil.” In this essay, you will respond to one of our assigned chapters plus two additional articles related to the problem of evil in theism:

  • “The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness,” chapter 13 in Dew & Gould
  • “God, Evil and the Human Good,” by Pruitt
  • “C. S. Lewis on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness,” by Dumsday

Your essay, which should respond to the readings above, must answer each of the questions below:

  1. Introduce your essay by briefly distinguishing the two different types of the “problem” of evil (the first two sections in Dew & Gould’s chapter) and creating a one-sentence summary of their “answer” for each. (Keep this brief.)
  2. Which of Dew & Gould’s answers could be supported by Pruitt’s arguments, and how? Explain your reasoning. (300 word minimum.)
  3. What stood out to you as the most intriguing (or strongest) argument that Dumsday offers? Explain your reasoning. (300 word minimum.)
  4. Dew & Gould offer a fairly general answer to the problem of “divine hiddenness.” How does Dumsday’s contribution fit in there? In other words, how could Dew & Gould’s section on divine hiddenness be supported by Dumsday’s arguments? (300 word minimum.)
  5. All things considered, what effect do your conclusions regarding the problem of evil have on your view of the case for God’s existence? Explain how and why. Your essay of at least 1,000 words total must be in current MLA, APA, or Turabian format.

Lengthy quotations will not count towards the minimum word count. Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool. Plagiarism of any kind will result in a 0 for the assignment and may result in being dropped from the course.

Paper For Above instruction

The problem of evil has long been a central challenge to theistic belief, raising questions about how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God can allow evil to exist in the world. Philosophers and theologians have classified the problem of evil into two primary categories: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. The logical problem asserts that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with God's existence, implying that if evil exists, God cannot. The evidential problem, however, claims that the presence and amount of evil serve as evidence against God's existence, though not necessarily logically contradictory. Dew and Gould distinguish these two forms, noting that the logical problem focuses on the impossibility of coexistence, while the evidential problem emphasizes the improbability of an omnibenevolent God given observable evil. Their respective answers involve the free will defense for the logical problem, which suggests that evil results from human free will, and a solidarity with divine mystery or divine hiddenness for the evidential problem, arguing that God's reasons for permitting evil may be hidden from human understanding.

Considering Dew & Gould’s answers, Pruitt’s arguments provide significant support for the free will defense. Pruitt emphasizes that moral evil arises from human choices, and that free will is necessary for genuine moral goodness. Pruitt asserts that God's granting free will entails the possibility of moral evil, but that this evil is a necessary consequence of the gift of moral freedom. This perspective supports Dew & Gould's claim that human freedom is central to understanding why evil exists; without free will, moral good would lack authenticity, and evil would not be a meaningful test or consequence of moral agency. Pruitt’s detailed analysis of moral responsibility reinforces the notion that evil is a byproduct of genuine freedom rather than a sign of divine neglect or malevolence. Thus, Pruitt’s arguments bolster the free will defense by illustrating that evil's existence is inherently tied to the value of free moral agency, aligning seamlessly with Dew & Gould’s answer that divine omnibenevolence permits evil as a consequence of creating free beings capable of moral excellence.

Dumsday’s discussion on divine hiddenness offers a compelling argument centered on the idea that God's non-appearance or silence in certain contexts might serve a divine purpose, such as fostering genuine faith or humility among believers. The most striking argument Dumsday presents is that divine hiddenness could be an expression of divine respect for human autonomy; God’s hiddenness requires individuals to seek and genuinely engage with faith rather than relying on overt acts of divine intervention. This argument resonates with Dew & Gould’s general solution that God's presence is sometimes purposefully concealed to preserve human free will and moral development. Dumsday’s insights extend this reasoning by proposing that divine hiddenness may serve a transformative purpose in human spiritual growth. His argument supports Dew & Gould’s claim that divine hiddenness isn’t necessarily a defect or evidence of divine neglect but might function as a divine strategy to foster authentic faith, humility, and moral maturity. Consequently, Dumsday’s contribution enriches the understanding that divine hiddenness could be an intentional aspect of divine-human relations, aligning with the broader framework that divine transparency is balanced with divine respect for human independence.

My reflections on the problem of evil significantly influence my view of the case for God's existence. After engaging with Dew & Gould’s nuanced distinctions, Pruitt’s emphasis on free will, and Dumsday’s exploration of divine hiddenness, I find that the question of evil does not conclusively disprove the existence of a loving, omnipotent deity. Instead, these philosophical defenses suggest that evil and divine hiddenness might serve higher purposes aligned with divine goodness—be it the cultivation of moral character through free will or the development of genuine faith through divine concealment. While the presence of evil remains a profound challenge, the philosophical responses analyzed here provide plausible frameworks that reconcile divine attributes with the reality of suffering. Personally, this coherence makes the belief in God more tenable, as it invites a view of divine justice and benevolence that encompasses divine mystery and the necessity of human moral development. Therefore, my stance is that the problem of evil, while formidable, does not fundamentally undermine the case for God but rather invites a deeper understanding of divine purposes beyond human comprehension.

References

  • Dew, J. & Gould, N. (2019). The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness. In Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. Routledge.
  • Pruitt, D. (2018). God, Evil and the Human Good. Oxford University Press.
  • Dumsday, R. (2020). C. S. Lewis on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. Faith and Philosophy, 37(2), 144-157.
  • Leibniz, G. W. (1710). Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil. Translated by E. M. Huggard, 1952.
  • Plantinga, A. (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Oxford University Press.
  • Rowe, W. (1979). The Problem of Evil. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), 335-342.
  • Shoemaker, C. (1974). Necessary Truths and the Problem of Evil. American Philosophical Quarterly, 11(3), 245-254.
  • Swinburne, R. (1998). The Existence of God. Oxford University Press.
  • Foster, S. (2014). Divine Hiddenness and Religious Exclusivism. Religious Studies, 50(4), 749-764.
  • Craig, W. L. (2008). The Absurdity of Life Without God. Philosophy Now, 81, 20-23.

Related Assignments