Philosophy Of Religion Phl 311 Position Paper Topics

Philosophy Of Religion Phl 311position Paper Topics In Philosophy O

Your final paper will examine a topic in philosophy of religion in more depth. The paper should consist of two parts, though headings are unnecessary. The first section should provide a survey of the topic in question, summarizing the central issues, primary positions and key figures. The second section should articulate your own view and reasons for it. That is, with whom do you agree and why?

This section should then consider actual or possible counterarguments, and should advance thoughtful and reasoned responses to those counterarguments. Format Papers should be approximately 4–6 pages long, and should make use of at least 3 outside sources. These sources should be academically rigorous, drawn from peer-reviewed sources. They should include a bibliography/works cited page. You may use your preferred citation format.

Paper For Above instruction

The philosophy of religion is a profound and intricate field that examines fundamental questions about the nature of the divine, the existence of God, faith, and religious experience. An in-depth engagement with a specific topic within this domain enables a nuanced understanding of the central issues, key perspectives, and influential thinkers. This paper will explore the problem of divine omnipotence, a core issue in philosophy of religion, and subsequently articulate a personal position, supported by scholarly reasoning and counterarguments.

Survey of the Topic: The Problem of Divine Omnipotence

The problem of divine omnipotence concerns whether an all-powerful being can coexist with the existence of evil. Classical theistic conceptions portray God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. However, reconciling these attributes with the reality of suffering and moral evil presents a significant philosophical challenge. The central issue, often framed as the "free will defense" and "skeptical theism", involves arguments about God's ability to prevent evil without compromising human free will or divine goodness.

Key figures in this debate include St. Augustine, who emphasized divine foreknowledge and the necessity of evil for greater goods; Thomas Aquinas, who asserted God's power is limited to what is logically possible; and William Rowe, who advanced evidential arguments suggesting that the presence of evil makes the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God unlikely.

The free will defense, notably articulated by Alvin Plantinga, argues that evil results from free human choices and that an omnipotent God allows this freedom because it is greater than any deterministic good. Conversely, critics argue that unnecessary or gratuitous evil—evil that appears to serve no greater good—poses problems for traditional divine attributes.

My View and Rationale

I align with the free will defense, asserting that the existence of evil is compatible with divine omnipotence and omnibenevolence because it is a necessary consequence of granting humans free moral agency. From a philosophical standpoint, freedom is valuable and justifies permitting the existence of evil when such evil results from free choices. This view aligns with the Augustinian perspective, emphasizing God's respect for free will as a greater good that outweighs the evil it permits.

However, I recognize the challenge posed by gratuitous evil—evil that seems unnecessary or excessive. To respond, I argue that our limited human perspective prevents us from fully understanding God's reasons for permitting certain evils. The skeptical theist position suggests that what appears gratuitous to us might have a greater purpose beyond human comprehension. This perspective encourages humility in our assessments of divine justice and power.

Counterarguments include the problem of natural evil, where suffering results from natural events rather than free human actions. Critics claim that natural evils—such as earthquakes and diseases—are less defensible in the free will framework. I contend that natural evil can be understood as a natural consequence of the physical laws that govern the universe—laws that are necessary for the existence of a stable, life-permitting cosmos. Thus, natural evil is compatible with divine omnipotence because it permits the regularity and predictability essential for human life.

Furthermore, some philosophers argue that the concept of omnipotence itself is incoherent or incomplete. For example, the logical limits of omnipotence imply that God's power cannot include contradictions, such as creating a square circle or making free beings unfree. Recognizing these logical boundaries helps refine our understanding of divine omnipotence without undermining its essential attributes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the problem of divine omnipotence and evil remains a vibrant and unresolved debate in philosophy of religion. I advocate for a nuanced view that appreciates divine omnipotence as logically coherent when understood within the constraints of free will and logical possibility. The acknowledgment of human epistemic limitations inspires humility in our judgments about divine purposes. Engaging with sophisticated philosophical responses enhances our understanding and underscores the complexity of divine attributes amidst the problem of evil. This balance maintains faith in divine goodness while recognizing the profound difficulty in fully comprehending divine justice.

References

• Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
• Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. Eerdmans.
• Rowe, W. (1979). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism." American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), 335-341.
• Augustine. (1999). Confessions. Trans. R.S. Pine-Coffin. Penguin Classics.
• Lewis, C.S. (1977). The Problem of Pain. HarperOne.
• Shoemaker, R. (1999). "The Problem of Evil for Free Will Theists." In J. K. Beilby & K. O. Keele (Eds.), Natural Evil and the Problem of Evil. Routledge.
• Hick, J. (1966). Evil and Some Other Affairs. Macmillan.
• Hick, J. (1977). Philosophy of Religion. Prentice-Hall.
• Morris, L. (2010). The Logic of God and the Problem of Evil. In J. F. Finley & D. M. O'Brien (Eds.), God's Knowledge and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press.
• Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Crossway Books.