John Perry-author of the acclaimed Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality (Hackett Publishing Co., 1978)-revisits Gretchen Weirob in this lively and absorbing dialogue on good, evil, and the existence of God. In the early part of the work, Gretchen and her friends consider whether evil provides a problem for those who believe in the perfection of God. As the discussion continues they.
Summary
The Dialogues are a series of discussionsabout the rationality of religious belief between the fictionalcharacters Cleanthes, Philo, and Demea. Demea represents religiousdogmatism and insists that we cannot come to know the nature ofGod through reason. Philo, the philosophical skeptic, agrees withDemea that God is incomprehensible but insists that he might bemorally corrupt. Cleanthes argues that we can know about God byreasoning from the evidence we find in nature.
- Rent Dialogue on Good, Evil and the Existence of God 1st edition (9607) today, or search our site for other textbooks by John Perry. Every textbook comes with a 21-day 'Any Reason' guarantee. Published by Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated.
- Download Dialogue On Good Evil And The Existence Of God full book in PDF, EPUB, and Mobi Format, get it for read on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Dialogue On Good Evil And The Existence Of God full free pdf books.
Ati radeon x1200 drivers windows 10. Demea argues that although God clearly exists, we cannotknow his nature, because God’s nature is beyond the capacity ofhuman understanding. Philo seems to agree with him. Demea goes onto explain that God is the First Cause, meaning that the world operates ona system of cause and effect, so there must be an original causeto have started the world in motion, and that First Cause is God.But this still tells us nothing about God’s nature, which Cleanthesinsists we can learn by examining nature. Cleanthes states thatthe only rational argument for God’s existence is one based on experience. Thedesign and order of nature reveal that there must be an intelligentdesigner, or creator, whose intelligence resembles our own. Cleanthesalso states that things that are very familiar and present to usneed no reason to establish their truth, such as the knowledge thatfood nourishes the body.
Dialogue On Good Evil And The Existence Of God
Philo disagrees with Cleanthes and argues that just becausethe world is ordered, there is no reason to believe that this orderis a result of intelligent design. He explains that the exampleof the design of the universe supposes an acceptance of cause andeffect, which in turn supposes that the future will resemble thepast. However, since there is nothing with which to compare oursituation, we cannot assume the necessary connection based on pastexperience or other examples. Philo goes further, claiming thateven if God is an intelligent designer, this fact does not explainwhy nature has order. Finally, even if the argument from designwere valid, nature does not provide us with any knowledge aboutGod other than that he designed it.
Dialogue On Good Evil And The Existence Of God Pdf
Philo next turns his attention to God’s possible moralattributes and whether we can discover these by examining nature.Together, Demea and Philo explain that the world is filled withevil. Philo says that if there is so much evil, there cannot bea God who is completely beneficent, or else he would have eliminatedevil. If he cannot eliminate evil, he cannot be all-powerful. Ifhe is unaware of the evil, he cannot be all-knowing. If nature itselfprovides evidence of God’s nature, then we must conclude that hedoesn’t care about us at all and is therefore morally ambiguous.Demea leaves the room, upset by these claims.
Although Philo has successfully torn down Cleanthes’ argument fromdesign, Philo finishes the dialogue by declaring that the orderedworld obviously has some intelligence behind it and that this intelligencedoes in fact resemble human intelligence. His real disagreement,he claims, concerns how strong this resemblance really is. He thenattacks religious dogma as both morally and psychologically harmful.The most rational position, he says, is a philosophical belief insome unknowable higher power. Finally, Philo tells Cleanthes thatphilosophical skepticism is the only proper route to true Christianitybecause it forces us to rely on faith instead of the false connectionbetween reason and theism.
Dialogue On Good Evil And The Existence Of God Summary
Analysis
The Existence Of God Aquinas
Hume clearly intends to point out that the question ofGod’s existence and the supposed religious origin of morals arein fact two different issues and that a positive stance on the firstissue does not necessarily confirm the second. The true questionis whether enough evidence exists in the world to prove that thereis an infinitely good, wise, and powerful God from which moralitynaturally springs. Philo argues that there is not, and his explanationthat the existence of evil poses a problem for this view of Godis worth considering seriously. It seems impossible that an all-good,all-powerful, and all-knowing God could exist in a world as painfulas ours. However, Cleanthes’ position also seems cogent. We don’tneed to justify the existence of things that are universal truths.For example, we cannot prove that motion exists without referringto an example of motion itself. If both man and the universe exhibitform and order, we may logically consider that a similar intelligencelies behind both. However, from that claim we could argue that thisintelligence, or God, possesses both good and evil, as man does.
![Evil Evil](/uploads/1/1/7/9/117943617/485971941.png)
Dialogue On Good Evil And The Existence Of God Sparknotes
The Existence of God and Evil The problem of evil has been around since the beginning. How could God allow such suffering of his “chosen people”? God is supposedly all loving (omni-benevolent) and all powerful (omnipotent) and yet He allows His creations to live in a world of danger and pain. Two philosophers this class has discussed pertaining to this problem is B.C. Johnson and John Hick. Johnson provides the theists’ defense of God and he argues them. These include free will, moral urgency, the laws of nature, and God’s “higher morality”. Hick examines two types of theodicies – the Augustinian position and the Irenaeus position. These positions also deal with free will, virtue (or moral urgency), and the laws of nature. Johnson…show more content…
The laws of nature also attempt to defend God. A theist claims that the laws of nature creates evil, and it is irrational for God to intervene in every case of suffering and danger. If God did become involved, it would be impossible for anything to be predictable. In other words, nature and the cause and effect that people know would not be consistent or reliable. Johnson agrees that God’s involvement in every disaster would be wrong. As Johnson states, “To argue that continued miraculous intervention by God would be wrong is like insisting that one should never use salt because ingesting five pounds of it would be fatal” (Pojman 123). However, God should step in to stop or prevent the most horrific of disasters. Where is the line drawn, though? Johnson says it should be on the side of intervening more than not. Even if it is not known where to draw the line, no excuse should be made to not interfere in instances of pure evil. Thus, the laws of nature do not excuse the coexistence of God and evil. God’s “higher morality” is the last defense Johnson inspects. This morality is only followed by God and is what judges His actions. “Higher morality”, though, is unlike the morality on Earth. To allow evil, God’s morality would imply that what humans call good is evil, and what is evil in this world is good. Thus the two moralities are opposites. Since God’s “higher morality” is the opposite, humans can have no understanding of it, or as Johnson states,
The laws of nature also attempt to defend God. A theist claims that the laws of nature creates evil, and it is irrational for God to intervene in every case of suffering and danger. If God did become involved, it would be impossible for anything to be predictable. In other words, nature and the cause and effect that people know would not be consistent or reliable. Johnson agrees that God’s involvement in every disaster would be wrong. As Johnson states, “To argue that continued miraculous intervention by God would be wrong is like insisting that one should never use salt because ingesting five pounds of it would be fatal” (Pojman 123). However, God should step in to stop or prevent the most horrific of disasters. Where is the line drawn, though? Johnson says it should be on the side of intervening more than not. Even if it is not known where to draw the line, no excuse should be made to not interfere in instances of pure evil. Thus, the laws of nature do not excuse the coexistence of God and evil. God’s “higher morality” is the last defense Johnson inspects. This morality is only followed by God and is what judges His actions. “Higher morality”, though, is unlike the morality on Earth. To allow evil, God’s morality would imply that what humans call good is evil, and what is evil in this world is good. Thus the two moralities are opposites. Since God’s “higher morality” is the opposite, humans can have no understanding of it, or as Johnson states,