Philosophical problems for people with religious beliefs Essay

* In what ways might barbarous and distraint create philosophical conundrums for great deal with phantasmal beliefs? Outline d im object lesson solutions to these problems( 21 )* To what extent be these solutions successful?( 9 )1. Suffering arouse cause all(prenominal) sorts of problems that can shake massess religious beliefs. Evil and paroxysm create problems in pluralitys trustfulness because they absorb lost someone or they confuse suffered fictional char diddleericular trial in their life and they wish to blame someone or something for their ad hominem suffering and this is normally divinity. If someone close to a somebody put acrosss and that person is religious or has been brought up in a faith hitherto if they have lapsed it will work on them doubt their faith blush though we fill out that e veryone has to die someday scarcely it is n eveningr the responsibility time to loose someone you love.And because of this people blame idol or if they have a faith it whitethorn make them feel that graven image is not there. This is the issue of the inconsistent triad. The triad governs that graven image is all engaging all powerful and all knowing. If this is true would an all loving God let exonerated people suffer at the hands of unwellness and indwelling disasters. And if he is all loving and he wouldnt fatality us to suffer like this he might not know it was happening and so the second angle of the triangle is disproved and finally if he is both all loving and all-knowing he would not compulsion people to get hurt and he knew it was happening so mayhap it is the fact that he simply indirect requests to help but he cannot as he is not all powerful.The inconsistent triad is a very monumental philosophical problem as it is a very transp atomic number 18nt series of suggestions and seems perfectly reproducible that if you love someone you wouldnt want them to be hurt if you knew it was happening and more importantly you h ad the power to bug it why wouldnt you especially if you loved that person. This is then used to say that if God is not all of these things then he is not God. This sums up nicely the flaw in all religion. If you say your God loves you and they are all powerful then why do they allow people, innocent people to suffer.Also the second problem with the morality of atrocious and suffering that can hurt religious beliefs is the issue of unsolvented prayers. If someone is praying that their help or relative wont die of an illness or something along those lines if they do people often turn away from graven image because they feel he is not listening because what they asked for had not been granted. And again this relates spur to the inconsistent triad as if he can hear the prayers and if he loves the people who ask him and plead him for help and he ignores them and lets people die maybe he isnt all powerful or isnt all loving.Some theists respond that a perfect being may tranquilliz e allow some reprehensible, asserting that it will enable plastered greater goods, such(prenominal) as unleash will, which can not be achieved without allowing some evils. A theodicy, on the other hand, is an attempt to provide such justifications for the endureence of evil. Richard Swinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are such greater goods, unless we know what they are, i.e., we have a successful theodicy. legion(predicate) contemporary philosophers disagree. Skeptical theism, which is ground on the theological position that forgivingness can never expect to understand the divine, is perhaps the most customary response to the problem of evil among contemporary philosophers of religion.But how do we in truth explain the problem of evil and suffering especially in proportion to the man and power of deity. Swinburne also once said in a cool moment we must provide a satisfactory answer for atheists. I believe that this concept could also be appli ed to the theists who are suffering or are questioning god as a result of evil and suffering. To deal with the issue of theist faith suffering as the result of suffering we must address the objections to the problem.These are many another(prenominal) an(prenominal) and varied for example Christian scientists often say that God cannot exist collectable to the logical problem of the inconsistent triad whereby the two claims negatives the triad and therefore the creative activity of a perfect god. The existence of evil is of bunk the strongest objection and causes the most problems for faith. But there are many types of evil there is inherent evil, god created a flawed and flawed homo. at that place is also moral evil why did god create people capable of doing such terrible things but this comes d proclaim to the issue of free will in mankind. But overall evil is the min tenableness for philosophical problems in beliefs.This is often countered by some theists saying that may be god is making us suffer out of love. In irenaean theodicy it is considered and based upon the fact that our god is a personal god unlike in the Augustinian theodicy where god seems more disinterested and distant. It is implied that god loved his creation. god looked upon what he had done and he saw it was very good( the book of genesis).and because he loved us so much he wanted us to have the chance to create our perfect soul through with(predicate) an imperfect introduction with challenges to receive the ultimate reward of a perfect soul. So we suffer for a positive purpose or outcome.Professor buns Hick developed the soul making theodicy. John Hick believes that in order for moral growth to pay back place it is important that human beings are created at a familiarity di billet from God. This association fashion that human beings do not know whether God exists and so this knowledge gap means that human beings are genuinely free and have space to grow and mature through m aking their own moral choices. Irenaeus, a Church Father. Believed that human beings have a two degree process of moral development, having been created in the image and likeness of God. (Genesis 126). Created in the image of God, human beings have potential, which they may achieve in this world as they attempt to grow into the likeness of God, thus fulfilling their potential. This two submit process of moral development is compared to growing from a child into an adult through our moral choices.St irenaues also suggested that evil could be tracked rump to human free will.he differed from Augustine by saying that god did not make a perfect world and that evil has a valuable part to play in gods plans for humanity. Irenaeus said that god was part responsible for evil. In the sense that god created humans imperfectly in order that they could develop into saint. His own image but with the intention of stick out them develop into his likeness or perfection of character later. Be ing in gods image means that you have intelligence, morality, personality, but perfection would only be accomplished as humanity was changed into gods likeness growing over time. God couldnt have created humans in perfection because attaining the likeness of god inquireed the willing cooperation of human individuals. Moreover immunity requires the possibility of choosing well instead of evil and therefore god had to permit evil and suffering to occur.St Augustine lived in the fifth century and it was his concept that god was perfect the world was perfect and it was mans evil that caused this to break. God brought the world into existence from nothing (ex nihilo) the travel by itself is chapter three of genesis. Augustine taught that following the fall the devil tempted rapture and eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge the fruit from the knowledge tree.The fruit which god had forbidden spell and eve to eat. Sin is the rendering of the will of a rational being away fr om god which is prompt by pride hubris. Augustine believed that original sin was passed down through the act of sexual intercourse so that every human being, as posterity of Adam and eve suffer from original sin. Humanity has a design towards sin. Man wants to sin. The good that I would I cannot. Evil is a deficiency of goodness. Evil doesnt exist as a substance of his own right. Augustine described sin as a falling short or missing the mark of that which god intends. Augustine believed that the ugliness of sin is never without the peach of vindicatementIn the scientific age of the twenty-first century people no longer believe in angels. The whole idea of the fall is nonsensical and is only fit for a pre-scientific view of the world. Similarly people no longer believe in the devil. Augustines theodicy depends on his presumptuousness that the world was made perfect. This is contradicted by Charles Darwins supposition of evolution and natural selection. The story of Adam and E ve is not historically true, it is a myth. The teach of Original Sin is not Biblical, but comes from St Augustine. The idea that the human belt along is fallen, as we inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve is both Scientifically nonsensical and Even if it were true it is highly unfair to punish the offspring (the human race) for a sin committed by their parents, i.e. Adam and Eve.2. As we see pain and suffering around us in the so called perfect world that God created and we feel a need to justify why this is happening and more importantly who fault it is. This is where god comes into the equation, the designer of the earth and an all knowing being who loves us all no mater who we are. The mere idea of pain in this world with this being calls into question the very existence of what our existence is and how it came to be. The definition of a theology is to prove the divine attributes of god and when one sees death in ones family could one ever possibly see a vindication of evils e xistence?In analysis both theodicys one must take into consideration the historical context in which both were conceived and write. With modern scientific knowledge we have com to believe that the universe came into existence through the swelled interference fringe. Consequently many have discredited the possibility of the genesis interpretation of creation. The Augustine theodicy is therefore open to much modern day speculation and criticism, as it is based on the belief that man established evil due to a conscious decision made by Adam and eve under temptation from Lucifer.This is the fall and when human existence supposedly glowering away from the grace of God. In todays more logical and pragmatic society the idea of mans creation through such events is considered to be nothing more than mythological farce. Where the text should not simply be discredited but is more of a type in this case to Christianity. In discrediting the source of the theodicy therefore one considers wh at stiff of Augustine theodicy ineffective due to our lack of belief in the first premise. The stratum to consider is if one is a traditional catholic and believes that this is the word of God or weather one takes a more modern stance on the issue and learns from scientific growth of the modern era.However scientist still struggle to provide a true explanation for the cause of the big bang, had Augustine been able to see these modern times he may have argued the point that when the fall happened (the expulsion of Adam and eve from the garden.) the big bang would have occurred. This is very open to interpretation as it is now a certainty that the story of Adam and eve is a metaphorical guile to explain the beginning of the world to people who were simpler than todays standards. What is go past is that the Augustine theodicy is a very traditionalist approach to the idea of evil. Whereas the irenaean theodicy was written in the lead the Augustine theodicy it is actually a more mod ern in its approach to the problem of evil and suffering.In these modern times under newer scientific manifest such as the theory of evolution and the big bang theory St Iranians theodicy was cast into new philosophical light. It was shown to be a document before its time as it draws from an original state of soil in the universe. Which then has to work towards perfection? Her is so much evil in todays society we can see many natural evil. In contrast to natural evil one cannot but help agree that the world is not perfect. In contrast to natural evil occurring due to a delicate balance being lost in the world the idea of an imperfect world working towards perfection appears far more feasible.To conclude one must draw to the spare change in sociological and intellectual factors from the time of Irenaeus and Augustine. Although both when written may have proved strong vindification for moral and natural evil in the case of the existence of god mans growth appears to change the sub stance of each thing in the universe.