• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

In what ways may suffering create philosophical problems for religious believers? Outline two solutions to these problems.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

a) In what ways may suffering create philosophical problems for religious believers? Outline two solutions to these problems. (21) In the entire Christian world, the Problem of Evil and Suffering is one of the biggest criticisms they face, as they find it hard to prove this theory wrong while still proving that God exists; and in response to the whole problem, multiple people have written theodicy's, criticism's or problems surrounding it all. One of the main explanations, or in fact argument which helps prove that God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil and suffering is the Inconsistent Triad, in which it brings God's powers into question. Mackie stated that "if God is Omni-potent and Omni-benevolent how can there be evil and suffering in the world"; if so, this means that one of God's powers must not be true as there is evil in the world (E.g. The Holocaust). If an evil as big of the holocaust was merely created with no problem at all, it raises concerns as people begin to think whether God is all loving indeed as he say he is; or in fact is he not powerful at all seeing as he couldn't stop it as well? These questions ultimately lead to people to stop believing in God overall, making the inconsistent Triad a solid argument in proving that God does not exist. ...read more.

Middle

Irenaeus, according to Jones, we don't know what this perfection is yet until we reach good, and according to Jordan, this is in the afterlife, so when we reach heaven. Irenaeus also believed God was partly responsible for the evil in the world, because Irenaeus believed humans had been created in God's' image' but were eventually developing into God's likeness. In addition, Irenaeus sees evil and suffering as a means of knowledge; as knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain. Also, it allows for character-building, as evil offers the opportunity for humans to grow morally, as if we were programmed to 'do the right thing' all the time there would be no moral value to our actions, which would mean we would never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a complete world. However Augustine's Theodicy differs from the Irenaean theodicy as well, in which evil comes from and its purpose in this world; the Irenaean theodicy has suggested that evil comes from God in order to allow humans to develop morally and also spiritually, but there is some contrast with process theology too: process theologians suggest that God is not omnipotent, while Augustine argue that he is. Finally, the theodicy differs from Plantinga's free will defence, as Plantinga tries to solve the logical problem of evil, while Augustine is considering the evidential problem of evil. ...read more.

Conclusion

However, just as there is strengths with Irenaeus' theodicy, there are weaknesses to it as well; for example there are problems with the concept of `heaven for all` 1. The concept of `heaven for all` seems unjust: it places too much emphasis on God's love and not enough on God's justice. 2. The concept of `heaven for all` also creates logical problems for Irenaeus` theodicy. Where is the incentive to `develop into God's likeness` if you know everyone is to be rewarded with heaven? Problems with the quantity and seriousness of suffering in the world Irenaeus` theodicy shows how the process of soul-making requires the existence of some suffering in the world. Nevertheless, why is there so much suffering? Many would argue that the quantity and gravity of suffering in the world is Very unacceptable. Problems with the idea that any suffering is needed in the world Irenaeus` theodicy rests on the assumption that suffering is good for humans: that God allows suffering to exist in order to help people develop into his likeness. This idea that suffering can be seen as an expression of God's love has been challenged by D. Z. Phillips. Overall, in my opinion, even though both arguments are flawed in their different ways, I think that the Irenaeus argument is much better solution suited for evil and suffering, as not only is it more modern, it presents more logical reasons than Augustine did instead. ?? ?? ?? ?? Alex Taylor L6 RJP Page 1 of 5 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Explain the theodicy of Irenaeus. Irenaeus theodicy is the response to the problem of ...

    This still causes a problem, as there must be some sort of choice within free will, these being whether to obey God or disobey him, Augustine and Irenaeus both find these the most important choices in humankind. If there was no choice for us to pick from then it is

  2. HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY IN EXPLAINING THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL & SUFFERING ...

    As a result, we all deserve the consequences which means moral evil is a misuse of our freedom and natural evil is punishment for all man's sins. The theodicy goes further in explaining that we cannot blame God for evil as evil is not a thing in itself but rather 'privatio boni', which is Latin for 'the privation of good'.

  1. The Goodness of God

    Of course it can be argued that God made mankind completely perfect, with his goodness but then gave them free will. Humans, just like God have the capacity to choose to be evil but while God doesn't; humans often do.

  2. Explain how the theodicy of Irenaeus differs from that of Augustine and Evil cannot ...

    Augustine believed that evil was manmade and denied any direct involvement from God, Irenaeus didn't, he believed that some evil was provided by God to act as a series of challenges for humans to try and overcome. This evil would be categorised as natural evil.

  1. Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death.

    Aside from this theory, the other two seem quite believable in that they are quite feasible and explain the frequency and variety of times such an occurrence has taken place. Furthermore, the fact that a bundle of energy continues to exist, showing something that once did exist does not mean that life after death exists.

  2. All of our Choices are Predetermined

    Asking someone who has no preference of good over evil, or pleasure over pain, to make a moral decision would be rather like asking someone whether they prefer white to white. Without personality, we would not be able to make any choice at all, as no options would appeal to us over others.

  1. Explain and evaluate Augustine's Theodicy

    any humans freely only performing acts that are good and not evil. In his argument, Augustine also claimed God cannot be responsible for the existence of evil, due to the fact evil is not a substance. St Augustine said that "God made a good world but humans chose not to obey God so the goodness of the world went wrong."

  2. ) Explain the theodicies of Irenaeus and Augustine ?

    Knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain in addition to this evil and suffering can be viewed as an opportunity to grow morally. People would argue that in an ideal world there would be no suffering, however with reference Augustine the world was made with

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work