Paul M Gould and James K Dew explore the problem of evil. They tackle it philosophically and from a Christian viewpoint covering four major philosophical aspects: metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of religion, and epistemology. The two scholars recognize two prominent forms of the problem of evil: the evidential and logical. The evident problem of evil recognizes the logical compatibility of God and Evil (James and Paul). However, owing to the distribution, amount, and intensity of evil present in the world, it still avows that probably God is nonexistent. As far as the logical compatibility of God and Evil is concerned, this is grounded on the idea that the certainty of God is discordant with the fact that evil exists.
Dew & Gould’s answers in support of Pruitt’s arguments
Pruitt based his answers to the problem of evil on theodicy, which explains why an impeccably good, all-knowing, and almighty God allows evil. Compared with Dew & Gould’s, Pruitt’s view is supported by the evidential problem of evil. Their similarities are realized in that they both support the presence of evil to exist simultaneously with a Perfect God. From Pruitt’s view, in his article, God, Evil and the Human Good, it is evident that he recognizes evil. This is seen when he defines evil as the loss of good.
He proceeds to examine Christianity’s view of evil and the parasitic nature of evil on good, where Augustine’s insights are helpful in his view that all of God’s creations are good. “God is the creator of the world and all that is in it, and for this reason, the world should function. Man should always enjoy God, however, when a man becomes selfish in his quest for love, evil follows (Jonathan).” Pruitt’s recognition of the existence of both Evil and God is further evident in his example of how, when asked about the legality of divorce, Jesus appealed on how God made humans have a justifiable answer.
Dew & Gould’s evidential problem of evil, though it rejects theism, supports Pruitt’s argument. It recognizes the presence of suffering and evil with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God. In their book “The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness.” One can deduce that evil is present, which is logically consistent with God’s reality. This is seen in how the evidential problem of evil is formulated. That Pointless Evil cannot co-exist with God, and there may be a possibility that pointless evil is nonexistent. The fact that it stated pointless evil means it recognizes that it concedes the logical compatibility of God and Evil, in this case, a ‘pointful’ sin. This concession is the exemplification of its support of Pruitt’s argument.
The strongest and most intriguing argument that Dumsday offers on Divine Hiddenness
Like the problem of evil, another major argument that the modern philosophy of religion utilizes in support of atheism is the problem of divine hiddenness. This refers to arguments that try to validate the point that if the existence of God is true, how most likely this would have made a more obvious truth of his existence. The article C. S. Lewis on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness by Travis Dumsday. Travis Dumsday offers two major arguments on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. In the first argument, he avows that a loving God would ensure that his presence is ostensible to us in a rationally certain manner (Travis). This would be the case as love is of the nature that the lover pursues an open relationship with the love object. Second, this would be the case as most traditional faiths claim that eventual well-being necessitates a positive association with God.
However, still, a majority of individuals fail to believe in God’s reality. The first is the strongest and most intriguing due to its simple nature. It requires the simple discerning ability to note that love is physical. Another more compelling reason, and with a more philosophical underpinning, is that it leaves people wondering. The wonder is on the possibility of a perfectly loving God. To perform an action that would cause non-resistant nonbelief in people with the capability to relate with God in a loving manner personally. This type of wonder has exemplifications; for example, imagine a non-believer who could not have a personal relationship with God but still is not resistant to God. Such an individual might be at their capacity’s dawn of personally relating with God. The individual is thus a believer who, though fails to experience God physically, still feels a personal touch with him and, therefore, still believes, this is intriguing.
Dumsday’s arguments support Dew & Gould’s divine hiddenness
Dew & Gould views divine hiddenness in a fairly general way. Their views are founded on five premises that draw their reasoning from the bible and other sources. These two scholars commence by exploring divine hiddenness by viewing it from an Atheists lens. According to them, this lens points to a convergence where atheists and believers agree that God’s existence is not apparent to everyone. However, atheists use this to elucidate their non-believer nature.
They assert that if Christians claim a perfectly loving God and that if the greatest need of humanity is to love and know God, then the existence of God should be apparent to everyone. According to Dew & Gould, God ought to ensure that he is maximally apparent to prevent rational unbelief. If this were the case, it would follow that it would not be reasonable to be a non-believer, and therefore all unbelievers in their unbelief would be guilty ethically. It is then based on five premises with various reasoning, including drawing from the bible.
Dumsday arguments support Dew & Gould, his view questions theism based on the non-existence nature of God. He questions the existence of a non-obvious God who can be rationally doubted. He draws his premises on the fact that this reasoning has existed for a long time since the patristic period in Christian theology. In the modern day, according to Dumsday, the problem of divine hiddenness continues and is based on clear-framed theism.
He proceeds to express God’s love to humans; he asserts that in it, is a desire for a reciprocal and explicit love for God, and the nature of love necessitates such a relationship in which eventual well-being will require an apparent form (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). However, unless humans start believing that God exists, then it is impossible to have such a relationship. However, the lack of an obvious existence leads to many failing to believe. Dumsday is advancing arguments on divine hiddenness, which agree with those of Dew & Gould on the absence of an obvious existence in the Love for God.
In conclusion, from the discussion of the problem of evil, I have gained important insights regarding the epistemic question of the existence of evil in the reality of God’s presence. It is clear that all the arguments revolve around the question of an omnipotent, morally perfect, and Omniscient God. From this, they seek to look for supporting arguments from the bible, literature, and Christianity. My conclusion is that God exists as the curiosity drawn from the three main premises brings further debate, which is not fully conclusive. Such further curiosity can only exist when a supernatural being is in control, and thus God exists.
Works Cited
James, K. Dew and M. Gould Paul. Philosophy: A christian Introduction. Baker Academic, 2019. Web.
Jonathan, Pruitt. “God, evil, and the human good.” Moral Apologetics (2014): 1-5. Web.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hiddenness of God. Web.
Travis, Dumsday. “C. S. lewis on the problem of divine hiddenness.” SAGE (2a015): 1-5. Web.