The Problem of Evil and Suffering

            “The existence of evil in the world is the “rock of atheism”, this was famously said by Philosopher David Hume in the 18^thCentury. However, many philosophers have put forward their arguments to prove the reality of God despite Evil and Suffering in the world. One of which is the `Existence of God` by Richard Swinburne.  When reading his work, he presents a number of separate arguments but the one that most caught my attention was “How Evils serve Greater Goods”.

Swinburne suggests that sometimes the evil in this world serves a greater good or a greater purpose. He states that “such bad actions, like physical pain, provide opportunities for good actions to be done in response to them”, we could relate this to when a child must go to the dentist to have tooth removed, despite the pain the child will endure, he will benefit from this as it allows another tooth to grow. He also describes the consequences of having a world without pain. He states that we “show courage when threatened by a gunman, as well as when threatened by cancer; and show sympathy to those likely to be killed by gunmen as well as to those likely to die of cancer” However, if we simply imagine what our lives would be like without these emotions then “…merely would none of us have the opportunity to respond with sympathy or courage or reforming zeal…so many of us would have an easy life that we simply would not have much opportunity to show courage or indeed manifest much in the way of goodness at all”. Essentially, Swinburne means that it is vital we are able to express emotions such as courage and sympathy, for in a world without pain we would never be given the opportunity to express this. We can only help people if they are suffering, therefore Swinburne believes that God must allow evil and suffering to occur so that we can use our emotions to know when people need help. However if God was to replace disease by “such an increase of inbuilt depravity” Swinburne states that we would live in “a world in which humans (and animals) lacked much natural affection for parents, children, neighbours, etc. would be a horrible place”

On the other hand, despite this being a good inductive argument for the existence of God although there is suffering and evil in the world, I still feel that there are faults with this argument. When Swinburne suggests that everything serves a greater purpose, I think back to events in history which I am yet to see a greater purpose. The Holocaust, for example, is one of the most infamous example of moral evil to this day. 11 million people died and for what reason? I personally fail to see what goodness came from this immoral act and am sure I am not the only person who has this point of view. However, I do see how good can come out of natural disaster. For instance, the Boxing Day Tsunami in Indonesia which tragically took 230, 000 lives, it gave other people around the world the chance to donate money, provide aid and help those who were suffering. Although, it is still hard to contemplate why God would allow so many people to die and so many more people to suffer because of this event, with only some good actually being derived from it.

 Er.B

 

Does Derrick Jarman’s film, Wittgenstein provide a useful insight into one of the twentieth century’s greatest philosophers and his theory of language games

Ludwig Wittgenstein is considered one of the greatest philosophers due to his work within philosophical language. Some of his most notable work was his belief in language games. Jarman’s film Wittgenstein touches upon both Wittgenstein and language games.

 

Jarman portrays Wittgenstein as a tortured genius. He is constantly tormented by his own brilliance and does yearn to have a relatively normal life; away from academia. In this way, Jarman does excellently showcase Wittgenstein’s sadness, in that he is always running away from his life; probably in a bid to forget the torment his work provides him with. Jarman also conveys excellently the ways in which Wittgenstein influences and affects others around him, especially the frustration and exasperation he causes Bertrand Russell. One of the biggest problems that Wittgenstein seems to possess in Jarman’s film is his idea of language games. He is shown not only to hate the fact that others did not understand language games, but also with the fact that whilst trying to understand language games himself, he started to believe that language had no real meaning. This started to drive him mad, and could be considered one of the reasons that he wanted to leave academia behind him.

 

Even though Jarman’s film does provide an excellent portrayal of Wittgenstein and his theory of language games in some ways, he can also be criticised for the way he portrays him in others. An example of this is the addition of the Martian and intermittence of the young Wittgenstein can be shown to undermine Wittgenstein’s work. A Martian can be seen as childish or fantastical, and may be viewed by some people as an odd thing to add to such a film. Another criticism of Wittgenstein is that it almost glazes over Wittgenstein’s work, and is more focused on his private life, so if you did not necessarily want to learn about Wittgenstein, but about his work as a philosopher, it could be misleading. Furthermore, the fact that the young Wittgenstein kept coming and going throughout the film could be considered to be confusing.

 

Overall, Jarman does provide a useful insight into Wittgenstein and his theory of language games. It shows that Wittgenstein as a tormented genius, who is able to understand hard philosophical concepts, yet he makes it so that ultimately, the audience feels sorry for him.

 

LL and SS

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy comes from the Greek words ‘philos’, which means love, and ‘sophia’, meaning wisdom, therefore the word literally means ‘love of wisdom’, implying that through philosophy a person can acquire wisdom. As a matter of fact, commonly the general public believe philosophers, those who study philosophy, study fundamental problem such as existence of the universe and life, and moral values which is correct to a certain extent however philosophy itself does not contain information unlike science and various other studies, it is not a body of knowledge therefore by studying philosophy you are not inevitably entitled to knowledge. In fact it is often described as an activity where one asks philosophical questions such as ‘how was the world created?’ and ‘how ought we to live?’ and answers them by critically analysing previous conclusions made by others to these questions to determine an answer.

 

If we were to think philosophy as an activity, we could say that philosophy is a way of thinking to guide a person to think critically and open-mindedly so that they can answer philosophical questions well, and to think critically and open-mindedly means that a person must examine all evidence, including their own experiences, without being prejudiced or ignorant to other people’s conclusions to reach an unbiased and logical conclusion. Therefore through philosophy a person thinks independently and outside what they have been brought up to believe in, which means philosophy involves examining world-views, eliminating ignorance, deepening understanding and seeking reasoning to build convincing arguments where the truth is separated from the false which then allows a person to obtain wisdom. Philosophy also involves eliminating confusion, as those who study philosophy try to make sense through critical reflection so that they can develop clear definitions that is consistent and non-contradictory with reasons to justify their conclusion.

 

Philosophy can be separated into several subtopics: metaphysics which is the theory of reality, epistemology which is the theory of knowledge, ethics which is the theory of moral values, politics which is the theory of legal rights and government and aesthetics which is the theory of the nature of art therefore in each branch of philosophy different issues are addressed for example if one was to study metaphysics they would examine everything about reality. In philosophy, philosophers have different, contradicting views but the common aim is to gain the truth and unlike science where an scientific experiment can be carried out to determine the correct answer, in philosophy even the method for discovering the truth is an argument therefore philosophy is a study where one explores values, broadens experiences and learns to control their emotions and beliefs they have been taught to reach a conclusion as close as to the truth as possible.

 

In the past, questions that are raised by philosophy were answered by religion in reference to a higher authority (e.g. God). Philosophy of religion is concerned with questions regarding religion, which includes the nature and existence of God therefore philosophy of religion is very different from theology because theology automatically assumes that God exists. Philosophy of religion is mostly concerned with western ideas of God, therefore this includes the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Therefore issues raised concerning God in philosophy of religion refers to a being that is:   

• Masculine
• The only God (The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic)
• Immaterial therefore the being is made of spirit not matter 
• Omnipresent
• Omniscient
• Omnipotent
• Omnibenevolent
• Self-creating

A God that exhibits these characteristics is described the God of classical theism.

 

Philosophy of religion answers questions using valid, logical arguments and critically examining evidence therefore one could conclude that philosophy answers religious questions with the method of philosophy.

S.J.M.

Solution for Social Evils

 

The observation of our today’s world enabled me to recognize that despite the growing prosperity of our economic and cultural progression, our international community is still unable to prevent and resolve many of the social evils that are still very much present in today’s society. The fact that our growing capability to embark upon these problems is becoming greater, yet we’re still unable to tackle them shows the inadequacy of the social as well as legal system. Such observation led me to believe that identification of the right tools to reconcile these problems is the key. Amongst some of the answers are ethical theories not only due to their ability to deal with a wider spectrum of problems on an international level but also due to their simplicity and basic ethical framework that they offer for both believers and non-believers.

An example of one would be Kant’s deontological theory. When looking at this particular theory we’re able to note that the theory is more concerned with actions rather than its results putting emphasis on one’s reasoning. His theory is structured based on two particular beliefs, one being that morality is rational and since rationality is universal, possessed by all human beings. Second one being that fulfilling one’s duty is the right thing to do in addition to the fact that we ought to do it. We’re able to see that ethical theories provide a moral agent with the structure needed for the making of moral decisions.

 When looking at Kant’s theory in particular we’re able to note that the emphasis on duty helps us to recognize the fact that as human beings our inner moral sense differs and is stronger or weaker towards meeting some obligations over others. Surely if we all acted out of duty and did what we meant to do more of evil would be prevailed? Whether out of duty or not if we all donated to charity surely the charity is more likely to help its cause. We’re able to see that the use of ethical theories such as Kant’s deontological theory could be seen as an answer to some of the social evils. However, some might say that it is important to note that although ethical theories provide us with the moral basis; it is the application of the theory that could potentially resolve them not the theory itself. The fact is that like most solutions this one too isn’t perfect, it is therefore up to us to ensure its success as the success of ethical theories depends on our own willingness to oblige them.

S.S

 

 

Are people born with an innate idea of God or is it a learnt concept?

Are people born with an innate idea of God or is it a learnt concept?

The debate whether children are born into the world with a predisposed knowledge of God, or whether as humans we are merely born with a sense of curiosity which we replace with the divine, continues to be a struggling argument for the existence of God. This poses the question: despite theological claims, do we have reason to believe that we are born believers in God?

On the surface I was curious to know what people’s immediate responses would be to such an in-depth question. Through researching on the internet and asking people I know personally, I was astonished to find out that most of the replies I received disagreed with the idea that we could be born with an innate idea of God. Many of the reactions I received held the view that the concept of God was, and still is, merely passed down from parents, relatives, friends and society through each generation. I also found responses which stated that the human mind is naturally geared to try and work things out. However, when it is a struggle for us to find a convincing answer a god is a good enough explanation to fulfil the gap in such situations. Others purported that the answer lies within the human imagination, for if everyone was without knowledge where has any concept arisen from? However, is religion not a far reaching concept for someone to imagine out of nowhere? Or can we use the analogy of language; that like religion we are born without knowledge and so have to be taught in order to know?

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose. He states that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. In one study conducted by Dr Barrett six and seven year olds were asked why the first bird existed, and replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice". Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap. Dr Barrett stated this as evidence that from an early age children understand the natural world is different from manmade objects. He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers, claiming that "Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

The findings of Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University, similarly suggests that supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful psychological force that already exists. His work, supported by other researchers, suggests that people are programmed to receive a feeling of spirituality. Professor Hood believes research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works.

These findings challenge atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who have long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood 'indoctrination'. However, supporters of the counter argument that everyone is born atheist and religion is learned, claim that we are born forgivably an ‘ignorant sort’ of which we couldn’t be anything more. Thus, the fact that we don’t visibly display knowledge of God isn’t, alone, very interesting since, when people call themselves atheists, they don’t usually mean to convey their ignorance. What is more interesting to talk about is the kind of beliefs that babies unaided by religion naturally form as their minds develop. Dr R. Elisabeth Cornwell, an evolutionary psychologist, who I came across while researching claims that we are born scientists. Dr Cornwall uses the example that when babies sit in their highchairs and throw stuff off they observe what their caregiver does. The caregiver will presumably pick the object up, which will delight the baby for they have received a response, so they will then drop the object again. However while doing this the baby’s observing that the object always falls, and so the baby is also testing gravity. Dr Cornwall states that babies start off with nothing, but then through our natural instincts start to test the world: ‘Then somehow adults send them off to school where we kill the little scientist within them.’ Dr Cornwall states that religion isn’t born within us; it is used as a way to close doors for young and curious minds to explore and to ask questions. This supports the view from the counter argument stance that, without submersion into religion as a child, we would most likely maintain the position of a person without knowledge of faith.   

As a whole there is no absolute answer, therefore making all claims merely speculations. It is up to us, as individuals, to decide subjectively what we believe. From researching and discussing such an in-depth topic myself, I have definitely opened my mind to new ideas, exploring the possibilities of other points of view.   

By D.J 

Does religion still have a place in society?

After studying various critiques of religious belief, I find myself questioning whether religion still has a place in our society.

Many people believe that in our modern scientific society religion is rendered redundant. With the theories of Evolution, Big Bang and so forth to explain our existence, religion no longer serves any purpose. Although the 2011 Census revealed that Christianity was the largest religious group in England and Wales, with 33.2m people, its size has decreased by 15% since 2001 and it has the oldest age profile of all the main religious groups. One in five Christians are now aged 65 or over. Furthermore, a quarter of the population in England and Wales do not now have a religion, with this figure increasing rapidly.
 
Richard Dawkins, a strong advocate of the atheist position, claims that religion is ‘an indulgence of irrationality that is nourishing extremism, division and terror’. For Dawkins, religion is completely unnecessary as it prohibits us from developing our knowledge and asking the essential questions for humanity to grow. He asserts that religion is the absolute root of all evil.

Many people believe that we do not need religion for life to have meaning. We can personally make the decision as to whether something has meaning by determining how much value it has to us as free thinking individuals. We do not need a god or any supreme being to guide us to value the love we share with our family and friends or life experiences, such as finding self-fulfilment or achieving our dreams. We alone have the responsibility to make the decision as to what has value and meaning; thus religion is completely pointless.

However, I believe that religion still plays a significant role in our society. Often it is the case that even firm atheists in times of hardship and in their deepest despair find themselves turning to God in an attempt to find hope and reassurance that all will be well. An interesting case is that of the prominent philosopher, Anthony Flew, who spent much of his career promoting atheism. But in 2004, at the age of 81, he asserted a belief in deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. Moreover, religion plays an essential part in the process of mourning. When people are overwhelmed with a sense of loss or extreme anguish they turn to an omnibenevolent God to find strength, love and comfort in an extremely difficult time in their lives.

Furthermore, our fundamental values are shaped by Christianity and therefore are integral to society even though we may not be aware of such profound influence. They aid us to develop a conscience and to know right from wrong. Gospel values, such as love, honesty and kindness, enable society to function smoothly and in harmony with those around us. It enables us to recognise our self-worth and we become the very best versions of ourselves. We are more likely to develop altruistic tendencies showing willingness to help others, and to derive happiness from spiritual rather than materialistic rewards.

Religion has been a constant feature in society, from ancient times to modern day, and its significance affects everyone to some degree – large or small. Even though we are a nation of scientific progress, religion and science can coexist.

 

By B.O'M

 

Are the Classical Philosophers Still Relevant?

 

Many modern philosophers cite the Classical Philosophers as influences; but are the philosophies of Socrates and his students Plato and Aristotle still relevant? For me personally, I would not hesitate in answering “yes.”

Socrates, who is termed as “the father of philosophy” is incredibly important in the growth of classical philosophy. Not much of his life is known and we only know of his “philosophies” through the writings of Plato, arguably his most devoted and well-known student. The most interesting aspect of Socrates’ life, for me at least, is his death. He was sentenced to death by the Athenian government for his controversial ideas and died by drinking hemlock. Plato writes in his Phaedo that Socrates’ last words were "Crito [one of Socrates’ closest friends], we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt." I find this interesting and yet conflicting on the surface. Asclepius was the god of healing. Why I find this so conflicting is Socrates was sentenced to death supposedly for his outspoken atheism and for “corrupting young minds.” However, many interpretations of this are that Socrates was referring to death – death is freedom for the soul and for the mind; in death the soul is heading for an idyllic place where it is free from society’s constraints. Fast forward two thousand five hundred years later and many people believe in the same sort of concept; albeit in a religion of some kind.

We are much more knowledgeable about Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy, because unlike Socrates, they wrote down their philosophies. The most famous concept of Platonism is the Theory of Forms. This theory suggests that the world was far from perfect, but that there is a perfect world in which people were once acquainted with. Plato believed that we were somehow damaged by living in the imperfect world in which we live; but we could get reacquainted with the perfect world by listening to our own human reasoning. This is similar to the Augustinian Theodicy and this is because Augustine, like many of Early Christian philosophers was heavily influenced by Platonism.

Aristotle is more concerned with ethics as opposed to philosophy and is especially concerned with humankind’s ability to be virtuous. He believed that studying philosophy and being contemplative was the best way of reaching eudaimonia; a Greek word meaning the maximum wellbeing. Alasdair McIntyre, a Scottish philosopher, famous for his work in Virtue Ethics is a modern day Aristotelian. His belief that with good character comes good judgement stems from Aristotle’s work.

 I think it is very clear that the Classical Philosophers are fundamental still. However, why are they still paramount to philosophy and ethics today? I think the answer is simple. Although they lived thousands of years ago; the issues that were problematic for philosophy and ethics then are still causing problems for philosophers now. 5^th Century Athens was a place that was a cultural hot spot so to speak; the tragic playwrights were the “celebrities” of the day and they were becoming more daring and began asking questions about the Greek gods in their plays. An example of this is Euripides’ “The Bacchae,” a play in which the hero not only questions the god Dionysus’ existence, but the god himself and his all-female followers are shown to be moral deviants. Philosophy was thriving in an age in which the citizens were discovering agnosticism and becoming more aware of the world around them; and it is my belief that unless either religion or atheism become extinct; in another two thousand years’ time there will be another philosophy student making the same point about the Classical Philosophers as I have.

 

By L.L.

 

 

Human Understanding

 

“A philosopher knows that in reality he knows very little. That is why he constantly strives to achieve true insight. Socrates was one of these rare people. He knew that he knew nothing about life and about the world. And now comes the important part: it troubled him that he knew so little.”  ― Jostein Gaarder, Sophie's World

Whilst reading 'Sophie's World', I was especially struck by the thinking of Socrates. Being one of the most influential Greek philosophers, Socrates was ultimately concerned will helping others to realise true insight; to view the universe as he did. Socrates wanted to show everyone how completely oblivious they are to the wonders around them. Even though Socrates was writing before Christ and therefore before science, when we really think about what we know about the world, even today, we realise we know very little. We are able to explain how things happen in nature; how the tides are controlled by the moon, how plants use photosynthesis to produce food and how different species adapt to survive in their environments. However, in reality, we know very little of why these things happen. Socrates in particular was especially concerned with how little we know of the universe. He therefore is widely known for his constant need and want of knowledge.

What we truly know and what we perceive about the universe and its existence are, in fact, very different. One can believe that there is a higher being that is eternal and created the universe in His own image whereas someone else may believe in science, the Big Bang Theory and that when we die, we just cease to exist. However, neither can really know how correct they are in their beliefs, the universe may have begun as a result of the Big Bang but we may also find that there is indeed life after death. This is what Socrates was ultimately concerned with; our lack of true knowledge. The idea of the human soul is a subject that has created a lot of scepticism in modern society, the idea of is one of the main ideas within Christianity and therefore it is widely believed. However, what if the idea of life after death is just believed because it is a comfort to us? The idea that we just cease to exist after death is much harder for us to accept as it does not bring comfort for those we have lost. The atheistic view would state that there is no eternal soul and therefore cannot be life after death, however, neither view can ever really know which idea is correct.

If we take away the moral part of the world; God, then there is no real reason why humans should strive to be good. Therefore, maybe religion is used as more of a way to order and control society rather than as a comfort to us. Obviously there are people who oppose this view, they believe that faith is ones' true connection to God and through that connection they are able to learn how they should live their lives. However, if there were no morals or principles as a result of religious belief, would society still function adequately? Would individuals feel a need to show compassion, love and respect for others? Some would argue that our human reason would help us to act correctly towards society, but what if our human reason stems from religion and without it, humans have no understanding of the difference between right and wrong? It is therefore evident that, although we as humans have developed greatly, we are still to learn a lot about life, the universe and ourselves.

E.A.C

Community

As we begin a new school year, our focus shifts towards our school community. We are lucky enough at Sacred Heart that we belong to a loving and understanding community of faith, however I feel that this unity that lives in our school is not replicated in the wider community. Religion means something unique to each individual and that is what makes it such a powerful and diverse topic in our modern society. Living in a multicultural society such as the U.K, I would have thought that we would become much more understanding and open-minded, yet what has actually developed among some is deep rooted misunderstanding leading to many conflicts we see in the world today. Religion is unfortunately now seen as a ‘taboo’ subject as we may be afraid to upset or offend others around us. However I believe these differences should be celebrated and we should all seek to fully understand others in their own journeys of faith.

‘The greatest evil in the world is ignorance.’-Albert Camus.

This quote truly speaks to me in reference to this subject as not wanting to immerse ourselves in different cultures and religion leads to ignorance, and not fully understanding other religions can lead to the troubles we witness today such as the recent anniversary of the tragic events of 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jYwrgHONSc

This video clip shows how despite Ricky Gervais being a well-known atheist, he feels we are all entitled to our right to the freedom of speech and believes that we should all have the right to believe what we feel is right for us. We are extremely lucky in the U.K to have the freedom of speech, where our opinion can be voiced and these differences in society can exist without fear of the consequences. I feel that as we begin our new school year we should attempt to replicate the respect and consideration we have for others at Sacred Heart, in the local area and begin to see a change for the better.

By E.D

Why Philosophy?

So why study philosophy at A-Level or even at University?

• It encourages independent thought - can you think for yourself?
• It investigates the most profound questions we can ask - is there anything more important to study?
• It encourages dispute and challenge - can you come to reasoned conclusions?
• It opens mind and builds character - are you able to change and develop the way you think?
• It helps to understand complex and difficult arguments and ideas - can you learn and apply new skills?
• It develops self-understanding - are you ready to think independently and come to new conclusions about yourself, the human race and the world around you? This is real education!

Read more <here>