Hint
|
Answer
|
god has given up what?
|
control over human actions
|
in order to?
|
bring about a greater good
|
by giving up control, what has God given humans?
|
free will
|
what can humans therefore make?
|
their own decisions
|
and are responsible for?
|
their own actions
|
so they can develop as?
|
moral agents
|
however, this alone is not enough to allow us to?
|
develop
|
so this is why ---- exists?
|
suffering
|
so we develop good qualities like? (1)
|
courage
|
(2)
|
compassion
|
(3)
|
patience
|
pain is the?
|
stimulus for development
|
but while pain can cause us to develop good qualities, we could also develop?
|
negetive qualities
|
such as? (1)
|
greed
|
(2)
|
selfishness
|
we must be placed in situations that require us to make?
|
decisions
|
the price of free will is therefore the existence of?
|
moral evil
|
as genuine free will includes the permission, opportunity and ability to commit?
|
unspeakable acts of evil
|
those who defend free will have 2 things to prove, that is is not possible to have?
|
free will and not moral evil
|
and that the results of having free will are?
|
worth the price
|
who presents one of the best examples of the free will defence?
|
JL Mackie
|
who was an ?
|
atheist
|
what was he originally attempting to do to the free will defence?
|
disprove it
|
in his sarcastically titled book?
|
the miracle of theism
|
Mackie's main reason for thinking God does not exist is?
|
the problem of evil
|
he constructs his defence, and then does what to it?
|
rejects it
|
but his original defence provides the clearest example of how?
|
god could co exist with evil
|
Mackie creates how many orders of good and evils?
|
3
|
first order goods include? (1)
|
pleasure
|
(2)
|
happiness
|
for example, someone reading a particularly good book is in a state of?
|
first order good
|
first order evils include? (1)
|
pain
|
(2)
|
misery
|
for example, someone who has been broken up with is experiencing?
|
first order evil
|
if we come across someone in the state of first order evil, two reactions are open to us, the first being that we can ?
|
reduce their misery
|
by being ? (1)
|
sympathetic
|
(2)
|
understanding
|
the second being that we can?
|
exacerbate their misery
|
by being? (1)
|
spiteful
|
(2)
|
mean
|
we can similarly reduce or increase someone's happiness that came from their first order good with our?
|
reaction
|
therefore, kindness, love, generosity etc. are?
|
second order goods
|
and envy, jealousy, greed etc. are?
|
second order evils
|
second order goods exist to?
|
maximise first order good and minimise first order evil
|
seocnd order evils exist to?
|
maximise first order evil and minimise first order good
|
maximising good or evil is therefore ?
|
our choice
|
the third order good is?
|
freedom
|
as it allows us to choose between second order ?
|
good or evil
|
so it teaches us to?
|
love the good
|
god is therefore ---- in putting evil in the universe?
|
justified
|
as it teaches us to be?
|
morally responsible
|
however, Mackie condemns this argument as?
|
incoherent
|
because he says it is logically possible for a person to ?
|
make only good choices
|
so God could have created humans to exclusively make?
|
free good choices
|
but, God did not, so either God?
|
is not omnipotent
|
or is not?
|
omnibenevolent
|
so Mackie's conclusion from this is that?
|
god does not exist
|
who refuted jl mackie's defence?
|
alvin plantinga
|
he argues there is no possible world where God could have created humans to always make?
|
good free choices
|
forcing someone to chose freely is an?
|
oxymoron
|
so in order to be free to choose, there must be?
|
multiple options
|
in order to disprove Mackie, he must prove that it is logically impossible that God could have created humans to?
|
always freely chose good
|
he must also provide a logically possible reason as to why?
|
god allows evil
|
this reason does not have to be true, only ?
|
logically possible
|
Plantinga claims God allows evil to exists for two?
|
morally sufficient reasons
|
the first explains?
|
the logical problem of evil
|
the second explains?
|
natural evil
|
MSR1 - he argues that free will has?
|
tremendous value
|
and enables humans to?
|
form meaningful connections
|
and do what out of choice?
|
good deeds
|
God cannot eliminate?
|
all pain and suffering
|
without also eliminating?
|
the greater good of free will
|
what is the example give in a modern context?
|
the pain of a vaccine
|
for the greater good of?
|
immunisation
|
In MSR1, Plantinga assumes the view of free will known as?
|
libertarianism
|
meaning that although some aspects of human existence are?
|
determined by science
|
humans nevertheless have a degree of free will, so can be held?
|
morally responsible for their actions
|
this is the view that ----- is false
|
casual determinism
|
so we can make choices that are?
|
genuinely free
|
libertarian free will is ?
|
morally significant
|
as it people are morally responsible for their decisions and can be?
|
held accountable
|
Plantinga constructs 3?
|
possible worlds
|
God could have?
|
created
|
PW1- god creates people people with morally significant free will, and does not?
|
casually determine right and wrong
|
as a result, there is?
|
evil and suffering
|
this world is logically possible, as it is ?
|
the one we live in
|
PW2- god creates people?
|
without free will
|
God determines?
|
right and wrong
|
in?
|
every situation
|
therefore there is?
|
no evil and suffering
|
this world is logically possible, but the people are?
|
moral robots
|
PW3- god creates people with free will god casually determines right and wrong there is no evil and suffering these statements are?
|
logically incompatible
|
meaning this world is?
|
logically impossible
|
so the free will defence is ----- as Mackie claimed
|
not incoherent
|
MSR2- Plantinga also must provide a?
|
reason for natural evil
|
since it is not caused by?
|
human free will
|
Plantinga's MSR2 is that God allowed natural evil to enter the world because of?
|
adam and eve
|
as punishment for their?
|
sin
|
most philosophers view this as?
|
ludicrous
|
as it relies on the biblical story being?
|
true
|
which is viewed widely as a?
|
mythological narrative
|
however, Plantinga does not have to provide a true explanation, only a?
|
logically possible one
|
therefore Plantinga is ---- in refuting Mackie's claim that the free will defence is incoherent
|
successful
|
can the FWD account for natural evil? it is caused by the?
|
forces of nature
|
not by?
|
humans
|
for example, we can try to avoid?
|
building in flood zones
|
but it will not stop them?
|
occurring
|
however, the FWD can to some extent account for natural evil god cannot stop all natural disasters, at is would?
|
prove he exists
|
if we knew God existed, we would never be?
|
free
|
as our actions would always be aiming to?
|
please God
|
natural evil could also help?
|
develop second order good
|
as many people suffer as a result of natural evil for example, the 2010?
|
haitian earthquake
|
which caused ---- deaths
|
300 000
|
may allow people to send aid and become more?
|
charitable
|
strengths of the free will defence Plantinga successfully refutes Mackie as ---- are logically possible
|
MSR1 and MSR2
|
strength - plantinga is right that
|
pw3 is impossible
|
as even an?
|
omnipotent being cant do the logically impossible
|
strength- natural evils bring about second order good, which are seen as?
|
higher goods
|
strength - establishes key principle, that a world with free creatures is?
|
more valuable
|
than a world?
|
without them
|
without freedom there is no?
|
achievement
|
and no ?
|
real happiness
|
weaknesses- although it is --- does not make it -----
|
logically coherent true
|
weakness - it relies on a ------ of free will
|
libertarian account
|
however this account cannot be?
|
proved
|
weakness- has no response to the ?
|
evidential problem of evil
|
which is concerned with?
|
pointless evil
|
a well known example of this is given by the philosopher?
|
william rowe
|
who uses the example of a ?
|
fawn
|
caught in a ?
|
forest fire
|
this problem is made worse because of God's?
|
omniscience
|