Which two
Scroll Down for Answers
What
FOR THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS, SCROLL DOWN TO THE END.
1.The philosopher who first used the word ‘theodicy’.
a. Irenaeus
b. Leibniz
c. Augustine
d. Epicurus
2. The author of a ‘soul deciding’ theodicy.
a. Augustine
b. Phillips
c. Hick
d. Irenaeus
3. The theologian who does not believe that anyone will spend an eternity in Hell after they die.
a. Irenaeus
b. Swinburne
c. AN Whitehead
d. Hick
4. The theologian whose theodicy includes the idea that all natural and moral evil result from angels and human beings using their free-will to disobey God and so whether they go to Heaven or Hell is a result of their free choices.
a. Irenaeus
b. Augustine
c. Mackie
d. Hick
5. The theologian whose theodicy involves the claim that we are created at an ‘epistemic distance’ from God.
a. Irenaeus
b. AN Whitehead
c. Hick
d. Augustine
6. The author of the idea that God is ‘the Great Companion, the fellow sufferer who understands’.
a. Mackie
b. Irenaeus
c. Hick
d. AN Whitehead
7. The author of the idea that if God is omniscient then he is responsible for all the evil that goes on in the world.
a. Mackie
b. Russell
c. Dostoevsky
d. Phillips
8. The theologian who argued that evil is a ‘privation’ or absence of good.
a. Augustine
b. Irenaeus
c. Hick
d. Hume
9. The philosopher who argued that God was not faced with a choice between making us like innocent robots who always do good OR creating us with free-will and the possibility of sinning. Instead this philosopher claimed that because we sometimes freely choose to do good that God could have created us to always freely choose to do good.
a. Hume
b. Russell
c. Mackie
d. Swinburne
10. The theologian who argued that some humans are predestined for Hell.
a. Irenaeus
b. Augustine
c. Swinburne
d. Hick
11. The theologian who argues for ‘universalism’, the idea that everyone eventually completes the process of ‘Soul-making’.
a. Hume
b. Irenaeus
c. Augustine
d. Hick
12. The theologian who argued that God did not make a ‘toy world’ in which our free choices do not really matter because such a world would not be meaningful. Instead, a world where we have a genuine opportunity to inflict real harm on others is the only one that makes any sense as far as our moral development is concerned and that we should have an opportunity to damn ourselves through what we do.
a. Hick
b. Swinburne
c. Hume
d. AN Whitehead
13. The theologian who argued that the universe is like a work of art, a painting that has light and dark aspects and that to think too much about evil is like only seeing the shadows in that painting. In doing so, we ignore the fact that the universe is ultimately balanced and is the work of a great artist: God.
a. Irenaeus
b. Hick
c. Swinburne
d. Augustine
14. The theologian whose theodicy might be criticised on the grounds that if everyone eventually completes the process of ‘soul-making’ then why bother giving us free-will in the first-place?
a. Hick
b. Swinburne
c. Augustine
d. Aquinas
15. The theologian who can be criticised for not explaining why angels and humans decided to reject God.
a. Irenaeus
b. Augustine
c. Hick
d. Swinburne
16. The theologian who argued that most theodicies can be criticised because they do not sufficiently consider the person who is on the receiving end of extreme and seemingly undeserved suffering.
a. Whitehead
b. Russell
c. Wiles
d. Phillips
17. The author of the idea that no plan that God has in mind for humanity can justify the suffering of innocent children (presumably even if many of us enjoy an eternal afterlife in heaven).
a. Swinburne
b. Mackie
c. Dostoevsky
d. Hick
18. The theologian who argued that a miracle working God would not help to solve the problem of evil. This is because miracles would compromise the goodness of God. It would be unfair if God helped some people in their suffering but not others.
a. Wiles
b. Dostoevsky
c. Augustine
d. Irenaeus
19. The philosopher who agreed that the universe might be the product of a benevolent force but thought that it was more likely to have originated from a source that is neither good nor evil, given the relative stability of the world and the mixture of both that can be found in it.
a. Augustine
b. Phillips
c. Mackie
d. Hume
20. The idea that God is Himself subject to the laws of nature and so cannot perform miracles is associated with:
a. The Augustinian theodicy
b. Supporters of Process Theology
c. The theology of Richard Swinburne
d. The theology of DZ Phillips
REINCARNATION AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Fill in the blanks. NOTE: some words are used more than once.
Both Hindus and Buddhists believe in the law of ___________ , according to which the suffering we experience in our ___________ life is because of our behaviour in a _________ one. Hindus additionally believe that we possess a soul or _________which continually ______________ until we achieve _________ (release from the cycle of rebirth), following which we realise our identity with _____________ (the One, eternal reality which we are all part of). As we do not usually perceive that we are part of an eternal unchanging reality, suffering in life also arises from _______ (or illusion) because it seems to us that death is real and we fear it.
Buddhists, however, are ___________ and so there is no problem of evil in Buddhism. For them, _________ or suffering is just a natural feature of the universe. They also believe that good and bad karma arises from our ___________ rather than our actions.
Both Hindus and Buddhists believe that living an ethical life and practising lots of ______________ frees us from the round of rebirth. However, Buddhism does not teach that we become one with _____________. Instead, all Buddhists are concerned with is putting a stop to suffering, and when this happens we achieve a state called ____________ . Buddhists also do not believe in the Hindu ________ or soul. Instead, the Buddhist teaching of _________ or ‘no-self’ maintains that because we are part of an ever-changing reality with no beginning or end, nothing about us is permanent.
A possible strength of the Buddhist and Hindu teaching about evil is that both of these faiths take into account the suffering of __________ and we are encouraged not to harm them. This is a type of suffering that is arguably neglected in both the _____________ and ____________ theodicies.
However, as __________ are something we all might have been in our past lives, there is a problem with the law of __________ as it could be argued that ____________ act instinctively. It therefore seems strange to think of them as being somehow morally accountable for their actions.
Also, _________ razor suggests that there is a much simpler explanation as to why good and bad things happen to us: chance or coincidence.
Other problems to do with reincarnation as an explanation for both evil and what we are like in the next world have been identified by _______. Firstly, it has been argued that _________ and _____________ ________ are insufficient as a way of establishing that Person x was person y in a previous life. First of all, __________ are shared. They are not limited to one person. And ___________ __________ are too general and also shared by far too many people. Finally, the explanation for why we suffer seems endlessly deferred because it is always explained in terms of a previous life, or the one before that, and so on. And if there was a very first incarnation when we make our debut in the cycle of rebirth, then we might be entitled to an explanation for any suffering we experience in that first life and the law of _________ does not seem capable of supplying it.
Apart from philosophical problems with the idea of reincarnation, there are issues with the evidence for it too. For example, the researcher ____ ____________ (see course notes of life and death/the soul) has investigated many cases of child past lives and drawn the conclusion that reincarnation is the best explanation for them. However, _________ has criticised these case studies and has pointed out that they tend to occur in cultures where belief in reincarnation is already widespread. They could, therefore be pseudo-memories.
Transmigrates, personality traits, anatta, atheists, previous, Ian Stevenson, intentions, animals, Irenaean, meditation, karma, Hick, atman, present, Ockham’s, Augustinian, Nirvana, Brahman, moksha, memories, dukkha, maya.
ANSWERS
1. b 2. a 3. d 4. b 5. c 6. d 7. b 8. a 9. c 10. b 11. d 12. b 13. d 14. a 15. b 16. d 17. c 18. a 19. d 20. b
Fill in the blanks exercise
Both Hindus and Buddhists believe in the law of karma , according to which the suffering we experience in our present life is because of our behaviour in a previous one. Hindus additionally believe that we possess a soul or atman
which continually transmigrates until we achieve moksha (release from the cycle of rebirth), following which we realise our identity with Brahman (the One, eternal reality which we are all part of). As we do not usually perceive that we are part of an eternal unchanging reality, suffering in life also arises from maya (or illusion) because it seems to us that death is real and we fear it.
Buddhists, however, are atheists and so there is no problem of evil in Buddhism. For them, dukkha or suffering is just a natural feature of the universe. They also believe that good and bad karma arises from our intentions rather than our actions.
Both Hindus and Buddhists believe that living an ethical life and practising lots of meditation frees us from the round of rebirth. However, Buddhism does not teach that we become one with Brahman. Instead, all Buddhists are concerned with is putting a stop to suffering, and when this happens we achieve a state called Nirvana . Buddhists also do not believe in the Hindu atman or soul. Instead, the Buddhist teaching of anatta or ‘no-self’ maintains that because we are part of an ever-changing reality with no beginning or end, nothing about us is permanent.
A possible strength of the Buddhist and Hindu teaching about evil is that both of these faiths take into account the suffering of animals and we are encouraged not to harm them. This is a type of suffering that is arguably neglected in both the Irenaean and Augustinian theodicies.
However, as animals are something we all might have been in our past lives, there is a problem with the law of karma as it could be argued that animals act instinctively. It therefore seems strange to think of them as being somehow morally accountable for their actions.
Also, Ockham’s razor suggests that there is a much simpler explanation as to why good and bad things happen to us: chance or coincidence.
Other problems to do with reincarnation as an explanation for both evil and what we are like in the next world have been identified by Hick. Firstly, it has been argued that memories and personality traits are insufficient as a way of establishing that Person x was person y in a previous life. First of all, memories are shared. They are not limited to one person. And personality traits are too general and also shared by far too many people. Finally, the explanation for why we suffer seems endlessly deferred because it is always explained in terms of a previous life, or the one before that, and so on. And if there was a very first incarnation when we make our debut in the cycle of rebirth, then we might be entitled to an explanation for any suffering we experience in that first life and the law of karma does not seem capable of supplying it.
Apart from philosophical problems with the idea of reincarnation, there are issues with the evidence for it too. For example, the researcher Ian Stevenson (see course notes of life and death/the soul) has investigated many cases of child past lives and drawn the conclusion that reincarnation is the best explanation for them. However, Hick has criticised these case studies and has pointed out that they tend to occur in cultures where belief in reincarnation is already widespread. They could, therefore be pseudo-memories.