BlargenBlog

A funny thing happened last week in my philosophy class.  I opened my book bag and pulled out my notes for the session.  Not paying attention, I reached down to turn to the appropriate page and noticed a big black thing with legs sitting upon my paper.  This thing must have been riding along with me all day since I had the bag at work with me.  It didn’t make a peep.

It was a cricket.

Spooked by this unknown invader, I jumped in my chair and quickly reached down to flick it off my desk.  Just then, it jumped of its own volition and proceeded to make its way towards the front of the class.  Nobody saw my initial reaction.

A few minutes pass as the instructor is giving the lesson when I hear from behind me,”i… is that a cricket?”  Gradually, as the six-legged stowaway crawled along, I noticed several heads tilted in its direction… then following it as it made it to the front, then crawled along the front edge of the instructors desk, then behind it while some concept was being illustrated.

When he was done, the instructor walked behind the desk, stopped, then said,”hey, a cricket!  That’s good luck in Japan.  Too bad we’re in East Peoria.”

I confessed to nothing.

——

More to report on my studies.

My art class is going swell.  Got 100% on both my quiz and my art project.  After that, I had my pants flattered right off when the instructor asked if she could keep it for another week to take a picture of it as an example of what her non-art major students can be capable of.  On the grading sheet, she praised the work and said she had no suggestions for improvement to offer.  I was quite happy.

I won’t get my next paper in my composition class back until Monday, but I think it went well.  In my philosophy class, I received my two papers back with 100% on both and a “very well reasoned” comment on the latter.  So far, so good, but that midterm is going to hurt.  Haven’t been in my political science class long enough to screw anything up, and we haven’t really done anything but in-class exercises and note-taking.  Considering my major, this is the one to do well in.

Anyway, since I didn’t post it before, here’s my second philosophy paper:

 

The argument Evil and Omnipotence by J.L. Mackie is a study of the problem of evil through examination of the natures of God and omnipotence, as well as definitions for what constitutes good and evil, respectively.  The author proposes that a problem exists for theists who believe that God is omnipotent and God is completely good.  The conflict is that if these attributes are true, then evil cannot exist because something wholly good will do everything it can to eliminate evil, and something omnipotent has the power to carry it out to completion.  Mackie asserts that if any two of these conditions (God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, evil exists) are true, then the other must be false.  In short, if God is omnipotent and wholly good, evil cannot exist; if God is omnipotent and evil exists, God is not wholly good; if God is wholly good and evil exists, God is not omnipotent.

 

He first provides a solution to the problem of evil from a theistic perspective by suggesting that dropping any one of these essential theological propositions would nullify the problem.  That is, either god is not omnipotent, not wholly good or evil does not exist.  However, he concludes that this is not a satisfactory solution from the perspective of the theist, as he will ascribe these attributes in other ways instead of abandoning them completely.  Mackie then lists fallacious solutions including the necessity of evil to the existence of good.  He argues that this reasoning is flawed in that it limits what God can do, eliminating the quality of omnipotence, by asking why God cannot create good without creating evil.  The author goes on to define good and evil for the sake of the argument, classifying them into a hierarchy of two to three orders.  From these he constructs a conclusion that if one must be given then choice between good and evil, then freewill has greater value than either good or evil;  if human will is truly free, then God cannot control it;  if God cannot control it, he is not omnipotent.

Mackie was very careful in constructing his arguments, and perhaps more so in restraining himself where he mentioned subjects that could be expounded upon for further analysis of the problem.  Much can be said of his attention to detail in defining and explaining his positions while preemptively responding to potential criticisms of his findings throughout the writing.  Overall, I think he did a great job in defending his case.

At times, this argument reminded me of the Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro in defining what is and what is not piety.  I agree with his conclusions, especially the paradox of omnipotence, though I would go a step further and argue that if God is not wholly good, why worship him, or, if God is not omnipotent, can we really call him God?  Furthermore, if the Judeo-Christian god can logically be shown not to possess the attributes which are consistently ascribed to him—while taking into account Mackie’s arguments concerning logic and rules applying to God and subsequently nullifying his omnipotence—is it not reasonable to assert that those who claim these attributes either don’t know what they’re talking about or are perhaps lying?  If this is the case and there is no actual basis for what we know about God, why bother to consider his existence at all?  If we solve the problem of evil by ceasing to include one of the essential propositions, then follow it to its natural conclusion, I think it makes a rather clear case for disbelief.