assign#5

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION READING ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT, DUNDON

Assignment number:5_ Reading Assignment location Pomerleau Pages:_ Pp. _191-98._____

This will be an assignment which will show how great philosophers used simple and clear arguments to make their points. You must read the whole passage (pp. 191-98) before even trying to understand my argument, which--like Liebniz's--is indebted to Aquinas to Augustine and back to Plato/Socrates. The issue is reconciling God's loving goodness and unlimited power with the reality of evil in the world, especially the moral evils committed by humans. From the outset, however I wish to be honest in admitting that I will do, at times, exactly what Leibniz does in the second quotation on p. 197: I will admit to the mystery involved in not knowing why God allows so much moral evil in the world. It has something to do with His intention to create and respect, once he created it, our free and rational mind. Leibniz, like many other philosophers is impressed how the most beautiful acts of humans are those wonderful acts of freely given love and fidelity, of heroic sacrifice, when one could have cut and run, of persistent hard work for the poor and suffering. God is to be admired for making a world in which such love abounds. But it is impossible for such acts to even appear beautiful if they are not free. And to be free implies the ability to not do them, and even to do the opposite.

The very liberal atheists who condemn a God who allows evil, scream in indignation if a government intrudes on their privacy in an effort to make them behave according to some moral norm. Imagine what they would call a God who forced them to be good all the time! Probably: "Cosmic Fascist!!!" "The Great Control Freak in the Sky!!" When, in 1936 at the invasion of Poland, G.K. Chesterton was asked: "If there is a good God why did He not stop the Nazi hoards at the border and instead to allow the slaughter the essentially defenseless Poles in huge numbers?" he answered: "Because God is not a Nazi."...i.e. He does not use physical might to paralyze his errant creatures and force them to conform. The Nazis used the German industrial, technical and scientific genius to cause great and useless destruction and cruelty. Surely so much evil, since God gave them all those powers, must laid at His door somehow! Evil is in the world, God made the World and everything in it, hence God made evil. A clear syllogism--air tight.

"Not so--says Plato/Augustine/Aquinas/Dundon. Evil is not something, but the lack of something--a privation of something that ought to be present. And moral evil is a lack of a moral goodness. That goodness is the right order of loves. No one does object or should object to Clinton having a sex appetite and the ability to use his sexual organs. What he does wrong is to ignore the order in which they should be used, toward Hillary and with putting her serious welfare, Chelsea's and even Monica L's welfare over his own short-term pleasure. Even the pleasure is not evil, but the order in which he ranked it over other persons' legitimate expectations. Notice the outcry of his supporters: "How could he have ignored the impact of this or all the political harm this would do us. He was totally lacking in loyalty to us who worked so hard to put him in office." This lack is what we mean by moral evil--privation of the right moral order of love/loyalty/caring. We can know that order of right loving and fail to follow it, and hence bring great evil into the world. The German leadership could have used their great powers to restore their economy and give their people a good life, but instead they attempted to get their wealth by ignoring the rights and well-being of the Poles, and then of all Europe and Russia. Why does this happen? We are not immune. In the interest of a single banana company an American president allows a country to be devastated by a dictatorship that killed tens of thousands. Is it wrong for the U.S. to help our companies overseas? No. Is it wrong to put their trivial profits above the lives of the poor in those countries? Yes! Ignoring the just limits--a lack of justice--a moral privation. Not thinking about what horrors those dictatorships would do to the people once their democratic opposition is destroyed--this is the lack which is the real source of the evil. What I intend to do is set up Leibniz's argument for why God would create a world in which evil was possible, not just reluctantly but because of His very desire to create the most beautiful world. Then as your assignment I will have you put in syllogistic form many of the eight objections to Leibniz, and his answering arguments and then ask some questions about how Leibniz answered some without syllogisms..

Text: Pomerleau

LEIBNIZ'S ARGUMENT RECONCILING EVIL AND AN ALL POWERFUL GOOD GOD
First Argument location_193 top half ( USE INSTRUCTIONS FROM PREVIOUS EXERCISES)

= GOD wishing to create a most beautiful world

= Creator who must create beings free to love (ie--free choice)or fail to love due to their rational nature

C=	= Creator who must tolerate abuse (failure to love) of that freedom
____\|______		-	_________	-	M&P (Major) S&M (Minor) Conclusion
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----M
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----P

Do a circle diagram of your argument in this box:

1. My S is A, B, C.
2. My P is A, B, C.
3. My M is A, B, C.
4. My major prem. is an A, I, E, O, prop. (A=A, I=B, E=C O=D)
5. My minor premise is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
6. My conclusion is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
7. The syllogism is Valid (A), Invalid (B)
8. The figure is First (A), Second (B).

Second Argument:

The First Objection (to Liebniz's Theodicy) located in Objections to Theodicy Addressed p. 194. The First objection is not properly targeted because it does not deal directly with either of Leibniz's premises above.

= Being lacking power, or knowledge or goodness

= Being who failed to choose the best world

C=	= God
____\|______		-	_________	-	M&P (Major) S&M (Minor) Conclusion
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----M
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----P

Do a circle diagram of your argument in this box:

9. My S is A, B, C.
10. My P is A, B, C.
11. My M is A, B, C.
12. My major prem. is an A, I, E, O, prop. (A=A, I=B, E=C O=D)
13. My minor premise is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
14. My conclusion is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
15. The syllogism is Valid (A), Invalid (B)
16. The figure is First (A), Second (B).

Third Argument: Ibid. (Ibid. is an abbreviation of the Latin ibidem, meaning "in the same place" as the above, i.e. p.194)
Defense of the First Objection: Pomerleau gives the first objector's proof of his minor premise above thus introducing a single new term "D" The conclusion will be the same as the minor premise above.

= Creator of things including avoidable evil or of evil creations which could have be omitted

= As above (in second argument)

C=	= As above
____\|______		-	_________	-	M&P (Major) S&M (Minor) Conclusion
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----M
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----P

Do a circle diagram of your argument in this box:

17. My S is D, B, C.
18.My P is D, B, C.
19. My M is D, B, C.
20. My major prem. is an A, I, E, O, prop. (A=A, I=B, E=C O=D)
21. My minor premise is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
22. My conclusion is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
23. The syllogism is Valid (A), Invalid (B)
24. The figure is First (A), Second (B).

Fourth argument, ibid.

Counter-attact by Liebniz: He attacks (PROVES THE OPPOSITE OF) the major premise of the preceding argument, introducing only one new term "E". This has to be a negative argument!

= As above

E=	= Creator whose allowance of evil accomplishes(or is accompanied by) a greater good
____\|______		-	_________	-	M&P (Major) S&M (Minor) Conclusion
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----M
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----P

Do a circle diagram of your argument in this box:

25. My S is D, B, E.
26. My P is D, B, E.
27. My M is D, B, E.
28. My major prem. is an A, I, E, O, prop. (A=A, I=B, E=C O=D)
29. My minor premise is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
30. My conclusion is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
31. The syllogism is Valid (A), Invalid (B)
32. LEAVE #32 BLANK (This implies that the argument could be done validly in 1st or 2nd figure.)

FIFTH argument, location_P. 195

The Fourth Objection: ( to Liebniz)

= An accessory to sin

= God

C=	= person knowing the sin, having the power to stop it and failing to do so
____\|______		-	_________	-	M&P (Major) S&M (Minor) Conclusion
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----M
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----P

Do a circle diagram of your argument in this box:

33. My S is A, B, C. (Make sure you skipped #32 on your response form/scantron card.)
34. My P is A, B, C.
35. My M is A, B, C.
36. My major prem. is an A, I, E, O, prop. (A=A, I=B, E=C O=D)
37. My minor premise is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
38. My conclusion is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
39. The syllogism is Valid (A), Invalid (B)
40. The figure is First (A), Second (B).

6th argument location : Ibid

LEIBNIZ'S ATTACK (targeting the major. See rule on attacks but make the minor premise is particular affirmative ("I") because an A proposition is successfully attacked simply by an "O". I.e., " All x is y" is refuted by proving "Some x is not y."

= As above (in argument #5)

= person who could only prevent the sin by committing another sin or doing some unreasonable action

C=	= As above
____\|______		-	_________	-	M&P (Major) S&M (Minor) Conclusion
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----M
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----P

Do a circle diagram of your argument in this box:

41. My S is A, D, C.
42. My P is A, D, C.
43. My M is A, D, C.
44. My major prem. is an A, I, E, O, prop. (A=A, I=B, E=C O=D)
45. My minor premise is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
46. My conclusion is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
47. The syllogism is Valid (A), Invalid (B)
48. LEAVE 48 BLANK.

Seventh Argument location_p.196,

5th Objection (to Liebniz)

= Source of all that is real in sin

= cause of sin

C=	= God
____\|______		-	_________	-	M&P (Major) S&M (Minor) Conclusion
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----M
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----P

Do a circle diagram of your argument in this box:

49. My S is A, B, C. (48 is left BLANK.)
50. My P is A, B, C.
51. My M is A, B, C.
52. My major prem. is an A, I, E, O, prop. (A=A, I=B, E=C O=D)
53. My minor premise is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
54. My conclusion is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
55. The syllogism is Valid (A), Invalid (B)
56. The figure is First (A), Second (B).

8th argument, Ibid..

Leibniz has two attacks on the preceding "fifth objection" based on two meanings of "real". For this attack, which targets the minor premise above, take his second meaning: "Real" includes "lacks" or "privations" (what we omit--the order of loving--when we sin. Also re-read my comments above that abuse of faculties is leaving out the order faculties are supposed to follow, not the faculty itself.

= As above (in preceding argument)

= source of what is lacking (privative reality)in sin, the misuse of God-given faculties by omitting their proper order(Dundon's point)

C=	= As above
____\|______		-	_________	-	M&P (Major) S&M (Minor) Conclusion
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----M
____\|______		-----S	_________	-----P

Do a circle diagram of your argument in this box:

57. My S is A, D, C.
58.My P is A, D, C.
59. My M is A, D, C.
60. My major prem. is an A, I, E, O, prop. (A=A, I=B, E=C O=D)
61. My minor premise is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
62. My conclusion is an A, I, E, O, proposition (Same code.)
63. The syllogism is Valid (A), Invalid (B)
64. The figure is First (A), Second (B).