Study Guide - Final Study Guide Answers

Study Guide - Final Study Guide Answers - 1 1. Explain why...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 1.Explain why one might think that the free will defense requires a supporting theodicy. There are two ways the theist can respond to the argument from evil: 1. a theodicy, the reason why God permits evil, and 2. a defense, a way to undermine the argument from evil without giving a reason why God permits evil (only a logically possible reason). The philosopher Alvin Plantinga makes the freewill defense as a response to the argument from evil. Plantinga’s argument has two basic parts. The first part argues that atheists have not shown that God and the existence of evil are logically incompatible, then he shows that they are logically compatible. He successfully shows that Mackie’s reasoning for the incompatibilism for God and evil is wrong, then claims that they are logically compatible because of the existence of free-will. I’ll focus on the latter. His claims are that 1. If God is all-___, he will eliminate all evil that he can properly eliminate. 2. In a world without libertarian free-will, God can properly eliminate all evil. X has libertarian free will with respect to action A iff both A and not A are equally possible (depends only on X’s choice). 3. Therefore, there is no world where we lack libertarian free will and there is evil. 4. Evil exists. 5. Therefore, there must be libertarian free will. The support for premise three comes from the claim that evil comes from mankind choosing evil with libertarian free will. So, since evil exists, mankind must have libertarian free will. So the reason why the free will defense requires a supporting theodicy is because in order for Plantinga to make this argument, he has to say that libertarian free will is part of God‘s creation (his plan), e.g. the free will theodicy: God created free will because it is so valuable, and the value outweighs the evil that goes along with it. 2.Explain and evaluate either Plantinga’s positive or negative project. Plantinga’s negative project: Classical foundationalism is bad. Plantinga’s goal is to undermine the evidentalist argument, which goes something like this: 1. Without sufficient evidential support for the existence of God, belief in God is unjustified. 2. There is not sufficient evidential support for the existence of God. 3. Belief in God is unjustified. -Sufficient evidential support = Good arguments. How he goes about this is to undermine “classical foundationalism,” which he claims is the basis for the evidentalist argument. Classical foundationalism claims that there are two types of beliefs, basic and non-basic. Basic claims are the “foundation,” the claims that our non-basic beliefs are formed by. Basic claims are claims that are self-evident, incorrigible, and evident to the senses. Non-basic claims are arguments or inference that we obtain through non-basic beliefs. Plantinga gives us three reasons to object to classical foundationalism. The first is that classical foundationalism excludes many beliefs from justification that we believe are justified. For instance, there aren’t enough basic beliefs
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

Study Guide - Final Study Guide Answers - 1 1. Explain why...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online