od is good, says Christianity. After all, faith in God is the key to heaven. Is heaven not good? But what about hell? Why allow such perdition at all? The presence of evil challenges the existence and preconception of a God whose grounding is one of not only assigned, but assumed benevolence, such as the one found in Christianity. To name God supreme creator, or transcendent father (our father, who art in heaven…), or an essence above that of mortal beings and simultaneously surmise that he is virtuous and furthermore, of good intention, is to either forget or disregard the sin and suffering that litters life. Furthermore, if God is omnipotent and without flaw, why is the world not utopia? David Hume questions why pain and imperfection
…show more content…
What is the point in sadness? Hume further questions why the fair fall upon unfortunate circumstances. Here, he offers the example of “A fleet, whose Purposes were Salutary to Society,” (ibid) Of course, nature does not bear us gifts simply for having good intention. But why is this so? Why not make it easier to be virtuous? Indeed, God, where do our fair winds fly? It is difficult to consider these accidents and shortcomings of natural human life as part of a greater good that is beyond our understanding. Third, Hume asks why creatures are not built better. He gives the example of an animal, for example a bear, that has strength but lacks speed. Why can’t the bear be fast, too? Can God not afford to give the bear speed as well as strength? Is God cheap, or just on a budget? He shouldn’t be either, if he is what we say he is. Additionally, why are all animals not created equal? In giving some traits to some species but not others, competition is created, and it is impossible for all God’s creations to live harmoniously among each other. Wouldn’t balance and peace shape a better world? Last, he discusses natural disasters. Similar to the last point made, why do such extremes, which wreak havoc and destruction, exist? And why are we not more even-tempered? Why are we so susceptible to the “Passions of the Mind”? Hume proposes the Manichoen System as a solution. This is to say that, perhaps God is …show more content…
It does not involve justice or injustice, or unanswered “why”s. Instead, he says that in proving God’s existence, you have already assumed God to exist because one cannot prove something that doesn’t exist at all. Thus, attempting to reason God’s existence through logic is a fruitless task. Instead, one must take a leap of faith by letting go of this reasoning. For, true faith occurs when the belief in question is known to be false. But Kierkegaard’s God is neither imperfect nor perfect like that of Hume, or lawless like that of Dostoevsky. Rather he is simply vague—a concept to which we assign a name. Acknowledging this opacity allows Kierkegaard to almost, if not entirely ignore the matter of evil. Presumably, his conclusion may be that because God does not exist and all we have control over is whether or not we choose to believe, we need not justify the role of suffering since there is no protective force watching over
What is the point in sadness? Hume further questions why the fair fall upon unfortunate circumstances. Here, he offers the example of “A fleet, whose Purposes were Salutary to Society,” (ibid) Of course, nature does not bear us gifts simply for having good intention. But why is this so? Why not make it easier to be virtuous? Indeed, God, where do our fair winds fly? It is difficult to consider these accidents and shortcomings of natural human life as part of a greater good that is beyond our understanding. Third, Hume asks why creatures are not built better. He gives the example of an animal, for example a bear, that has strength but lacks speed. Why can’t the bear be fast, too? Can God not afford to give the bear speed as well as strength? Is God cheap, or just on a budget? He shouldn’t be either, if he is what we say he is. Additionally, why are all animals not created equal? In giving some traits to some species but not others, competition is created, and it is impossible for all God’s creations to live harmoniously among each other. Wouldn’t balance and peace shape a better world? Last, he discusses natural disasters. Similar to the last point made, why do such extremes, which wreak havoc and destruction, exist? And why are we not more even-tempered? Why are we so susceptible to the “Passions of the Mind”? Hume proposes the Manichoen System as a solution. This is to say that, perhaps God is …show more content…
It does not involve justice or injustice, or unanswered “why”s. Instead, he says that in proving God’s existence, you have already assumed God to exist because one cannot prove something that doesn’t exist at all. Thus, attempting to reason God’s existence through logic is a fruitless task. Instead, one must take a leap of faith by letting go of this reasoning. For, true faith occurs when the belief in question is known to be false. But Kierkegaard’s God is neither imperfect nor perfect like that of Hume, or lawless like that of Dostoevsky. Rather he is simply vague—a concept to which we assign a name. Acknowledging this opacity allows Kierkegaard to almost, if not entirely ignore the matter of evil. Presumably, his conclusion may be that because God does not exist and all we have control over is whether or not we choose to believe, we need not justify the role of suffering since there is no protective force watching over