Module 3 Discussions
DISCUSSION RESPONSES
A)
(choose two other students to reply to)
LUCY:
Molinism is an ideology that proposes having middle knowledge, which includes knowing every possible outcome of every human decision of what will happen, and what could be. Asserting that God has middle knowledge supposedly solves the dilemma of human free will genuinely existing in God's world. God not being able to guarantee the outcomes of each decision is a way to justify God allowing evils without compromising his power. What I gather is that mankind is sinful, so they are deemed to make their own decisions which they both face the consequences of and reap the rewards. Molinism makes no attempt to justify why this coincides with the traditional portrayal of a loving God. God's omnipotent knowledge extends to counterfactuals, otherwise his ability to know the consequences of such actions as well as every possible outcome, but apparently cannot guarantee these outcomes. This overrides God's great plan since he cannot know the outcome since he is not allowed to force people to make decisions to achieve it; he’s playing a game of probability. This doesn't quite make sense, since this middle knowledge is not on a linear time scale, his view of all events would include what could happen and what will happen. How then could he not be in control of these outcomes if he was the original creator with all of this in mind?
NOAH:
Molinism presents the idea of middle knowledge. This is the idea that God not only has knowledge of what is, what was, and what will be, but also what could be. God knows all outcomes from all branching points of decision, therefore God knows the exact circumstances to create to get the desired outcome for the world. The text suggests that this does not rob humans of their free will, but I don't see how it doesn't. If we are guided to situations where God knows we will make a specific situation in that circumstance, what choice are we actually making? I wouldn't say this challenges traditional theism, however, as it supports the idea of God's omnipotence and his "grand plan".
JASMINE: Molinism is a principle surrounding God’s knowledge and human free-will. Molinism attempts to answer the issue of God being all-knowing and freewill. If he is all-knowing, then he must also be all-knowing of what each person will do, and what that outcome will be. Thus, how can individual free will exist? How is it not pre-determined under that circumstance? Molinism argues that God has middle knowledge. Which, as defined by the Molinist, is the complete knowledge of all that could possibly happen. That God knows what a free person would do given any situation.
In my mind, the biggest challenge to traditional theism is the issue of God’s predetermined plan. In the Bible, there’s a verse that talks about God knowing the plans he has for you and the plans to give you a future. To me, that explicitly implies a lack of free choice. If some end is planned by someone who is all-powerful, then all your “choices” up to that point have to be his. So, how can the effect(s) be something predetermined in his control, but the cause(s) is our choice?
A Molinist might respond that the concept of ‘if and then’ is conditional to the circumstance. That his plan to ‘save you’ is a condition of your own choices on earth. That his plan is a possible effect on your causes. That possibility is his middle knowledge.
B)
(my teacher responded directly so a response is needed)
My teacher:
You certainly demonstrate a strong grasp of the issue using outside sources. But I am interested in knowing what you think on this issue.
(choose two other students to reply to)
JASMINE:
The Problem of Evil is the issue that God is a good God, and God is omnipotent, then why do evil and suffering exist in our world? If God’s character is benevolent and God possesses all power, then it is contradictory for him to also have created and allow the continuation of natural evils in our world. That, if God is all good, his creation of the world should reflect that; and since it doesn’t, the theology is incorrect.
NOAH:
The Problem of Evil is built on the assumption that there is an omniscient, omnipotent God. Some argue that the existence of evil in the world must strike out one of these traits. The lines I always see are things like "If God is all powerful, and he allows evil to exist, then he cannot be morally good", "If God is morally good, but can not create a world without evil, then he is not all powerful", and so on. This argument fundamentally challenges the traditional theistic notion of God as an all-knowing, all-loving, all powerful entity, and instead presents God as either malicious or lacking aptitude.
TRACIE:
Firstly, the problem of evil is going to be, why is there evil in this world if we have an omniscient and omnipotent God? If he is so powerful, why doesn't he just remove all evil from this world? I believe that is the problem when we talk about the root of evil. Before we get started on this discussion, I want to say that we as human being cause this evil. Evil has nothing to do with God because He gave us free will to make our own choices. I think it becomes a problem to theists because many will say that we can't prove that there is a God. Socialist will say that is our own religion and beliefs.
I don't think that this presents a problem to God because he is the one who created all of it, and He has the power to take it all away, but he doesn't because our free will. Our actions that we take, will determine if we are going to be evil or not. And in the end, God will decide where we end up at because of choices that we have made.
LUCY:
The problem of evil asserts that there is a logical inconsistency between the synonymous existence of a loving God and the rampant evil in the His world. This notion is often challenged by some events that are simply too horrific to defend a well-intentioned God. For free will to be true, God cannot interfere, so he is unable to prevent unjust suffering and punish wrongdoers in their mortal life. Explanations of the necessity of evil follow that it is God's will to create freedom within man which must showcase the conflicting evils to reflect the goodness of God equally capable in humanity. This fails to explain the suffering of animals, which do not have free will but are endlessly punished by both man and the harsh conditions of nature. Assumedly God is also punishing animals by condemning them to an inferior existence, which is yet again inconsistent with a good and loving deity. It is reasonable for many to assume that because of these issues either God is not real, or that God is not good. These two solutions clarify the problem of evil without misconstruing the nature of the world as we know it to suit belief in an all-loving God.
MAYA:
The Problem Of Evil can best be understood that the claim of an altruistic and all loving God cannot be feasible because of the horrors of the world. If a God was truly all loving and all good, he would not allow for war, rape or murder. This truly presents a problem for Christianity, one that has yet to have been effectively refuted.
C)
(Lucy responded directly to my post so I must reply)
Lucy:
You state that you agree with the interpretation of suffering from Western theism because it provides more answers to various accounts of suffering. Buddhism's answer to the problem of evil is that suffering, in line with the perpetuation of change, is an innate characteristic of the world that is all-encompassing. This consistency is not represented in western theism, where suffering is represented as personal punishment, instead of dissatisfaction with temporary circumstances. All the examples you mentioned on why western theism better summarizes suffering could also be a product of dukkha, Buddhism's model of suffering, so I am curious as to why exactly you think western theism makes a better case? I look forward to hearing your response.
(pick two other students to reply to below)
LUCY:
The Buddha teaches that suffering is a characteristic of existence, and its origination is wholly natural in the cycle of life (samsara) and therefore unescapable (Mitchell, p. 33). Contrary to western theism where suffering is a condemnation of man for actions on his account, the Buddha promotes no such agenda. The impermanency of life spawns a constant flux of change that living beings are subject to. Dukkha, or suffering and pain, is one way in which the changing tide of the world is experienced. This change brings what we would deem as suffering: birth, sickness, death, etc. Impermanence itself brings direct suffering to the human spirit which demands everlasting peace and happiness, which is by the very nature of the world, unachievable. The human consciousness specific to its heightened state of awareness also constitutes suffering, in the ability to recognize and internalize dissatisfactory experiences. The proliferation of so-called “unwholesome” human experiences such as anger, disgust, induce widespread dukkha that is socially experienced in oppression, war, and poverty (Mitchell, p. 36).
Personally, I am more satisfied with this perspective than defenses of evil in western theism because the ideology is not so human-centric. I appreciate the lack of defense that Buddhism has towards necessary evils, and the acceptance of them as intrinsic factors that are part of no greater agenda or for the betterment of mankind, but that they can be used to our advantage in self-betterment. It contradicts our tendency to see purpose in meaningless situations but at the same time allows us to instill that purpose in ourselves as agents of change. This is not only more realistic but more inspiring than trying to justify the many necessary evils in a world that was designed for us. We are instead, part of a whole, and desperately trying to make sense of our dissatisfactions. It also better explains the suffering of animals and natural evils that would occur because of the changing conditions of the world, as opposed to everything being rooted in punishing mankind for its original sin without making God culpable.
D.W. Mitchell. “The Teachings of the Buddha,” (2007) Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist Experience, Oxford University Press, pp. 33-42.
NOAH:
The Buddhist origin of suffering is our impermanence. All good things must come to an end, and this is an unacceptable truth in the mind of humanity. I am biased, but I certainly consider impermanence and attachment to be much better explanations for suffering than the Western answers. In the text, we get a lot of Western justifications, rather than real answers. Not to mention how cyclical they can be. "Suffering is necessary to punish those who create suffering" - this is not really an explanation or an answer.