Essay Sample on the Context of Leibniz Counter Opinions to Bayles Objections

Introduction

Theodicy developed by Leibniz is said to have mostly answered and provided more information on the philosophical field during the 18th centuries. In his theodicy, he was able to harmonize faith and reason which many philosophers were working on but could not manage come up with what he developed. Leibniz's theodicy defended Christianity and promoted the concept of natural theology (Leibniz et al., 214). The contents and ideas of his work were shown clearly in response to Bayle's objection. This draft will explain the context of Leibniz counter-arguments to Bayle's ideas and the convictions to this argument by offering reasons that should make readers support the belief on Leibniz counterarguments to Bayle's ideas and objections.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Leibniz theodicy is a theory that opposes Bayles work that Christianity is an empty faith, and God was ungraspable. This is because he believes in philosophy alone and not believe. He says that nature has pushed the man to accept the blind religion. Whereas Leibniz believes in both theology and reason, and that humans can make their choices. Bayle argued that God would design the world to be free from evil and that way the earth would be a better place. However, Leibniz argued that God placed evil on the planet with a purpose.

Bayle believed that reason and faith when combined would create a conflict. In this view, Bayle had a stronger belief in philosophy than faith that created his antitheism (Adam et al., 97). Leibniz's theodicy demonstrated how wrong Bayle was when he was explaining about the harmony of reason and faith by defending the rational theology. Leibniz integrated philosophy and theology to explain natural theology in a way other philosophers were not able to do.

Bayle went ahead and said that animals have souls similar to humans. He argues that because humans are mortal, and so are the animals. Therefore, they all posses' souls, but different from each other. Leibniz offers a divergent opinion that both animals and animals are mortal, but they do not have mental states like humans to support that they have souls. He adds that animals cannot reason, but do not have the memory like humans.

Bayle argues that there is no life after death, which is the reason not to believe in God. Bayle bases his arguments that if there is life after death, why don't animals go to heaven or hell. Contrary to that, Leibniz offers an opinion that animals lacked morals and reasoning that would make them have a relationship with God. He added that animals only perceived things to be external and not internal like humans because they lacked the organs such as the mind. Because animals are not able to reason this has made them lack personality and identity which prepares them to connect to God. According to Leibniz, humans are moral and able to infer which causes them to have a personal character to form a relationship with God.

According to Bayle, he views that the actions humans do are not sins. Those actions would be the only sin if the person committed it thinks they are a sin. Leibniz argues that God created man as an intelligent creature who would know his actions by understanding that evil is punishable and doing right will not go unrewarded. Leibniz explains that humans use his mind for reasoning and process knowledge and not relying on perception. Uses of mind demonstrate that humans will know evil from the right and not through Bayle views.

Bayle argues that a world free from sin and evil would be a happy place, but Leibniz argues back that the presence of evil made good to be greater. Bayle explains that sin made the humans suffer more than have pleasure. Leibniz counters Bayle by stating that we humans go through a lot of pleasures than pain. He explains that pain experienced in a day will feel like a month because it is powerful than desire, so humans experience less pain but more joys. Leibniz believes that God is the reason why things happen. He continues that all desires and passions are because of God.

Conviction concerning the context according to the responses, Leibniz arguments offered a philosophical explanation to both Bayle and other enlighteners on their theological views which he opposed. Leibniz arguments explained the origin and reasons of sins which Bayle was misinforming the society on. From Leibniz responses, we observe that he was also targeting other philosophers and freethinkers who were feeding the community with the philosophy that contradicted the natural theology (Russell 246). It can be argued that the ideas and views from Leibniz champion Bayle arguments. This response made by Bayle can be defended philosophically by Leibniz. More the ideas sated that Bayle when closely scrutinized can be seen to be unreasonable and misinforming.

Thorough examining of Leibniz arguments, Leibniz believes that Bayle is a respectable individual with great ideas but which only lack a sense of natural theology. Bayle arguments are unreasonable and misleading. Bayle's argues that animals have souls that require robust explanations to back it. From this argument, Bayle means that animals and humans are the same which is very incorrect.

When Bayle's arguments are presented, it lacks philosophical backing because it only focuses on humans and how capable they are in expressing themselves when it comes to undesired behavior such as anger. Bayle's idea also criticizes the way people see God and his creations. He holds firm that God brought evil to earth for people to suffer and thus the world is not the right place. Leibniz in defense offers a clear response that the world is one of the best places that God ever created among the other planets as it is free and full of purpose. Leibniz adds that humans have the choice to select between good and evil, different to how Bayle puts it that the world is full of suffering.

The variations between Bayle's and Leibniz arguments lie between the belief of faith and reasoning. Bayle also believes that when faith and reason are used together, they end up being hostile (Graetz 34). Bayle also adds that the root course of evil acts comes from uncontrollable power. However, Leibniz has a different belief concerning evil and connects it to the natural theology and how it accommodates both faith and reason. With such, Leibniz creates a philosophy that contradicts with Bayle's arguments

Why Readers Should Agree With Leibniz

Based on both cases, it is evident that Bayle uses philosophies to convince the audience that his ideas concerning religion are misleading. However, Leibniz developed a theory that is reasonable and logic. Bayle argues that the notion of man sinning due to nature is wrong because according to Leibniz responses humans understand the differences between good and evil. Leibniz continues to explain that humans know that any sin done would not go unpunished, and any good done will not go unrewarded (Leibniz 143). Bayle argues that the role of evil on earth is to make human suffering which is wrong because the purpose of sin is to make human not to see the greatness of being right.

Bayle's ideas appear to be misinforming and incorrect mainly when he argued that there is no life after death just because the same metaphysics of life after death does not apply to animals. Leibniz responses are particularly compelling when he said that animal's lack of morality and personality, identity makes them unable to connect with God. He also added that animals are not able to reason and use knowledge, thus making them not to understand about hell and heaven. Bayle based his arguments on the fact that both animals and are mortal so if there is life after death it should be for all creatures.

Bayle arguments are very shallow as he considers that animals have souls just as humans only that they are different. In this argument, Bayle argues animals and humans to be similar. Leibniz counters Bayle argument that humans are moral and have the personal identity which makes them have souls, unlike animals. The ability of humans to use internal organs to reason and choose between evil and good explained the difference.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the reader needs to acknowledge that Leibniz follows the principle of natural theology of adoring God's creation by not questioning it. From Bayle's arguments, he demonstrates that he is a firm believer of rational theology. Unlike Leibniz, Bayle ideas and arguments promote anti-theodicy. On the other hand, Leibniz tried to reconcile the churches such as the Protestants and Catholics together. Leibniz thought that since schism was the reason for the separation, he had the solution.

Works Cited

Adams, Robert Merrihew, and Richard Merrihew Adams. Leibniz: determinist, theist, idealist. Oxford University Press on Demand, 1994.

Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000.

Russell, Bertrand. The philosophy of Leibniz. Routledge, 1992.