Scott Samuelson "The Deepest Human Life" Essay

According to Scott, there was a lot to get confused about when addressing evil. In his opinion, it referred to the question that attempts to reconcile the reality of evil with the existent of deity in terms of being omnipresent or omniscient. All arguments that recognize evil should, therefore, know that it cannot co-exist with such a being or God since it is almost impossible and highly unlikely. This propelled the discussion of the subject in ethics and theology as people tried to find answers.

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

Save 25%

Scott divided the subject into two narrowing them down to the evidential and logical problem of evil (Samuelson 15). The latter represents the theory that there is so much evil in the world so it is therefore impossible for an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God to exist while the former is a theory that suggests there is a logical impossibility as well as improbability for the co-existence of God and evil in the same context. This problem was also further extended to lives that are not in human form such as the cruelty of the world that leads to the suffering of innocent animals and so forth.

The traditional concept of God suggests that human beings should stay away from evil since God is seeing everything. The punishment of evil was also a lot of suffering on human beings which mean that there should be a form of instant karma in place when someone immediately does wrong. The theory would also suggest that those who believed in God and did the right thing would be sheltered from evil. Given the unfairness and injustice in the world, the two theories fail to reconcile given that the reality is quite different from what is supposed to be expected. Innocent lives such as that of children are often put in harm's way yet they are untouched by any fault yet evil does find them (Ahern 33). It would be more logical to think that an omnipresent God would always be around to help out His servants and protect his people especially the innocent lives such as that of babies and also animals.

In the free will defense, most researchers of the topic in theology argue that there is a good God who is omnipotent but the existence of free will is what brings evil in the world. In their defense, free will is what makes the Earth worth living. When God gave human beings free will, it was for them to choose how they would want to live their lives hence he cannot go back and force them to do well. In theology, the main argument is that it is better to live in a world where there is free will and sometimes it leads to evil than live without a free will at all (McFee 56). It is often described as imperfect morality. However, this discussion only leans on one side which is the moral evil. There is a lot that the defense cannot explain such as the problems brought about by natural evil. Scott's mains argument also had the notion of if at all God was omnipotent, there would be no natural evil.

The points brought out in the argument by Scott bring a whole new discussion since it instills a lot of doubt on the merits that the theory of omnipotent and omnipresent God has. Scott is very elaborative and informative in his delivery that he shakes even the strongest of faiths. If one scrutinizes the logical explanation presented by Scott, it becomes easy to question the theory and start another debate within oneself (Scott).

If one chooses to accept the traditional view of God and evil, one has to come up with a convincing argument as to why such as merciful and good God would allow evil to prey to little children who are innocent and are flawless. One of the explanations that most people give is not to question God (Berthold 46). This is a very vague answer that has managed to survive in theology for years or even decades. By not questioning anything, human beings will be conditioned to live blindly and conform to situations simply because they believe they have no right to ask. Another answer would have to be that God often has greater plans for those children and this means that human beings lives have already been planned out hence destiny exists. This is also as vague as the first ones because if people believed in that it would mean that most of the evil that occurs has been orchestrated by God. There is also no data that proves that those who suffer without any substantial reason end up living their best lives. Other explanations have been given such as it is meant to strengthen the faith of human beings and so forth (Strickland 22). This also does not give enough justification for the pain.

Most people who are adamant in their faith in God despite believing that most innocent lives suffer because of the cruelty of the mankind yet God does not intervene do so because they have wired themselves to believe all the good comes from God yet the evil is questionable. Most religious people rarely budge in their belief in God. For some, it is all they have ever known hence abandoning the idea puts them in a very susceptible spot of serious confusion. Without God, one would have to go out and seek several answers about things since birth they have been convinced that everything exists because of God (Aherm 58). Abandoning religion is similar to the world shifting below them and most people would rather handle the questions and doubts that come with religion instead of abandoning religion itself. There is also a blank spot when it comes to answering the question of what will happen to human beings once they die. Religion promises a good life to those who choose to remain faithful and obedient to God and hell for those who go against Him. Most people choose to abide because they do not want to end up in hell. It can be likened to the fear of the unknown where one would rather choose the least destructive path even in the after-life. There is also the perception that society has that helps shape's one thinking and plays a significant role in how people handle and perceive the challenges or questions that come with religion.

The reason people do not demand from God is that of the powerful status religion teaches to perceive Him as. Religion teaches that God is not one that can be questioned and one's life, as well as destiny, is determined by him so it is wise not to tamper with such level of power (Scott 76). God is all-powerful, omnipotent, and omniscience and thus, he deserves to be respected as a Supreme Being. The universe could not exist without him and because he has all the power, he does what is fit. In the free will defense of God, moral evil exists because of free choice. Mankind is free to decide what is good and what is evil. As such, the argument follows that the world is good with free agents as opposed to automata (Aherm 56). However, the free will defense of elaborates the importance of creating a distance between moral evil and God. Moral evil is brought by moral agents but not by God (Aherm 57). Therefore, religion plays a huge role in defining evil and why the people of God should strive to do good and preach the gospel. According to religious studies, evil is there to challenge the faith of believers. The victory of Jesus against the devil during the temptations proved that mankind has the ability to overcome evil.

Most people are non-believers but still believe in being morally upright for a number of reasons. First thing is empathy and sympathy for fellow humankind. Researchers often state that empathy is a natural feeling hence one becomes apprehensive about harming others automatically this is why most people who lack such traits are often assumed to be psychotic or have a mental problem (Strickland 67). The other reason is the need to live peacefully in the society with the rest of the community. Most people who commit evil are often shunned away by the society which explains the high number of people who end up in prisons. Everyone craves to be accepted by their fellow mankind since it validates a part of their emotions, therefore, most people do good since they want to be perceived as kind and decent by the rest of the community. Doing good to others also comes with its own perks such as joyous feelings.

Conclusion

I am a non-believer. This was as a result of heavily scrutinizing all the theories that were presented before and long hours of examining philosophy and religious context. However, just because I do not believe in the theory of an omnipotent God does not mean I do not believe in doing good. I believe in being morally upright not for the society but for myself. I base my morality on demanding better from myself as I do of others. I find joy in not harming people and also find it in seeing the good in the rest of humanity as well. The world would be a safer place if all people were morally upright in the sense of prevailing goodness. Unfortunately, some people such as thieves and robbers thrive by doing evil deeds to support their livelihood of which it breaks laws of ethics. Therefore, the society needs to address the problem of rising immorality. I feel like religion has failed to address immorality because it continues to grow as more teenagers find themselves attracted to the immoral life.

Works Cited

Ahern, M. B. Problem Of Evil. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Print.

Berthold, Fred. God, Evil, And, Human Learning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2004. Print.

McFee, Graham. Free Will. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2014. Print.

Samuelson, Scott. The Deepest Human Life an Introduction to Philosophy for Everyone. The

University of Chicago Press, 2014. Strickland, Lloyd. "The Problem Of Religious Evil: Does Belief In God Cause Evil?"International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (2018): n. pag. Web.