A PHILOSOPHICAL EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPTS OF GOD, ANCESTORS, AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
| Format: Ms Word | 1-5 Chapters | Table of Content|
INSTANT PROJECT MATERIAL DOWNLOAD
Study Level: BTech, BSc, BEng, BA, HND, ND or NCE
Amount: ₦3,000.00
Abstract
This study is based on a philosophical examination of the concepts of god, ancestors, and the problem of evil. Outside the Western tradition, there has recently been an increase in interest in debates on the nature of God, supernatural entities, and the problem of evil, and there is a growing recognition that philosophical scholarship should go beyond Western perspectives in order to properly address issues in philosophy of religion that arise in non-Western cultures. Taking this into consideration, this study covers the area of African philosophy of religion and emphasizes some of the concerns and themes that have fueled debates in the field. The current study will concentrate on three critical debates. To begin, it will discuss the two major schools of thought that split African thinkers into theistic and non-theistic camps. The theistic perspective is known as the “African theistic view,” whereas the non-theistic perspective is known as the “limited God view.” Second, it will aim to investigate how devotion to the two perspectives has resulted in distinct explanations of the issue of evil. Third, we emphasize the importance of ancestors in African belief systems and their significance in the larger scheme of things. Using the philosophical exposition and argument technique, the study demonstrate how the two prevalent views of God’s nature characterize this growing area of African philosophy and will influence the field’s future trajectory.
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
Philosophy is becoming increasingly prominent in academic disputes. In fact, the study of Philosophy of Religion is heavily centered on the Western and, more especially, Judeo-Christian traditions. Some academics have recently argued for the globalization of the discipline (Harrison, 2020; Wang & Cordeiro-Rodrigues, 2022). Moral, political, and legal philosophers have become more interested in the concept of evil since World War II.
This interest has been fueled in part by attributions of ‘evil’ made by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they attempt to comprehend and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers. It appears that we cannot adequately express the moral gravity of these crimes and their perpetrators by referring to them as ‘wrong,’ ‘bad,’ or even ‘very very wrong,’ or’ very very bad.’ The concept of evil is required.
Perhaps more than any other religion, Christianity has a well-developed understanding of God. The traits assigned to God are based on revelation and philosophical thought on the nature of the greatest imaginable being deserving of adoration. To be the greatest imaginable entity deserving of devotion, God must maximize all potential attributes such as power, intelligence, and goodness. He must also exist indefinitely and thus has no equals.
There may be no greater problem for both skeptics and believers than evil. Humanity has always harbored evil. Religions have made attempts to explain it. Philosophy has attempted to make sense of it. Evil is a common issue. The vastness of which is transmitted across all media outlets. Because of this stumbling hurdle, many Christians have questioned the veracity of their assertions.
Philosophy is defined as the “love of Wisdom” (Phaedrus, 1967). In a broad sense, this description is correct, because it reflects the human activity, enabled by the gift of reason, of seeking ultimate solutions to questions about man’s origin, status, and destiny. According to this viewpoint, the act of philosophizing is shared by the entire human species, regardless of skin color or language. However, Philosophy is no longer defined solely by its etymology. Philosophy is defined in a modern textbook as “the science of all things naturally knowable to man’s unaided powers, insofar as these things are studied in their deepest causes and reasons” (Mario, 2006).
The use of the term “Science” in this definition states unequivocally that we are dealing with a “body of related data, set forth systematically, expressed with completeness, and presented together with the evidence that justify it as true” (Kwasi, 1999). Thus, we can see that philosophy, previously thought to be a clash of ideas about life, death, and wisdom at Athens’ Areopagus, is now an organized body of knowledge. In other words, it is built into the system.
The dilemma of evil has often been stated as follows: if there is an all-loving, all-powerful God, why does evil run rampant in the world? It would appear that he is not all-loving or all-powerful, because both assertions would imply that he will do whatever it takes to erase the existence of evil in the lives of people he loves and has the means to do so. As a result, the possibility of an all-loving, all-powerful God is nonsensical. In God, Freedom, and Evil, philosopher Alvin Plantinga has largely resolved the logical dilemma of evil.
He contends that God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist, which is libertarian free will. This is a will to choose that is free to determine its own destiny and is not compelled to do any action. Only when an agent has the ability to choose between good and evil is free will feasible. So Plantinga demonstrates that, after all, God has a reasonable reason to accept evil. However, this isn’t only a logical problem that needs to be demonstrated that God and evil are compatible. The world has changed. According to philosopher Charles Taylor, we currently live in a secular age. No belief is axiomatic in this context.
USE THIS MATERIALS AS A GUIDE FOR YOUR PERSONAL RESEARCH WORK (IF PROPERLY CITED)
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT HERE FOR ONLY N3, 000
DISCLAIMER
WE ASSIST OUR CLIENTS BY PROVIDING QUALITY RESEARCH MATERIALS FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES.
THIS MATERIAL IS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD BE USED AS GUIDELINE.
DO NOT COPY THE ABOVE MATERIALS VERBATIM (WORD FOR WORD)