What is your assessment of the validity of this proof?
Squeezing God from the Gaps: Problematic Apologetics
Instructions: Upload a single Word Document or PDF containing responses to the following 5 questions. You should aim for 100 – 200 words per response (500 – 1000 words total). Use short direct quotes sparingly (no long quotes; paraphrasing is best) and be sure to cite the authors and page numbers. Only upload a Word Document or PDF on Blackboard. NO OTHER FORMAT WILL BE ACCEPTED. If you use another app, such as Apple Pages or Google Docs, be sure to convert to MS Word format or PDF before uploading.
1) In these passages, St. Anselm lays out what has come to be known as the ontological “proof” of God. What are it’s basic steps? What examples does he use? What is your assessment of the validity of this proof? Does it actually prove anything? If so, what are the characteristics of the God it proves?
2) In these passages, St. Thomas Aquinas gives five “proofs” of God with a very different approach than Anselm’s. Briefly summarize the proofs. Give your assessment of which you believe is the most compelling of the five. Explain why. Give your assessment of which is the least compelling of the proofs. Explain why.
3) Sigmund Freud describes the conflict between science and religion in this passage from Future of an Illusion. What is the illusion? Why is it an illusion? How does Freud see the conflict between science and religion ultimately playing out? Why does he believe it will inevitably play out this way? How compelling do you find his argument and why?
4) David Hume (Philo) takes issues with the proofs of both St. Anselm (Demea) and St. Thomas Aquinas (Cleanthes). What are his arguments against Thomas Aquinas’s (Cleanthes) proofs? What are his arguments against Anselm’s (Demea)? Beyond his analysis of the proofs, what does Hume think about the “problem of evil” in relation to the proposition that God is both omnibenevolent (completely Good) and omnipotent (all powerful)?
5) Paul Ricoeur wrestles with this same “problem of evil” in relation to philosophy and theology in his essay. How does he radically reframe this issue? Is he attempting to philosophically solve it? What does he admit about the “problem of evil” that might prove unsatisfying to many religious believers (and skeptics)? Ricoeur ends the essay describing the two roles that he believes religion plays in relation to evil. What are they and what do they contribute to personal and social human existence?
St. Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion (preface and chapters 1-2)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Excerpt from Summa Theologica
Sigmund Freud, Excerpt from Future of an Illusion
David Hume, pp. 43-63 and pp. 95-101
Paul Ricoeur, “Evil: A Challenge to Philosophy and Theology”
Image preview for what is your assessment of the validity of this proof?
APA
914 words