| | | Document Type | : | Latin Dissertation | | Language of Document | : | English | | Record Number | : | 54475 | | Doc. No | : | TL24429 | | Call number | : | 1453555 | | Main Entry | : | Cynthia Ann Scheopner | | Title & Author | : | Deity, dogma and doubt: The Mormon response to the problem of evilCynthia Ann Scheopner | | College | : | University of Colorado at Boulder | | Date | : | 2008 | | Degree | : | M.A. | | student score | : | 2008 | | Page No | : | 55 | | Abstract | : | The presence of evil seems to make it less likely that God exists, or at least that we can know he exists. It is a dilemma that pre-dates monotheism, but applies with particular force to a single God who contains all ultimate attributes and yet is personally involved with man. Philosophical discussions of the problem of evil are generally framed within the religions of the Abrahamic tradition, as they hold in common a monotheistic view of a personal, powerful God. However, philosophers generally do not consider any distinctions among the views of Muslims, Jews, Protestant Christians or Roman Catholics in discussing the problem of evil. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints claim the same Abrahamic heritage and same biblical foundation as traditional Christianity but with a significantly different view of deity. That contrast illuminates several interesting aspects of the problem of evil. I argue that the Mormon view of God provides a better response to the problem of evil than traditional Christianity because it is not a defense of the bare possibility that evil can coexist with God. It is a full-blown theodicy that incorporates evil with concepts of God and man that are not compromised by its existence. It flows naturally from the earliest descriptions of God by Joseph Smith without contemporary retrofitting to respond to philosophical arguments. Further, that claim contains within it the idea that theistic responses to the problem of evil may vary by specific religion. I argue that the traditional philosophical views of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence are only properly considered along with the concept of God of specific religious traditions. Finally, I question whether theists would be happy with a limited concept of God that evades the problem of evil but contains only the historical attributes without omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Rather, I submit the ability to deal successfully with the problem of evil is considered along with other doctrinal issues from the standpoint of the individual inquirer in making the decision whether to believe. | | Subject | : | Philosophy, religion and theology; Philosophy; 0422:Philosophy | | Added Entry | : | W. Morriston | | Added Entry | : | University of Colorado at Boulder |
| | | | | |
| | |  |
http://lib.clisel.com/site/catalogue/54475
| | | |
| | | |
|