Brian Davis the Reality of God and the Problem of Evil - Book Report/Review Example

due: Brian Davis The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil Bruce’s review of "The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil" by Davies is one of the most detailed critiques to the content of the book. In the beginning of the essay, Bruce asks an important question that puts God’s omnipresence and Omni-benevolent across the existence of evil. Considering this approach, the review states the conundrum of the existence of so much evil as an indicator of the non-existence of God. This is further supported by the claim made by Davies on the explanation of evil’s existence as well as its scale (Davis 246). This view is also countered by the argument that the existence of such evil does not indicate the absence of a good God. The concept of a good God introduces the concept of morality in the character, and the continuous death and anguish of the innocent seems to support the idea of a god that does not seem to be just or equitable to all. Considering that god seems to allow bad things to happen to good people (Craig 112), there is sarcasm associated with his general goodness. For the innocent to die with no reason at all, there is an imbalance in the scales of justice, which is part of morality, as the community understands it. The question of free will and freedom in making choices in life is a direct association to the existence of evil. The argument that is made in the review is that evil, is a development from free choice. Where there is free will, there has to be consequences to the adherence or non-adherence to the god’s commandments. In the same argument, Davies states that God surpasses moral evaluation (van Inwagen 72). The second chapter where Davies uses the construct of Aquinas indicates that there is a provision for a perfectly good god, which pre-empts the evil forms. The argument of god’s existence still faces the challenge of contributory evidence to the problem of evil. The consideration provided in the review is that even with a good God, the existence of evil would be still an un-eliminated argument. By connecting the two aspects to the definition of God, and the relationship to morality and community, a system based on humanity may be erected. Davies claims that God is not a moral agent, but has a focus on the divinity and goodness of humanity (Davies 253). As such there are means by which god does interact, which when in a black house, the trend remains same every year. Davies implies that God does not partake in any act that might be considered diachronic (Davies 253). In considering the concept of time, God is one that exists though a change in time. The evaluation is due to that of community members, which god is not. His approach to reasoning is also incorporated in the review, in considering that the interactions and processes of human s are head towards needs and purpose. Since God has no desire to accomplish anything encapsulate in the concept of human community acceptance, thus what is considered moral. As such morality is a constraint f society, meaning t is limited by time, as well as humanity itself. Davies states that in the bible, God is rarely described as being moral (Davies 117). His attributes range from faithfulness, righteousness, just, merciful, and loving. Despite being describes as such, God ascribes to agreed greater than that of humanity itself. Nob putting God is the constructs of humanity defies his position, and he should be accorded the same preferences with regards to moral ideals. There is an obvious disconnect between the morality of god and that of humanity. Considering his actions in the bible, it may be argued that God is a partisan entity. Testimonies of Christianity indicate that ceremonies are part of human and God interaction, and the decisions that influence the actions taken up God cannot explained in human terms. It is the description that the bible and Davies provides that challenges the assertion of a god who is moral (Davies 209). With respect to the concept of Aquinas, god is considered generally good, and factual, such that there exists no room for verify. The existence of extents in the creations of God further contradicts the concept of good morality in human interactions. Although god is seen as having no moral criticism, he shows love towards humanity. Davies argues that love is the will to do well, which spins the idea of God being a protector to humanity and the human condition (Davies 122). Love, which is said to conquer all, is an entry point that can be exploited in determine the existence of god, and it is via this approach that God is associated with emotion and thus the realization of whether goodness, in the context of God, represents morality. Under the argument of love, the question that seems to stand out as whether the acts of God are normal since they have the interest of people at hart. This attribute is similar to other attributes that God gives the humans. Davies concludes his arguments by looking at the concept of God in a time-space continuum and the definition derived from religion (Davies 122). The context of the bible and god being the same over and over again while related to the cause-effect chain indicates that God does not share the doubt and associated with past experience failure as well as the chance of failure in the choices of human-God and human-human interaction. Furthermore, with god being the creation’s sustaining cause, he owns reality. Giving human beings free will acted as the best approach towards the introduction of evil in the field. Discussion The approach that is used by Davies in his book, concentrates on the definition of God mainly via the Christian faith. Under religion, a God is considered as having ultimate power towards the development of the research, and evaluation of morality. Under the guise of religion, God is the chief authority on matters wrong or right. Every action that is undertaken but god is considered justifiable, even though it would be considered unjust if it was executed by a human being in similar conditions as well as scope (van Inwagen 152). The basis of this argument can be based on the authority of God as the creator, and all powerful. I believe that the creative authority of God, as indicated by Bruce, is the major reason behind taking the position of God not being morally good. Morality is a construct that has been developed by the human community. By definition it entails a set of written or unwritten rules by which the community members interact with the aim of ensuring that all members are accorded fair, equal, and just treatment. Christianity, among other religions, exemplifies the acts of god/s and it is by these steps that most moral principles are established. There is a philosophical approach to the matter, where the means of live in the community are founded on the idea of ensuring collaboration and collective survival. The absence of a frame of reference under morality, with god as a subject is a supporter to the argument of God not is morally good. As indicated in the case of Davies, some of the actions that were taken by god are not a moral-worthy approach, yet it seemed just and effective in establishing God as the superior authority. The concept of an absent set of guidelines to determine the interaction and expectations associated with human-God interaction make it even harder to determine the morality of God. As suggested in the bible, God is proud and he provides a set of commandments by which man ill live on earth, but there is hardly any record of where god was issued a set of rules to live by. With this consideration, who is to say that God’s actions are moral. The only evaluation that may be done about the gap between humanity and the supernatural would be based on the common interactions between humans, and in such a case God seems already out of place. The time-space conundrum is another challenge that contributes to the concept of morality. As Davies argues, there would be little that can be done about the immortality of the God. The aspect of immortality, and the unfathomable time space continuum, as experienced by the natural and supernatural, captures the difference of applying life roles and responsibilities. Since morality is a concept that changes with time, by the definition of humans, in the case of God there is little than the children can enjoy. By having uncontained aspects to human life, there is an opportunity for different classes, and opportunities in which the directions towards mortality and immortality can be co-joined, for study purposes to determine the moral variations (Ballard 137). Conclusion The concept of morality is mostly affected by the creative and authoritative view of interactions. Interactions differ across the ages, races, origin, sex, and upbringing among others. Considering that God is the creator of humanity, it is a challenge to humanity to establish the morality of God’s actions, as to how he is the omnipresence and omnibenevolent, and using the same laws that humans were given to follow would be hysterical just to mention. Since there lacks a frame of reference for god, it becomes impossible to establish the morality of God. Works Cited Ballard, Bruce. The Problem Of Evil: A Review Essay, McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry, 9(2007–2008): 39–49. Print. Craig, William Lane. Hard Questions, Real Answers. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003. Print. Davies, Brian. The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil. London: Continuum, 2006. Print. Van Inwagen, Peter. The Problem of Evil. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Read More