EDEXCEL Religious Studies AS/A2: 6RS01, 6RS02, 6RS03, 6RS04 May/June 2016

Scroll to see replies

The Book of Job is a didactic book- one with a purpose (could potentially offer wisdom for the nature of evil and how God functions). Among theologians the purpose of Job is subjective as to whether it provides a solution to the problem of evil. Blake highlighted that the problem of evil is explicit within monotheistic religions as we cannot blame anyone The Book of Job is a didactic book- one with a purpose (could potentially offer wisdom for the nature of evil and how God functions). Among theologians the purpose of Job is subjective as to whether it provides a solution to the problem of evil. Blake highlighted that the problem of evil is explicit within monotheistic religions as we cannot blame anyone else for the existence of evil but God as the ultimate creator (ex-nihilo). The sitz-im-leben of the Semites many were beginning to see that their understanding of suffering and how God operates within the world doesn’t work i.e. the retribution principle- the ideology that the righteous are blessed as the wicked suffer “The memory of the righteous is blessed, But the name of the wicked will rot.” (Proverbs 10:7). This proverbial wisdom doesn’t work as bad things happen to good people- Job can be illustrated as a case study as to why the righteous suffer as Job is innocent but suffers therefore his suffering is illogical i.e. Job as a central character is introduced as “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1). J. L. Mackie’s inconsistent triad proposes a theological problem as it challenges the Semite understanding of the God of classical theism because Job’s suffering contradicts the qualities of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. An important feature of the Book of Job in setting the context of the problem the prologue. The setting of the heavenly courts is key within Irenaean Theodicy as it explains the epistemic distance (Hick) between God and Job which leads ambiguity whereby there is not guarantee that God exists therefore Job’s choice to have faith in God is based on free will. If God were close to humans they would have no choice to believe (known as the counter factual hypothesis). A weakness of this view, as argued by Peter Cole, is that we can criticise God’s omniscience because somewhere in his being he must know of pain and suffering which makes him imperfect. If he was not aware of this then he cannot be omniscient. Furthermore if everything depends on God for its existence (Aquinas Second Way) as God is the cause of everything then God is equally casually responsible for human actions and should take moral responsibility. An important character within the prologue is Satan who questions God’s policies- Satan is Hebrew for ‘adversary’. Blake highlighted that Satan inflicts this pain through his own will but indirectly he serves the purpose of God. Walton and Blake argued that Satan’s importance is highlighting that the promise of materialism under the RP undermines the righteousness desired by God: “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has?” (Job 1:8). Walton questions as to whether the rituals Job performs (in Job 1:5) for his children are performed on the basis of the Great Symbiosis (whereby an individual gains benefits from the Gods for their acts) or for the “right” reason. This raises the point that it’s not only important what we do but why do we do it (the Motif of Walton’s argument)? For Walton, Job is innocent and Satan’s argument is based on suspicion- Job isn’t on trial but rather God and his policies are under scrutiny. Satan argued that “it is counterproductive to bless righteous people as it makes them less righteous in motive” (Walton). In this way we get the answers we need as opposed to the answers we want based on our expectations. MacLeish as an existentialist, similar to Job, argued that the Book merely restates ubiquitous questions that plague mankind in a world of pain and suffering but Walton argued that we’re asking the less important questions- “sometimes what we ask for is too limited to do us any real good”. Thus the Book does not answer the problem of evil- instead of asking why the righteous suffer the challenger argues why they should prosper. By contrast Irenaean Theodicy argues that Job is on trial- Irenaeus argued that Satan’s significance is that he acts as the tester of Job- by stripping Job of his materialism i.e. his family, his livestock which reduces the character of Job we can determine the nature of Job’s faith- determine his motives. Walton and Blake agree with Irenaean Theodicy but Satan’s questioning wasn’t for Job’s development but rather the purpose of criticising God’s policies in questioning God’s motives. Irenaean Theodicy highlights that evil is the product of morally and spiritually immature beings (Satan). God could have created Job perfect but God is more interested in Job’s choosing through free will to become who God wants Job to be rather than forcing him. Therefore evil is given to Job (answers the problem of evil) so there are alternatives too good to choose from: ‘How if we have no knowledge of the contrary could we have knowledge instruction in that which is good?’ (Against Heresies). For Blake another significant feature is the comforters of Job which consists of Bildad, Eliphaz and Zophar. Blake argued that the three friends are Miltonic theologians who believe that they understand the divine mind based on their observation of human life. This is significant in shaping Blake’s point as the problem proposed by their theodicies (which try to explain God’s will within the world) is that they have to justify that Job has committed an evil but Job is innocent. The three possibilities drawn from their premises are either that Job has committed sin unknowingly (Eliphaz’s argument) or that his family may have potentially committed such evils as proposed by Bildad (Job 8:4) or that Job has sinned and has lied (as argued by Zophar) to which Job rebukes and swears an oath on Yahweh’s name i.e. (Job 6:29). Neither of the friend’s conclusions are valid as they lack the knowledge of the divine and the state of their own souls and Jobs therefore Blake draws the conclusion that God and his system of justice are not supposed to be fully comprehended, known as the philosophy of resignation which is a possible solution to the problem of evil- we should adopt a stance based on mysticism as the world is not open to a rational analysis thus faith will become a virtue. In opposition to Blake’s interpretation Irenaean Theodicy agrees that the comforters are wrong in questioning Job but Hick argued it is for the purpose of “soul-making”. Furthermore a significant feature for Blake is the character of Elihu who criticises the friends for speaking blasphemously by believing that they understand the divine “But I tell you, in this you are not right, for God is greater than any mortal. Why do you complain to him that he responds to no one’s words?” (Job 33:12-13). Elihu highlights that Job is wrong in assessing his own moral status which indirectly criticises the actions of God. This supports the philosophy of resignation as Elihu argued that to be true in faith you must accept that God’s decisions are just even though we lack knowledge. For Blake the key transgression of Job is the fact that on the outside he demonstrates God’s loyal servant however he is self-satisfied with his own moral status i.e. he swears an oath to God protesting his innocence (Job 27:3-4). For Blake Elihu acts as the voice of significance- “deus ex Machina”- as it proves to be illogical to attempt to inform an omniscient being. The conclusion we can draw from this is that we should adopt a submissive approach to faith rather than questioning the actions of God and trying to find solutions as Miltonic theologians do. Irenaean Theodicy by contrast focus on Elihu’s observance of Job’s suffering and it has allowed him to elevate to a greater level of wisdom as he comes to the conclusion that his original understanding of the retribution principle does not work- he cannot understand the mind of God. The theophany underlines Blake’s point - the whirlwind symbolically represents the power of God which signifies his power as opposed to a defence of his wisdom. At the beginning of Chapter 38 God does not answer Job directly but proposes the question “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” (Job 38:4). God’s speech is key within Irenaean Theodicy as it opens up the possibility of wisdom for Job to develop a deeper understanding and fear for God by attaining the divine cosmic wisdom “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7). From the perspective of Irenaean theodicy, the wisdom and knowledge to which Job attains is an example of moral and spiritual development as his original view (the retribution principle) changes- “I knew you only by hearsay; but now, having seen you with my own eyes” (Job 42:5). Job’s character evolved from an immature state as a being made in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:26) into the “likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26). However Job’s family were not given the chance to develop- why didn’t God give them longer earthly lives? A counter argument made by Irenaeus is that everyone will ascend to heaven to achieve moral and spiritual perfection: “If only heaven includes all of humanity can the sins and suffering of the whole of humanity be justified” (Hick). In emphasising his power God proposes questions of living creatures in order to give Job a more precise picture of God’s care for the world. This emphasises that Job only knows about the region to which he lives in and thus lack knowledge as the comparison to living creatures shows God’s care for all aspects of the world even on a micro scale which highlights that Job is merely a finite being. Furthermore God’s second speech introduces the mystical sea monsters, Behemoth and Leviathan, which symbolise primeval chaos which power beyond that of human beings i.e. “His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron” (Job 40:18). Job cannot stand up against these great monsters (which parallels to his suffering) but God can and uses them for his own purposes. In support of Blake’s argument this is important as it signifies that God has a plan for the universe and we should act submissively. In conclusion Irenaean Theodicy argues that the Book does provide an answer to the problem of evil but ultimately the nature of God can be criticised i.e. how can an omnibenevolent God allow us to suffer? Couldn’t an omnipotent God allow us to develop in a less extreme way? Blake would argue that the Book does not provide an answer to the problem of evil but rather the philosophy of resignation should be adopted. As an overall conclusion the Book does not give one answer to the problem of evil due to its subjective interpretation but instead it may offer guidance as to how we should think in times of suffering.else for the existence of evil but God as the ultimate creator (ex-nihilo). The sitz-im-leben of the Semites many were beginning to see that their understanding of suffering and how God operates within the world doesn’t work i.e. the retribution principle- the ideology that the righteous are blessed as the wicked suffer “The memory of the righteous is blessed, But the name of the wicked will rot.” (Proverbs 10:7). This proverbial wisdom doesn’t work as bad things happen to good people- Job can be illustrated as a case study as to why the righteous suffer as Job is innocent but suffers therefore his suffering is illogical i.e. Job as a central character is introduced as “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1). J. L. Mackie’s inconsistent triad proposes a theological problem as it challenges the Semite understanding of the God of classical theism because Job’s suffering contradicts the qualities of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. An important feature of the Book of Job in setting the context of the problem the prologue. The setting of the heavenly courts is key within Irenaean Theodicy as it explains the epistemic distance (Hick) between God and Job which leads ambiguity whereby there is not guarantee that God exists therefore Job’s choice to have faith in God is based on free will. If God were close to humans they would have no choice to believe (known as the counter factual hypothesis). A weakness of this view, as argued by Peter Cole, is that we can criticise God’s omniscience because somewhere in his being he must know of pain and suffering which makes him imperfect. If he was not aware of this then he cannot be omniscient. Furthermore if everything depends on God for its existence (Aquinas Second Way) as God is the cause of everything then God is equally casually responsible for human actions and should take moral responsibility. An important character within the prologue is Satan who questions God’s policies- Satan is Hebrew for ‘adversary’. Blake highlighted that Satan inflicts this pain through his own will but indirectly he serves the purpose of God. Walton and Blake argued that Satan’s importance is highlighting that the promise of materialism under the RP undermines the righteousness desired by God: “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has?” (Job 1:8). Walton questions as to whether the rituals Job performs (in Job 1:5) for his children are performed on the basis of the Great Symbiosis (whereby an individual gains benefits from the Gods for their acts) or for the “right” reason. This raises the point that it’s not only important what we do but why do we do it (the Motif of Walton’s argument)? For Walton, Job is innocent and Satan’s argument is based on suspicion- Job isn’t on trial but rather God and his policies are under scrutiny. Satan argued that “it is counterproductive to bless righteous people as it makes them less righteous in motive” (Walton). In this way we get the answers we need as opposed to the answers we want based on our expectations. MacLeish as an existentialist, similar to Job, argued that the Book merely restates ubiquitous questions that plague mankind in a world of pain and suffering but Walton argued that we’re asking the less important questions- “sometimes what we ask for is too limited to do us any real good”. Thus the Book does not answer the problem of evil- instead of asking why the righteous suffer the challenger argues why they should prosper. By contrast Irenaean Theodicy argues that Job is on trial- Irenaeus argued that Satan’s significance is that he acts as the tester of Job- by stripping Job of his materialism i.e. his family, his livestock which reduces the character of Job we can determine the nature of Job’s faith- determine his motives. Walton and Blake agree with Irenaean Theodicy but Satan’s questioning wasn’t for Job’s development but rather the purpose of criticising God’s policies in questioning God’s motives. Irenaean Theodicy highlights that evil is the product of morally and spiritually immature beings (Satan). God could have created Job perfect but God is more interested in Job’s choosing through free will to become who God wants Job to be rather than forcing him. Therefore evil is given to Job (answers the problem of evil) so there are alternatives too good to choose from: ‘How if we have no knowledge of the contrary could we have knowledge instruction in that which is good?’ (Against Heresies). For Blake another significant feature is the comforters of Job which consists of Bildad, Eliphaz and Zophar. Blake argued that the three friends are Miltonic theologians who believe that they understand the divine mind based on their observation of human life. This is significant in shaping Blake’s point as the problem proposed by their theodicies (which try to explain God’s will within the world) is that they have to justify that Job has committed an evil but Job is innocent. The three possibilities drawn from their premises are either that Job has committed sin unknowingly (Eliphaz’s argument) or that his family may have potentially committed such evils as proposed by Bildad (Job 8:4) or that Job has sinned and has lied (as argued by Zophar) to which Job rebukes and swears an oath on Yahweh’s name i.e. (Job 6:29). Neither of the friend’s conclusions are valid as they lack the knowledge of the divine and the state of their own souls and Jobs therefore Blake draws the conclusion that God and his system of justice are not supposed to be fully comprehended, known as the philosophy of resignation which is a possible solution to the problem of evil- we should adopt a stance based on mysticism as the world is not open to a rational analysis thus faith will become a virtue. In opposition to Blake’s interpretation Irenaean Theodicy agrees that the comforters are wrong in questioning Job but Hick argued it is for the purpose of “soul-making”. Furthermore a significant feature for Blake is the character of Elihu who criticises the friends for speaking blasphemously by believing that they understand the divine “But I tell you, in this you are not right, for God is greater than any mortal. Why do you complain to him that he responds to no one’s words?” (Job 33:12-13). Elihu highlights that Job is wrong in assessing his own moral status which indirectly criticises the actions of God. This supports the philosophy of resignation as Elihu argued that to be true in faith you must accept that God’s decisions are just even though we lack knowledge. For Blake the key transgression of Job is the fact that on the outside he demonstrates God’s loyal servant however he is self-satisfied with his own moral status i.e. he swears an oath to God protesting his innocence (Job 27:3-4). For Blake Elihu acts as the voice of significance- “deus ex Machina”- as it proves to be illogical to attempt to inform an omniscient being. The conclusion we can draw from this is that we should adopt a submissive approach to faith rather than questioning the actions of God and trying to find solutions as Miltonic theologians do. Irenaean Theodicy by contrast focus on Elihu’s observance of Job’s suffering and it has allowed him to elevate to a greater level of wisdom as he comes to the conclusion that his original understanding of the retribution principle does not work- he cannot understand the mind of God. The theophany underlines Blake’s point - the whirlwind symbolically represents the power of God which signifies his power as opposed to a defence of his wisdom. At the beginning of Chapter 38 God does not answer Job directly but proposes the question “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” (Job 38:4). God’s speech is key within Irenaean Theodicy as it opens up the possibility of wisdom for Job to develop a deeper understanding and fear for God by attaining the divine cosmic wisdom “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7). From the perspective of Irenaean theodicy, the wisdom and knowledge to which Job attains is an example of moral and spiritual development as his original view (the retribution principle) changes- “I knew you only by hearsay; but now, having seen you with my own eyes” (Job 42:5). Job’s character evolved from an immature state as a being made in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:26) into the “likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26). However Job’s family were not given the chance to develop- why didn’t God give them longer earthly lives? A counter argument made by Irenaeus is that everyone will ascend to heaven to achieve moral and spiritual perfection: “If only heaven includes all of humanity can the sins and suffering of the whole of humanity be justified” (Hick). In emphasising his power God proposes questions of living creatures in order to give Job a more precise picture of God’s care for the world. This emphasises that Job only knows about the region to which he lives in and thus lack knowledge as the comparison to living creatures shows God’s care for all aspects of the world even on a micro scale which highlights that Job is merely a finite being. Furthermore God’s second speech introduces the mystical sea monsters, Behemoth and Leviathan, which symbolise primeval chaos which power beyond that of human beings i.e. “His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron” (Job 40:18). Job cannot stand up against these great monsters (which parallels to his suffering) but God can and uses them for his own purposes. In support of Blake’s argument this is important as it signifies that God has a plan for the universe and we should act submissively. In conclusion Irenaean Theodicy argues that the Book does provide an answer to the problem of evil but ultimately the nature of God can be criticised i.e. how can an omnibenevolent God allow us to suffer? Couldn’t an omnipotent God allow us to develop in a less extreme way? Blake would argue that the Book does not provide an answer to the problem of evil but rather the philosophy of resignation should be adopted. As an overall conclusion the Book does not give one answer to the problem of evil due to its subjective interpretation but instead it may offer guidance as to how we should think in times of suffering.

*Any parts where I'd written answers the problem of evil I have written does provide a convincing solution for the examination question ------ can anyone give me essay a potential mark for the BOJ 1E???????

Reply 281

username2398141

I have wrote 10/15 pages and talked about 7 things.

Reply 282

cattubato

Original post by Greenard21

hey, is anyone doing the investigations paper on science and religion?

i retook this yesterday.

Reply 283

ellie0497

Guys, anyone got any good notes for the implications paper?

Reply 284

username1964797

How are people feeling for tomorrow???

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 285

zhussain98

Does anyone have an essay plan/structure for Ontological argument?

Reply 286

gagan24

Will ontological argument defo come up tomrrow?

Reply 287

username1964797

Original post by Lucy Helps

I've only revised ontological argument, beliefs about life after death and then for the justice law and punishment topic.

Have you revised them super well?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 288

tomonika

i'm so scared that religious experience won't come up ;-;

Reply 289

joshnewbs

Original post by tomonika

i'm so scared that religious experience won't come up ;-;

What are you on about ? I thought it has to come up ??

Reply 290

Heidi7991

Original post by tomonika

i'm so scared that religious experience won't come up ;-;

Sometimes it does come up but only in part i of that question so for part ii it may be life after death for example and you'd have to answer both parts. Thats why I revised most of the topics because they like to mix and match in the questions

Reply 291

bedussey

Original post by Heidi7991

seriously?? our teacher only taught us religious language, religious experience and deontology n a little bit of atheism for evaluation...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 292

calbrad140

Original post by bedussey

seriously?? our teacher only taught us religious language, religious experience and deontology n a little bit of atheism for evaluation...

Posted from TSR Mobile

For philosophy we only got taught religious language and experience. Plus the way we are taught we have to do 2 philosophy questions. They then mixed the critiques of religious belief with experience, which we hadn't been taught whatsoever. So erm yeah, GG

Reply 293

09alijk

The "discuss how language games adds to the argument" was terrible! I ended up writing A02 for Language games and linking it back to the argument when my friend said we had to write the A01 ffs!

Reply 294

meeeeee7

Wasn't a fan of that life after death question!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 295

JubilationXXV

Original post by meeeeee7

Wasn't a fan of that life after death question!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Urgh...I think I screwed it up

Reply 296

meeeeee7

I spoke about resurrection and then immortality of the soul but addressing how the immortality of the soul provides a solution for bodily resurrection was difficult and I wasn't sure how much to critique the immortality of the soul

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 297

ellie0497

That paper was a blessing

Reply 298

AnnieGakusei

Original post by ellie0497

That paper was a blessing

Same for me. I was so happy to see three absolute gifts of questions on the paper!

I feel really sorry for those people who didn't learn the ontological argument though, because religious experience didn't come up on the paper...