Consider this argument:
“Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that the man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand how he would act, otherwise, God’s knowledge would be imperfect.…”
Lay this argument out in standard form, making explicit any implicit premises, if necessary. Do your best to motivate and explain each premise. Critically evaluate this argument, in light of both our class readings and discussions, and your own thoughts. “Critically evaluate this argument” means raise at least one objection to the truth of a premise or the validity of an inference. To “motivate” a premise is to give reasons to think it’s true.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Argument:
If God knows that a certain individual will be good or bad, then the individual is compelled to act accordingly.
If God’s knowledge is imperfect, then He does not know if a certain individual will be good or bad.
If God’s knowledge is imperfect, then He is not all-knowing.
If God is all-knowing, then His knowledge is not imperfect.
Therefore, if God is all-knowing, then a certain individual is compelled to act accordingly.
It is not the case that a certain individual is compelled to act accordingly.
Therefore, it is not the case that God is all-knowing.
Explanation:
The first premise assumes that if God possesses knowledge about an individual’s actions in advance, then that individual is compelled to act in accordance with that foreknowledge. This premise implies that individuals have no free will and are determined by God’s knowledge.
The second premise suggests that if God’s knowledge is imperfect, meaning that He does not know the future actions of individuals, then it follows that He is not all-knowing. This premise is based on the assumption that perfect knowledge includes knowledge of all future events.
The third premise follows from the second premise and states that if God’s knowledge is imperfect, meaning He does not possess knowledge of all future events, then He cannot be considered all-knowing. This premise is based on the conventional understanding of God’s omniscience.
The fourth premise builds on the third premise and asserts that if God is all-knowing, then His knowledge cannot be imperfect. This premise maintains that God’s omniscience necessitates complete knowledge of all things, including future events.
The fifth premise draws a conclusion from the previous premises and states that if God is all-knowing, then individuals are compelled to act in accordance with His foreknowledge. This conclusion follows from the assumption that God’s knowledge of future actions is complete and determinative.
The sixth premise denies the claim made in the fifth premise, asserting that individuals are not compelled to act in accordance with God’s foreknowledge. This premise suggests the existence of human free will and the ability to make choices independent of God’s knowledge.
The final conclusion is derived from the previous premises and states that if individuals are not compelled to act in accordance with God’s foreknowledge, then God cannot be considered all-knowing. This conclusion challenges the traditional concept of God’s omniscience.
Critical Evaluation:
One objection to this argument is that it assumes a deterministic view of the relationship between God’s knowledge and human actions. It assumes that if God knows an individual’s actions in advance, then those actions are predetermined and the individual is compelled to act accordingly. However, this objection raises the question of whether God’s foreknowledge necessarily eliminates human free will.
Another objection is that the argument relies on a limited understanding of God’s omniscience. It assumes that God’s knowledge must be complete and comprehensive, including knowledge of all future events. However, it is possible to conceive of God’s knowledge as being more nuanced, encompassing a deep understanding of human nature and the ability to anticipate and respond to human choices without undermining free will.
Additionally, the argument does not consider the possibility of God’s transcendence beyond the constraints of time. If God exists outside of time, then His knowledge of future events does not necessarily imply determinism or compulsion. It is conceivable that God’s knowledge of future actions coexists with human free will, allowing individuals to make choices while still being within the scope of God’s knowledge.
In conclusion, the argument presented makes assumptions about the relationship between God’s knowledge and human actions, as well as the nature of God’s omniscience. By considering alternative perspectives on free will and God’s knowledge, it becomes evident that the argument is not conclusive in establishing that God’s knowledge necessarily leads to determinism or undermines human agency.
