Consensus, Suffering, and Religious Language at an Interfaith Dialogue
At an interfaith dialogue in a government school, 120 students hear two speakers. Speaker 1 argues: 'A survey of our school shows 104 of 120 students believe in a higher power. Such near-universal belief cannot be mistaken; therefore God exists.' Speaker 2 replies: 'The existence of widespread and intense suffering is evidence against an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God.' During questions, a student says: 'Religious language is either literal, in which case God is angry makes God have a body, or meaningless.' The moderator asks you to evaluate the argument from consensus, the problem of evil, and the claim about religious language, and to say whether any one of these settles the question of God's existence.
1. Evaluate Speaker 1's argument from consensus.
Read the worked answer
The argument has the form: nearly all people believe in a higher power; therefore a higher power exists. This is an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum) and, more broadly, a genetic fallacy if the origin of the belief is treated as proof of its truth. The survey figure also does not show near-universal belief: 104 of 120 is 86.7%, and the sample is one school, not humanity.
A consensus can be evidence if the belief-forming process is reliable and the believers are independent and well informed. Here those conditions fail. Belief in a higher power may be explained by cultural transmission, fear of death, wishful thinking, or social belonging. That does not show the belief is false, but it weakens the evidential force of the consensus.
The argument could be reformulated as an inductive, probabilistic argument: widespread belief is more likely on theism than on atheism. But that requires additional premises about the reliability of human religious faculties. As stated, Speaker 1's argument is not a proof. It is at best a datum that a fuller theistic case might explain.
2. Assess Speaker 2's problem of evil and the main replies available to a theist.
Read the worked answer
Speaker 2 appeals to the problem of evil. In its logical form, the charge is that the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God is inconsistent with the existence of evil. If God could prevent evil, knows about it, and is perfectly good, why does evil exist? The evidential form is weaker and more common: the amount and distribution of suffering makes God's existence less probable, even if not impossible.
Several replies are available. The free-will defence argues that a world with significantly free creatures is better than a world without them, and free creatures may choose evil. This addresses moral evil more than natural evil. The soul-making theodicy argues that suffering can be justified as a condition for growth in courage, compassion, and dependence on God. The unknown-purpose reply says finite humans cannot see the whole picture.
None of these is a knock-down refutation of the problem. The free-will defence must explain natural evil and the scale of suffering; soul-making can look callous when the suffering is extreme. Conversely, the problem of evil does not deductively disprove God unless one adds strong premises about what a good God must prevent. So Speaker 2 raises a serious challenge but does not settle the question.
3. Evaluate the student's claim that religious language is either literal or meaningless, and state whether any one argument settles the question of God.
Read the worked answer
The student presents a false dilemma. Literal language is not the only meaningful option. Analogical language (Aquinas) holds that terms like 'good' or 'angry' apply to God neither univocally nor equivocally, but by analogy: God is the cause of goodness and is good in a higher mode. Via negativa says we know what God is not; 'God is angry' is a human projection and should be denied of God. Symbolic or mythic language expresses attitudes and practices rather than bodily states.
The verificationist challenge behind the student's claim - that a statement is meaningful only if it is empirically verifiable - is itself controversial. Ayer's criterion has difficulty verifying itself. Flew's falsification challenge asks what experience would count against belief in God; Hare replies that religious belief is a 'blik', a whole way of seeing the world. These are live debates, not a settled refutation.
No single argument settles God's existence. The consensus argument is weak; the problem of evil is a serious challenge but not a deductive disproof; the analysis of religious language clarifies meaning but does not decide truth. The rational conclusion is cumulative: each argument contributes to a case, and the question remains open to philosophical dispute.