|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Quit chin stroking! Should Christians be silent on ‘The Problem of Evil’?
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
(1) Gratuitous evil exists in the world
(2) Gratuitous evil cannot exist in the creative works of an infinitely perfect being
Therefore:
(3) The Universe cannot have been created by an infinitely perfect being.
The above is the formula commonly called the problem of evil (TPOE) and I was challenged by a friend this week to explain on how the believer reconciles the ‘evils’ in the world to an omni-benevolent God who, by virtue of omni-benevolence, surely cannot allow such evils to exist.
Now this sort of question could easily lead to a ‘well what do you mean by ‘omni-benevolent?’ ‘What is goodness?’ ‘The inseparability of pleasure and pain must be taken into account’. However the line I am beginning to take and took then, thank God, is not this usual high table apologetic. In fact the apologetic of suffering/evil/pain=Theodicy *itself* is the problem I’ve been thinking about.
Ought we as Christians to be hoping to give an intellectual account of how God can use ‘gratuitous’ evil (as oppose to natural occurrences and deterministic misfortunes of life: so enter relevant despot here……) as say Antonio Rosmini, Richard Swinburne et al do. Or ought we to accept, as philosophers have started to suggest- (and clench your teeth for this)
“That anything that cannot be said to a mother in front of her burning child is an unacceptable line for anyone to take re the existence of God in a world like this.”
Now obviously tact, timing, tone and manner are important. However the existential question for many *is* ‘where is God in all of this’ and I suppose the last thing they want to hear is:
“Well you see, as Job quickly found out…sovereignty of God….ABC…eternal higher end goals of humanity…DEF…pain is God’s megaphone to rouse a sleeping world…GHI…all things work together for the good.”
But at some level (both to our friends, loved ones, and strangers) it is a question that needs answering with coherence.
So my contention/question is, Theodicy may be ‘logical’ there may be higher-ends, goals, growths and ‘crowns corruptible exchanged for incorruptible crowns’: but is it rational, ought it even to be a theological ‘thing’ to be ‘done’ sat on sofas and in coffee bars?
Or ought we to say-I can’t marry God and TPOE, in fact it is truly impossible, and a product of sin-
And then weep with those who weep?
[ 15. June 2016, 18:52: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
Theodicy may be ‘logical’ there may be higher-ends, goals, growths and ‘crowns corruptible exchanged for incorruptible crowns’: but is it rational, ought it even to be a theological ‘thing’ to be ‘done’ sat on sofas and in coffee bars?
As someone recently said:
quote:
put down the port and Church Times crossword!
Indeed,
quote:
'pastor and philosopher' would be the happy medium in serving people holistically in the field I suppose.
Haven't you answered your own question?
I find it a constant challenge to keep my theology in line with what I preach and teach to a bunch of criminals in my local prison week in week out - and more often than not, the latter inform the former. Platitudes don't last very long in that kind of environment.
As long as your philosophising doesn't lose sight of the mother in front of burning child, you'll probably be ok. There's a place for detached reflection too. I think you have to bear in mind that Job's friends did their best pastoral work right at the start, though, when they simply sat down with him and shut up. The problems started when they opened their mouths.
Finally, to look at things the other way round, your namesake seems to have had the opposite problem. I seem to recall that he quote:
bowed his head and groaned and repined against his fate - to be still a man and yet to be forced up into the metaphysical world, to enact what philosophy only thinks
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
ISTM that this kind of nonsense is a problem specifically for those Christians who see their faith as essentially propositional -- the kind of irritating Christian who is always asserting that "you can't be a real Chrisitan unless you believe that..."
If you see your faith as knowledge about the world, then the limits of your knowledge are a problem. I just don't have any sympathy for such a view of Christianity. My goal in my faith is to grow in love, not in information. And I am comfortable in the view that growing in love is growing more Christlike. How that fits into the terrible parts of life is not by providing an "explanation," but by conditioning my response to the suffering that I encounter. The real challenge to my faith is how lukewarm my loving response is after all these years. As always, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
*whistles*!
Well: Eutychus! That was like,was it Nathan the prophet to David, demanding that the man who wants 'both sheep' is to be executed immediately, and said man was in fact himself.
A good word, but the temptation, ooh the temptation to have a rational faith is hard to resist. This is a Dawkins decade-where the things of Purgatory discussion are presented to me daily-hence the joy of having Ship O' Fools recommended to me!
We've gotta give an answer...the classroom's a Gladitorial pit ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well, thank you, but it was too good to miss!
I'm on my way out of the door to see said prisoners right now, but another thought in passing: I think our faith is supposed to be incarnational, not solely rational, isn't it? That's its, um, redeeming feature...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
“That anything that cannot be said to a mother in front of her burning child is an unacceptable line for anyone to take re the existence of God in a world like this.”
In such a situation, I wouldn't be talking to the mother, I would be pouring water on the child to put the fire out.
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I agree with a lot of what's said, but while we have got to give an answer we shouldn't hurry. It's worth considering.
Unlike your previous thread this is an issue I have considered, in a straightforward manner, and may have something useful to say.
First of all, I don't find proposition (1) hard to agree with at all.
Proposition (2) however tries to state too much in a single proposition. If we are considering the works of God then we have to consider man. It is stated clearly that man was created in God's image and God is perfect.
Then all around us we see that man, God's creation, is fallible, greedy, selfish, stupid and inherently sinful. It wasn't always like that. Man was created perfect, but he isn't now. Whatever reading you put on Genesis 3 (the fall) man's nature is not that of God.
Man plays a colossal part in everything that goes on in the World, and the effect he has grows all the time. The consequence is that the world is inherently evil, despite the perfect world given to us.
It is reasonable to ask about natural disasters and disease but we have used our God-given abilities to mitigate against these. We can look at the way polio has been eradicated and also compare the effects of earthquakes on Christchurch NZ with those elsewhere, eg Haiti, Pakistan. Man can mitigate the effects of the world, depending on the priorities accorded by governments.
Over all this and never to be forgotten there is the issue of God being omni-benevolent. My view is that God is omni-benevolent but His view of that is not ours.
A problem for man is that God plays a longer game and to Him some things are more important than life and death, which are typically and not unreasonably man's greatest concerns.
That's a very cold analysis and no comfort whatsoever to those who grieve and suffer, but I think it goes some way to answering your questions.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
Ah, I should say I'm replying to the hypothetical philosopher rather than to Dr Ransom - my clumsy use of quote boundaries make it look as though he said that quote directly, when he didn't.
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
Eutychus: Oh no one said anything about solely rational: far from it just certain tenets in certain formats ought not to leave gaping fallacies i.e:
constant and immortal good/ yet/
very present, gratuitous hurt
I mean these are the questions people ask us to explain quite often.
Obviously the Holy Spirit isn't sat on the Sub-bench waiting to 'go on Guv'
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
constant and immortal good/ yet/
very present, gratuitous hurt
I mean these are the questions people ask us to explain quite often.
And if you do explain them, you're lying. So looking for a plausible explanation is looking for a lie that will get you off the hook. Call that theology if you must, but most folks have different names for that kind of enterprise.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Here is another old Chestnut.
Can God make a rock so large that God cannot move it?
Your conundrum sets up a false dichotomy.
I had a look at several well thought of translations of Genesis. Each translation has God saying the world was good or very good, not perfect. Why then, are you positing that God made a perfect world? Is it on the basis of biblical authority, or on your expectations for God?*
Christian theologians have looked at the problem of evil for almost two millennia, BTW. I suspect that theologians in other religions have looked at evil for longer than that, given the relative young age of Christianity.
My viewpoint comes from something Stephen Hawking said in A Brief History of Time. Time has a one way arrow. It does not go backward and forward as life forms on earth are too fragile for such an environment. In other words, physics works just the one way, and it works that same way all the time. (Harry Potter aside.)
God does not intervene in physics as changing one bit of it can have catastrophic consequences for other bits of physics. A benevolent God has set up a system that feeds and sustains us and God does not interfere with that system because of the consequences of interference.
Given the way physics works, it is a necessary part of having a physics driven world that physics will encounter things, dams, brain cells, oncogenes, whatever, that react in ways we deem to be incompatible with "good."
If you don't like that idea, go read up on Process Theology.
__________
*Or, as I suspect, you are having fun playing with philosophical questions. Which is natural, given where you are in life.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Here is another old Chestnut.
Your conundrum sets up a false dichotomy.
I had a look at several well thought of translations of Genesis. Each translation has God saying the world was good or very good, not perfect. Why then, are you positing that God made a perfect world? Is it on the basis of biblical authority, or on your expectations for God?*
__________
Hmmm
Primarily, the conundrum isn't 'mine' its a well known simplification of a whole host of questions formalised for study, as stated it was put to me this week.from: 'On Defence as oppose to Theodicy' Int J Philos Relig (2006) 59:167–174)
Secondly my answer to him then, as is becoming now, was I don't know if I ought to answer TPOE in any way as near as clear and erudite a manner as you have; though my guest would have loved to engage on your Hawking point, as he is a physicist.
And my hesitancy was born of the feeling that it suggests a detachment from 'real suffering'as was the point made by the chap in the above quoted paper.
Imagine the charge of the multitude!
quote:
*you are having fun playing with philosophical questions. Which is natural, given where you are in life.
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
(1) Gratuitous evil exists in the world
(2) Gratuitous evil cannot exist in the creative works of an infinitely perfect being
Therefore:
(3) The Universe cannot have been created by an infinitely perfect being.
Good Doctor R,
Seems to me that
you're right in saying that TPOE is a problem for many non-believers, either consciously or in the form of a vague impression that modern philosophy has somehow disproved the traditional idea of God
TPOE is better stated in terms of a contradiction between two of the commonly-held attributes of God - His omnipotence and His perfect benevolence. Either He doesn't want to prevent the evil or He cannot, because if he wanted to and could then there would be nothing to stop Him, but we observe that He doesn't.
All the Christian arguments against TPOE that I've ever heard amount to weaselling around one of the three component proposition of TPOE, either:
- saying that there is no evil that is not man-made (which is backing off from the first proposition, the existence of natural or gratuitous evil)
- saying that in God's scale of values, this world with all its suffering is somehow "better" than a world with any element of that natural evil removed (e.g. because it makes us better people) which is twisting the meaning of "benevolence", trying to weasel around the proposition that God is good in the sense in which we normally use that word
- saying that a world with any less natural evil is not logically possible (due to some occult metaphysical constraint that we will never understand), which is weaselling about omnipotence.
Lacking any philosophical qualifications, it seems to me that TPOE is a logically sound argument against the traditional concept of God.
So why don't we drop omnipotence ?
Pointless suffering exists. Where is God in this ? Not up in his heaven smiling because all is going according to the Divine Plan. He is somehow present in those trying to prevent the suffering, and in those who simply "weep with". In a sense He needs us to be His hands and voice here on earth, just because He is not omnipotent - He can't just make it all better with the wave of a wand or in a puff of smoke.
But some of us are just too attached to the tradition to want to go there...
Some of us say "Thy will be done" in the confidence that "Thy will" is the good, which we desire to support and strengthen in the face of serious doubt as to whether it will in fact be done in any particular instance.
Whereas others seem to say it fatalistically - what will happen will happen and if it does then it must be the will of God because after all He's omnipotent...
If there's ever a conflict between Love and Power, remember - Love is what God's interested in, Power is the preoccupation of the Other Guy...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
TPOE starts with God letting man have free will . Thus at the fall of man in the Garden of Edrn is where it starts. God allows evil, he does not create it. It is the product of what the created does with Gods creation.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
(1) Gratuitous evil exists in the world
(2) Gratuitous evil cannot exist in the creative works of an infinitely perfect being
Therefore:
(3) The Universe cannot have been created by an infinitely perfect being.
The above is the formula commonly called the problem of evil (TPOE) and I was challenged by a friend this week to explain on how the believer reconciles the ‘evils’ in the world to an omni-benevolent God who, by virtue of omni-benevolence, surely cannot allow such evils to exist.
I added this comment to another similar topic recently and I'm sorry to harp on about it but...
Who has decided on God's behalf that God is omnibenovolent? What evidence does the Bible offer that He is, or ever claimed to be so?
Second point: 'Perfect' does not mean 'supremely lovely, kind, gorgeous and wonderful': it means 'complete'. The perfect includes and embraces imperfection. To qualify as 'infinitely perfect' (something of a tautology there), the entity that manifests/creates good must also manifest/create evil.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gargantua
Shipmate
# 16205
|
Posted
Kudos to both Dr. Ransom, for posing the question so urgently and honestly, and to Russ for dealing with it realistically.
Personally, I feel that there is no satisfactory answer to the conundrum of the OP. Tennyson expressed it well in the stanzas of In Memoriam A.H.H. that I quoted earlier on another thread. "Yet we trust that somehow good will be the final goal of ill." It is a question of trust -- or faith, or hope.
The Thomists trying to prove it make an unedifying spectacle -- and the Calvinists and other Reformed-tradition theologians a disgusting one. It goes beyond mere chin-stroking! It takes a strong stomach to sally forth upon the Internet, to Google the "problem of evil" and to read some of the meretricious trash that various religious denominations offer the mother of the burning child.
I find the "fallen world" explanation particularly reprehensible. Ask the lava-encrusted corpses of Pompeii or the heaped-up bodies of the tsunami victims whether their suffering was the result of anyone's sin, whether contemporary or Adamic.
For my money, only the apophatic theological traditions emerge from this dialogue with clean hands. At least the insistence that we cannot know the Divine with our rational minds is honest, humble and respects the inherent limitations of our approach to such questions as TPOE.
Dr. Ransom is right. Christianity needs to get real and to get honest about this matter. It is crucial to the task of evangelism in our time. But as far as I can see, the only hope that Christianity has is to state as strongly, convincingly and effectively as possible the proposition that against suffering, we place Love. And if the evidence of Love is weak and tepid, then all is lost and the Dawkins/Hitchens faction must carry the day.
--------------------
Fraternally,
Gargantua
Posts: 84 | From: Rossburn MB, Canada | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
<tangent>
Kudos, Gargantua, for using the word "meretricious" and using it correctly!
</tangent>
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
What would be non-gratuitous evil?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
What would be non-gratuitous evil?
Hey there HCH
The gentleman that came up with the need for the problem to be specified in terms of 'gratuitous evil' gave the following accounts of non-gratuitous evil situations:
quote:
It is widely recognized that [the softer bad things=evil] formulation of the problem of evil is seriously flawed. It rules out necessary evils—evils that would exist in any possible universe.
It also rules out instrumental evils. Instrumental evils come in two forms. First, there are intrinsically evil states of affairs that are instrumentally related, at least potentially, to the existence of greater goods that cannot be attained without those evils or something worse. Second, there are intrinsically evil states of affairs that are instrumentally related, at least potentially, to the non-existence of greater evils which cannot be circumvented by means any less evil.
On defense as opposed to theodicy Joel Thomas Tierno: Int J Philos Relig (2006) 59:167–174
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
(1) Gratuitous evil exists in the world
(2) Gratuitous evil cannot exist in the creative works of an infinitely perfect being
Therefore:
(3) The Universe cannot have been created by an infinitely perfect being.
Thanks for raising what for me is a fundamental question about how the world is.
I agree with (1) and (2) but (3) doesn't necessarily follow if you believe in dualism, as I do. God isn't the only player in town. There's a bigger conflict going on which we are part of. As Jesus said, he isn't the prince of this world. Evil is. By our actions we take one side or the other and affect the world order. We're part of the creative process and have been given responsibility for making the world right or wrong. We can't blame God for gratuitous evil because we have free will and that is our choice if we want it. Frighteningly. In a sense, we are God - he's delegated a lot of his authority to us, either to use in brilliant and fantastic beautiful creative loving ways, or to abuse and seek power and self advancement at the expense of our fellow beings and creation.
This is my world view, having thought about it long and hard. I can't find any other satisfactory way to make logical sense of the world.
Neither theodicy nor atheism does it for me.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I guess I may be hopelessly ignorant, but I also do not grasp what is meant by "infinitely perfect". I normally regard "perfect" as an absolute; one cannot be more or less perfect any more than one can be more or less unique or "a little bit pregnant". It is also unclear what standard is in use here in determining the extent of God's perfection or near-perfection.
My own opinion of this is rather ordinary and agrees with some other Shipmates. Much (perhaps all) of the evil of the world, as I see it, comes originally from the possession by human beings of free will and fallibility. Could God eliminate such evil? Of course--but God apparently places a high value on our possession of free will.
Of course, there is suffering unrelated to evil. We grow old and die. That's part of our design and our identity. We are flesh and blood. There are natural phenomena that cause suffering--floods, earthquakes, fires--but again these are not actually evil; they are part of the world we live in, challenges for us to meet and reminders that we should be humble.
I don't think discussions like this are likely to make much progress in reducing the level of evil in the world.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
By our actions we take one side or the other and affect the world order.
That, to me, is the important point. My pressing question isn't whether I should be silent on the problem of evil, it's whether I am being adequately active about the problem.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I guess I may be hopelessly ignorant, but I also do not grasp what is meant by "infinitely perfect". I normally regard "perfect" as an absolute; one cannot be more or less perfect any more than one can be more or less unique or "a little bit pregnant". It is also unclear what standard is in use here in determining the extent of God's perfection or near-perfection.
My own opinion of this is rather ordinary and agrees with some other Shipmates. Much (perhaps all) of the evil of the world, as I see it, comes originally from the possession by human beings of free will and fallibility. Could God eliminate such evil? Of course--but God apparently places a high value on our possession of free will.
Of course, there is suffering unrelated to evil. We grow old and die. That's part of our design and our identity. We are flesh and blood. There are natural phenomena that cause suffering--floods, earthquakes, fires--but again these are not actually evil; they are part of the world we live in, challenges for us to meet and reminders that we should be humble.
I don't think discussions like this are likely to make much progress in reducing the level of evil in the world.
I think death is a consequence of evil and not created by God in the sense that it's his will. It isn't a given that everything that happens here is good. Otherwise it wouldn't be necessary for us to pray 'may you be the government, may your will be done', as Jesus taught us to. I think that applies to, for example, earthquakes, cancer, pain and suffering, which I don't think exist in the garden of Eden or paradise, where Jesus/God is and we aren't at the moment. This world is a pale reflection or shadow of reality, as CS Lewis put it in The Great Divorce.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gargantua:
Personally, I feel that there is no satisfactory answer to the conundrum of the OP. Tennyson expressed it well in the stanzas of In Memoriam A.H.H. that I quoted earlier on another thread. "Yet we trust that somehow good will be the final goal of ill." It is a question of trust -- or faith, or hope.
The Thomists trying to prove it make an unedifying spectacle -- and the Calvinists and other Reformed-tradition theologians a disgusting one. It goes beyond mere chin-stroking! It takes a strong stomach to sally forth upon the Internet, to Google the "problem of evil" and to read some of the meretricious trash that various religious denominations offer the mother of the burning child.
I find the "fallen world" explanation particularly reprehensible. Ask the lava-encrusted corpses of Pompeii or the heaped-up bodies of the tsunami victims whether their suffering was the result of anyone's sin, whether contemporary or Adamic.
Dammit, Gargantua. I may not agree with everything you say, but for me you've hit the nail on the head here. I got into a "many to one disagreement" at my homegroup recently when I said I thought the "fallen world" explanation was rubbish. I've come to the conclusion it's just an evangelical thought-stopping cliché.
However, having a faith that is provably untrue puts us into the "of all men most to be pitied" category. The question is: may we rationally hope?
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Here is another old Chestnut.
Can God make a rock so large that God cannot move it?
I always liked Lewis' response to this problem: "A meaningless series of words will not acquire meaning simply by prefacing them with 'God can'."
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
The question is: may we rationally hope?
Yes we may. The basis for our faith cannot be the ability to rationalize every difficulty or complexity it throws up. If my faith depends on being able to answer the great "works vs faith", "science vs creation", "morality outside Christianity" and every other big debate in a cogent and neat way it is going to be hopeless. But that isn't how it works - I didn't select the faith that provided the most rational answers on a panel of questions, it was based on believing that Jesus' incarnation was real.
The basis for that belief is worth another thread perhaps, but the point is that whatever was strong enough to overcome the huge improbability of such a thing happening has got to be strong enough to overcome my inability to rationalize a set of other questions.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gargantua:
The Thomists trying to prove it make an unedifying spectacle -- and the Calvinists and other Reformed-tradition theologians a disgusting one. It goes beyond mere chin-stroking! It takes a strong stomach to sally forth upon the Internet, to Google the "problem of evil" and to read some of the meretricious trash that various religious denominations offer the mother of the burning child.
What a load of bullshit... If you offer the mother of a burning child theodicy, then you are a psychopath. You should be busy extinguishing the fire. If you offer the mother of a child that has just been burned theodicy, then you are a heartless idiot. If however you cannot explain to a mother how God can be good though their child may be burned, then you better hope that she is wasting no more thought on her faith than you on yours. Or you may be failing her. And if you cannot accept that some people work out their faith in fear and trembling with their intellect - including the issue of theodicy - then you are simply an anti-intellectual bigot.
All this is simply a question of fittingness. It is not fitting to answer heartbreak with theology. True. But it is also not fitting to answer theology with heartbreak. That is simply emotional rhetorics. Theology provides answers at a particular level in a particular manner. If you don't care about that stuff, fine, you really don't have to. However, avoid telling other people that they shouldn't care about this either. It's their business what brings them closer to God, not yours. I'm firmly looking at tclune there. No sympathy, eh? Grow some more in love then...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Theology provides answers at a particular level in a particular manner. If you don't care about that stuff, fine, you really don't have to. However, avoid telling other people that they shouldn't care about this either. It's their business what brings them closer to God, not yours. I'm firmly looking at tclune there. No sympathy, eh? Grow some more in love then...
There is a famous story of an indian agent in Idaho in the 19th century. He tried to convert the indians. Those who converted were given potato pieces with eyes to plant for their food. Those who did not were given potato pieces without eyes to plant. It may be that some people were converted by th "miracle" of God feeding the Christians and starving the heathens. But I still call "bullshit" on this swindler for Christ.
I have known an awful lot of ministers who have worked very hard at coming up with "answers" to the problem of evil, because they needed one for their job. This isn't theology, it's a con game. If it hoodwinks some folks into becoming Christian, they are building their house on the sand. I am not indiffrent to people who are hurting and seek a balm. But I will never pretend that those who sell snake oil in the name of Chrsit by claiming answers to the unanswerable are anything other than charlatans.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Theology provides answers at a particular level in a particular manner. If you don't care about that stuff, fine, you really don't have to. However, avoid telling other people that they shouldn't care about this either. It's their business what brings them closer to God, not yours. I'm firmly looking at tclune there. No sympathy, eh? Grow some more in love then...
There is a famous story of an indian agent in Idaho in the 19th century. He tried to convert the indians. Those who converted were given potato pieces with eyes to plant for their food. Those who did not were given potato pieces without eyes to plant. It may be that some people were converted by the "miracle" of God feeding the Christians and starving the heathens. But I still call "bullshit" on this swindler for Christ.
I have known an awful lot of ministers who have worked very hard at coming up with "answers" to the problem of evil, because they needed one for their job. This isn't theology, it's a con game. If it hoodwinks some folks into becoming Christian, they are building their house on sand. I am not indifferent to people who are hurting and seek a balm. But I will never pretend that those who sell snake oil in the name of Christ by claiming to have answers to the unanswerable are anything other than charlatans.
--Tom Clune
[ 19. February 2011, 21:35: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
The question is: may we rationally hope?
Yes we may. The basis for our faith cannot be the ability to rationalize every difficulty or complexity it throws up. If my faith depends on being able to answer the great "works vs faith", "science vs creation", "morality outside Christianity" and every other big debate in a cogent and neat way it is going to be hopeless. But that isn't how it works - I didn't select the faith that provided the most rational answers on a panel of questions, it was based on believing that Jesus' incarnation was real.
The basis for that belief is worth another thread perhaps, but the point is that whatever was strong enough to overcome the huge improbability of such a thing happening has got to be strong enough to overcome my inability to rationalize a set of other questions.
Thanks for your answer, mdijon. For me personally, I think it comes down to the point that the only way I can think of the incarnation is through the lens of theology that tells me who Jesus was, and what it was his life and death accomplished. If I find that theology contains at its base assumptions that I cannot accept or flawed logic (of the "fallen world" variety, for example) I start to think that the incarnation cannot be what that theology would have it be, and there must be some better explanation - which is going to be naturalistic.
I can accept that the answer to the "problem of pain" exists, but is above my pay grade - in fact, I'd be suspicious of any explanation I could understand given the nature of the problem. However, when the systematic theologies of my experience are either incoherent in their account, or present a God I wouldn't wish to know let alone worship, I am effectively blocked from just starting and ending with the incarnation. Without a coherent theology that I can believe in, I don't know what it means.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
It may be that some people were converted by the "miracle" of God feeding the Christians and starving the heathens. But I still call "bullshit" on this swindler for Christ.
How you can convince yourself that such horrid stories have any bearing on what we are discussing is a mystery to me. Probably it is all the "loving" you are practicing.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I will never pretend that those who sell snake oil in the name of Christ by claiming answers to the unanswerable are anything other than charlatans.
Oh verily, verily. Though plenty of people are not busy selling snake oil, but merely saying what they believe is true; and I've seen no particular indication so far that you are qualified to judge what is "unanswerable" in this matter.
However, you cannot just say that you don't find certain answers helpful. No, you have to trash what is other than you. Congratulations, you have become the mirror image of the people you claim to despise..
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Who has decided on God's behalf that God is omnibenovolent? What evidence does the Bible offer that He is, or ever claimed to be so?
Second point: 'Perfect' does not mean 'supremely lovely, kind, gorgeous and wonderful': it means 'complete'. The perfect includes and embraces imperfection.
Why would you choose to worship a God who was not omnibenevolent, assuming that you believed such a God to exist ?
The more common usage of "perfect" today is the meaning "infinitely good". Something that is perfect lacks no desirable attribute (and is in that sense complete) but to be perfect it must also be flawless - possessing no undesirable attribute. A perfect man must not only lack no virtue but also be free of vice.
The complete does in a sense include the partial, but the flawless does not include the flawed.
The universe we live in, with its pointless suffering - e.g. arthritis, cholera - seems to many to be flawed.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Who has decided on God's behalf that God is omnibenovolent? What evidence does the Bible offer that He is, or ever claimed to be so?
Second point: 'Perfect' does not mean 'supremely lovely, kind, gorgeous and wonderful': it means 'complete'. The perfect includes and embraces imperfection.
Why would you choose to worship a God who was not omnibenevolent, assuming that you believed such a God to exist ?
The more common usage of "perfect" today is the meaning "infinitely good". Something that is perfect lacks no desirable attribute (and is in that sense complete) but to be perfect it must also be flawless - possessing no undesirable attribute. A perfect man must not only lack no virtue but also be free of vice.
The complete does in a sense include the partial, but the flawless does not include the flawed.
The universe we live in, with its pointless suffering - e.g. arthritis, cholera - seems to many to be flawed.
Best wishes,
Russ
Well, first of all, I should declare, for those who don't know, that I don't worship a god at all, at least in the sense understood by the consensus of this forum. But I find your question about what sort of god I might choose to worship quite strange. How many gods are there to choose from?
That aside, the GotB doesn't have any cause to adapt to arbitrary changes in dictionary definitions. If this God is what He is claimed to be by His adherents, then He represents the totality of the universe, outside of which nothing else exists. If I did believe such a God to exist, I would have to accept Him on that understanding. Distorting our perception of God into something that makes us feel safe and snug in the presence of an otherwise hostile universe is merely idolatry.
Hence my question about what the Bible offers to indicate that God is omnibenevolent. When in doubt, consult the manual.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
If this God is what He is claimed to be by His adherents, then He represents the totality of the universe, outside of which nothing else exists.
No. According to the claims of the Abrahamic religions, the totality of the universe is something created by God on purpose that there be something other than God. Outside of the totality of the universe (and inside it at the heart of it) is God.
We'll also add, that at least in the Augustinian tradition, evil has no ontological reality. What we call evil is something being very much less good than it could be. Since it is nonsense to talk about God being less than, or indeed other than, God could be, it follows we can't speak of evil in God.
quote:
Hence my question about what the Bible offers to indicate that God is omnibenevolent. When in doubt, consult the manual.
Obviously Reformed Protestants believe that the manual is all that there is to be known about God, but that is not the position held by Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The Roman Catholics explicitly hold that secular philosophy can be used to interpret the Bible.
I would however start from the claim in 1 John that God is love, and work through various parts of the New Testament that elaborate upon that.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
(1) Gratuitous evil exists in the world
(2) Gratuitous evil cannot exist in the creative works of an infinitely perfect being
Therefore:
(3) The Universe cannot have been created by an infinitely perfect being.
I agree with (1) and (2) but (3) doesn't necessarily follow if you believe in dualism, as I do. God isn't the only player in town. There's a bigger conflict going on which we are part of. As Jesus said, he isn't the prince of this world. Evil is. By our actions we take one side or the other and affect the world order. We're part of the creative process and have been given responsibility for making the world right or wrong.
What certainly does follow from 1) and 2) is
This world is not the creative works of an infinitely perfect being. That's not much different from 3) to my mind.
Dualism doesn't change the logic. It merely changes which premise you decide to drop or whether you accept the conclusion. You can either argue that this world was not created by good alone, but created by good and evil (accepting 3) or you can argue that an infinitely perfect being might possibly let evil affect their creative works (rejecting 2). But the logic is the logic.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What exactly does "infinitely perfect" mean? Can one be finitely perfect? Does it mean infinite and perfect?
<tangent>
When I see the thread title out of the corner of my eye, I see it as "Quit chain smoking!" which is excellent advice for anybody, I should think.
</tangent>
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
As Tortuf has pointed out, Genesis only claims that creation was declared by God to be "very good" rather than "perfect," but even if one assumes that God did create a perfect universe (which I do), I still think there's a flaw in the way the problem is often posed. It seems to me that the essence of the issue can be paraphrased as:
1) If the universe was created by a perfect God, then the universe would be perfect.
2) The world as observed is not perfect.
3) Therefore God must be limited, less than perfect, or non-existent.
(Where "perfect" includes the concept of omnibenevolent.)
However, I would suggest that "perfect" applies to God in a different way than it applies to any created thing (as mousethief points out). God may be perfect without reference to a purpose because he is infinite and uncreated, but perfection does not exist in any created thing as a stand-alone pure abstraction; it can only be discussed in relation to some purpose. Creation can only be perfect in relation to God's purpose for creating it.
So I see the argument as involving a bit of sleight-of-hand in (1) in that the universe is not perfect in the same way that God is perfect. And I see (2) as involving a bit of psychological projection because it is implicitly saying that the world as observed is not perfect for a purpose that is being projected onto God (i.e. a world that operates in the way that we all would want it to and that we would choose if we could do so in order to make our lives free from all pain and suffering).
Any valid conclusions drawn from points (1) and (2) have to address both the issue of the purpose of creation and the issue of how it achieves that purpose. To be able to draw a valid negative conclusion as in my paraphrase, one has to be confident not just of understanding both God's purpose and how creation achieves it, but confident of understanding it in the hypothetical case.
It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to conclude that even though I believe (1) and (2), there must be something I don't understand because I can't accept (3). It also seems valid to conclude that either God or creation is not perfect in the way being hypothesized. But it seems to me to be unreasonable to say hypothetically that if God were perfect, then I know what his purpose for creation would be and how creation would achieve that purpose, and since what I observe doesn't fit with what I hypothesize, then my hypothesis allows me to state that God must be [limited / less than perfect / non-existent].
I think the hidden part of the argument is the belief in a bodily resurrection and an eternal life in the physical plane of existence because that's what directly ties our assessment of the state of the universe to God's benevolent purpose. If you want to accept (1) and (2) along with a bodily resurrection, but not (3), don't you have to posit that the physical world will be fundamentally different after a bodily resurrection? I think we only need the universe to have been created perfect in the way we want it to be perfect if it represents the final goal rather than a temporary prelude on the way to the final goal.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Ransom, I can't help noticing that you have never responded in any way to Tom Clune's first post. It happens to be exactly what I would say, since IMHO, Christian theodicy has been two millenia of wasted time and effort.
quote:
originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that this kind of nonsense is a problem specifically for those Christians who see their faith as essentially propositional -- the kind of irritating Christian who is always asserting that "you can't be a real Chrisitan unless you believe that..."
If you see your faith as knowledge about the world, then the limits of your knowledge are a problem. I just don't have any sympathy for such a view of Christianity. My goal in my faith is to grow in love, not in information. And I am comfortable in the view that growing in love is growing more Christlike. How that fits into the terrible parts of life is not by providing an "explanation," but by conditioning my response to the suffering that I encounter. The real challenge to my faith is how lukewarm my loving response is after all these years. As always, YMMV.
So...?
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
If this God is what He is claimed to be by His adherents, then He represents the totality of the universe, outside of which nothing else exists.
No. According to the claims of the Abrahamic religions, the totality of the universe is something created by God on purpose that there be something other than God. Outside of the totality of the universe (and inside it at the heart of it) is God...
The second part of that is the same thing as 'nothing exists outside of God', no? The first part brings us back to my personal chestnut challenge: what did God make the universe out of to produce something that was NotGod? There was only a Word which was Him and was with Him. quote:
We'll also add, that at least in the Augustinian tradition, evil has no ontological reality. What we call evil is something being very much less good than it could be. Since it is nonsense to talk about God being less than, or indeed other than, God could be, it follows we can't speak of evil in God....
If evil exists - or, let's say, is at least made a manifest condition by His created beings - then it too must ultimately be part God's creation. He manifests and creates perfection, and He manifests and creates everything that is less than perfection. There's nowhere else for the less-than-perfect to come from.
quote:
Obviously Reformed Protestants believe that the manual is all that there is to be known about God, but that is not the position held by Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The Roman Catholics explicitly hold that secular philosophy can be used to interpret the Bible.
I would however start from the claim in 1 John that God is love, and work through various parts of the New Testament that elaborate upon that.
Yes, I think this is where we got to the last time I got involved in this subject (pity I can't recall the original thread: it was very interesting). Back-up was cited for God being love, as you'd imagine. None was cited for Him not being also evil.
[Edit: first response expanded]
[ 20. February 2011, 07:45: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Yes, I think this is where we got to the last time I got involved in this subject (pity I can't recall the original thread: it was very interesting). Back-up was cited for God being love, as you'd imagine. None was cited for Him not being also evil.
I'm not sure I've worked my way properly through those negatives at the end there, but 1 John 1:5 springs to mind: God is light, and in him there is no darknes at all.
[ 20. February 2011, 07:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Kanchoko, I think the thread you're referring to is Gargantua's thread about dualism.
One way of looking at the Bible is that it represents a gradual revealing or developing understanding of God's character, culminating in Jesus. 'Love one another as I have loved you.' I think it's this revealing that 1 John is trying to make sense of.
Much of Christianity is theological, such as Jesus' followers resurrection experiences giving rise to the doctrine of the resurrection, or the apostles' experience at Pentecost giving rise to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Shit does happen, and polishing a turd doesn't make it less shit. If TPOE was soluble, we'd probably have managed it by now. It's a big problem, and causes some to conclude there can't be a good God or a God at all. I don't mean to sound anti-intellectual - that's important. It's just that sometimes perhaps we need to be like a little child and just trust.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Well, first of all, I should declare, for those who don't know, that I don't worship a god at all, at least in the sense understood by the consensus of this forum. But I find your question about what sort of god I might choose to worship quite strange. How many gods are there to choose from?
When in doubt, consult the manual.
I wasn't suggesting that there are multiple Supreme Beings in existence, rather asking what characteristics you would have to perceive such a Being to have in order for you to respond with worship.
From what you've said, it sounds as if you think that the Bible accurately describes a God, Whom you respond to by pretending He doesn't exist...
If the sort of God that the Bible describes has no referent, then how can you give the Bible any status at all ?
I find talking about the possible existence of God as if He were an elusive specimen like the Loch Ness Monster to be generally unproductive, and prefer a different approach.
I imagine that you wouldn't worship any being that didn't in some way embody your highest values.
If ultimate benevolence is one of those values, then religious language would have it that you worship an omnibenevolent God. (However personal or impersonal, close or distant, you perceive Him to be).
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Tangent on use of meretricious: Gore Vidal responded to a critic's description of some aspect of his work as meretricious with, "Meretricious to you, too, and a happy New Year".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
I am surprised that there has been so far no reference to Alvin Plantinga's alleged "solution" of the issue at a philosophical level at least, and would be interested to read a critique of it from a philosophically qualified shipmate.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
(1) Gratuitous evil exists in the world
(2) Gratuitous evil cannot exist in the creative works of an infinitely perfect being
Therefore:
(3) The Universe cannot have been created by an infinitely perfect being.
I agree with (1) and (2) but (3) doesn't necessarily follow if you believe in dualism, as I do. God isn't the only player in town. There's a bigger conflict going on which we are part of. As Jesus said, he isn't the prince of this world. Evil is. By our actions we take one side or the other and affect the world order. We're part of the creative process and have been given responsibility for making the world right or wrong.
What certainly does follow from 1) and 2) is
This world is not the creative works of an infinitely perfect being. That's not much different from 3) to my mind.
Dualism doesn't change the logic. It merely changes which premise you decide to drop or whether you accept the conclusion. You can either argue that this world was not created by good alone, but created by good and evil (accepting 3) or you can argue that an infinitely perfect being might possibly let evil affect their creative works (rejecting 2). But the logic is the logic.
I agree that logic is logic. I suppose what I was saying is that the words of 3) are ambiguous, as you seem to be saying. You can read them to mean that either 3.1) God is not a perfect creator or 3.2) that he is a perfect creator and other forces are also at work in the creation. I believe in 3.2).
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Ransom, I can't help noticing that you have never responded in any way to Tom Clune's first post. It happens to be exactly what I would say, since IMHO, Christian theodicy has been two millenia of wasted time and effort.
quote:
originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that this kind of nonsense is a problem specifically for those Christians who see their faith as essentially propositional -- the kind of irritating Christian who is always asserting that "you can't be a real Chrisitan unless you believe that..."
If you see your faith as knowledge about the world, then the limits of your knowledge are a problem. I just don't have any sympathy for such a view of Christianity. My goal in my faith is to grow in love, not in information. And I am comfortable in the view that growing in love is growing more Christlike. How that fits into the terrible parts of life is not by providing an "explanation," but by conditioning my response to the suffering that I encounter. The real challenge to my faith is how lukewarm my loving response is after all these years. As always, YMMV.
So...?
I think I have heard various parts of the passage quoted by Tom Clune (if not his actual words then ceratinly his tone) so many times and for so many different angles and types of Christain and rarely ever from genuinely seeking non-Christians that I think I only managed a rolling of my eyes and the reading of posts that helped me make up my mind about the question in the post
If I were to add any substance to my eye rolling, at the tone of Mr Clune's post, and his assertions like:
quote:
If you see your faith as knowledge about the world, then the limits of your knowledge are a problem.
quote:
the kind of irritating Christian who is always asserting that "you can't be a real Chrisitan unless you believe that..."
quote:
How that fits into the terrible parts of life is not by providing an "explanation,"
I would say something like:
(1) Heaven forbid that I (because of course I have Faith!) should start to ask questions about the nature of the world, the way it works and the things that happen therein by questioning what most people hear and indeed many of us were taught about an 'all loving God'the 'Being who started it all'.
Worst of all, considering that the limits of my knowledge is the reason why I posted the question as to whether we have something better than theodicy to offer cogent answers to suffering; I can't believe anyone (being the recipient of the type of 'evil' discussed that makes them ask 'where is God in this)would do something so silly as to ask others say, Christians who believe ins said God, to provide a cogent, coherent, and compassionate answer to a glaring (prima facie) contradiction. I mean...I have Faith!
(2)As to the irritating type of Christian who is always asserting: "You can't be a real Christian unless you believe that" I think:
(A) anyone unfortunate enough to meet such a person or view will move on, or ignore their comments and posts, (probably rolling their eyes)and engage with believers who don't consider asking informed questions about real life situations as otiose. They certainly aren't the type of person whose twisted view of theology/ the answering of questions from a Christian perspective, is going to be convinced otherwise by yet more 'knowledge'.
(3) And of course:
quote:
How that fits into the terrible parts of life is not by providing an "explanation," but by conditioning my response to the suffering that I encounter
What? And such a 'response to suffering' should never involve an 'explanation' (as best we can as limited intelligences) to people who, be it watching the news in the comfort of their suburban lives or in a war zone; are asking "your God allows this? Why?!"
I think posts ought to be read without our preconceived annoyances at things we have seen done badly in the past>
To reiterate: I'm asking whether there is a
viable alternative to theodicy, whether we modify our understanding of God/evil or whether we shrug our shoulders do away with any attempt at maintaining premise (1) and (2) and say ' all of it is a mysteryyyy'
I have learned more about the answers to said questions from many of the threads: I would have learned nothing (nor answered my friends question) had I resigned myself to being one of
quote:
those Christians who see their faith as essentially propositional
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
* I said I'd learnt from many of the threads: I meant-'posts':they are truly insightful and helpful btw!
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis):
The gentleman that came up with the need for the problem to be specified in terms of 'gratuitous evil' gave the following accounts of non-gratuitous evil situations:
quote:
It is widely recognized that [the softer bad things=evil] formulation of the problem of evil is seriously flawed. It rules out necessary evils—evils that would exist in any possible universe. <snip> ...
On defense as opposed to theodicy Joel Thomas Tierno: Int J Philos Relig (2006) 59:167–174
OK, I'll bite. What are necessary evils that would exist in any possible universe?
I'm on my way to church, so I'm rushing but I decided to google the phrase as stated. I came up with this web page from which I dislike this quote:
" If the deity is all perfect then any universe created by that deity could not be anything less than perfect. This universe that does exist must therefore be the best possible. If this is so and there is what appears to be evil in this universe then that evil is not really evil at all but some necessary part or feature of the best of all possible worlds. Humans do not have the viewpoint of the deity. Humans cannot see the universe as seen by the deity. Humans focus on some aspect of the whole and give it a name "evil" and then think that evil has some existence or fore on its own. When the entire creation is seen by the deity it appears to be beautiful and what humans call evil is seen by the deity as necessary feature of the overall beautiful creation."
I dislike this because it's been used as a platitude like bad medicine in times I've questioned the trauma foisted upon my life. In paraphrase, it's whatever I consider a wound must really be part of the bandage, since God has only my salvation in mind and therefore, what I see as bad is actually good for me in my specific case.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I wasn't suggesting that there are multiple Supreme Beings in existence, rather asking what characteristics you would have to perceive such a Being to have in order for you to respond with worship.
From what you've said, it sounds as if you think that the Bible accurately describes a God, Whom you respond to by pretending He doesn't exist...
If the sort of God that the Bible describes has no referent, then how can you give the Bible any status at all ?
I find talking about the possible existence of God as if He were an elusive specimen like the Loch Ness Monster to be generally unproductive, and prefer a different approach.
I imagine that you wouldn't worship any being that didn't in some way embody your highest values.
If ultimate benevolence is one of those values, then religious language would have it that you worship an omnibenevolent God. (However personal or impersonal, close or distant, you perceive Him to be).
Best wishes,
Russ
Of course, I was being facetious in asking how many gods I could choose from. But I think your response brings us back to the same issue. We don't get to choose what God is like. He isn't an identikit entity based on everything we wish we could be ourselves. Anyone seeking to worship within that framework isn't worshipping The Supreme God but an idol of their own invention, rooted in their own earthly desires. The protagonist in Albert Camus' 'The Renegade' is a caveat against such behaviour: taking perverse pleasure in the austerity of his religious practices, he comes to worship the tyrant who delivers his desired persecution.
If benevolence is a trait I desire in my self, then it is my responsibility to be benevolent. Going down on one's knees whimpering, 'Oh Omnibenevolent God, I'm so crap - I wish I could be more like you in the benevolence stakes' is an abdication of that responsibility. So no, I wouldn't worship any being that didn't embody my highest values - but neither would I worship any being that did. It just doesn't seem like a productive use of time that could be better spent conducting myself as the sort of person I aspire to be.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
