theodicy

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 11, 2021 5:03 pm

Philosophy of Religion
Chapter 6. The Problem of Evil
Section 4. Theodicy

Madden and Hare: Counter to John Hick

These two philosophers argue against the position of Hick. They claim that Hick commits three fallacies:

All or Nothing fallacy---but, there could be an intermediary position between being free and being robots (puppets)


Okay, but how is that then reconciled with those who claim that their own God is omniscient? It would seem [to me] to be the theological equivalent of peacegirl's free will/no free will frame of mind on her determinism thread.

It could be worse – but, it could be better


Better or worse than what? We'll need a context of course. And God knows what that might be.


Slippery slope (if the world were perfect, humans would need to be robots)...but, the existence of limits is possible (freedom within limits)


You know, whatever that means given a particular set of circumstances. Unless, of course, we really do live in a wholly determined universe. Then all of this terrible pain and suffering derived from a loving, just and merciful God is merely a manifestation of whatever nature compels me, you, all of us to think it is.

They claim that it is possible that there could be a universe created by a deity that could have creatures of free will who do not choose evil. God could have chosen not to permit those humans to be conceived that god knew in advance of their conception would use their free will to choose and to do evil. The deity, God, might permit only those fetuses to develop that creator deity, God, knew in advance would lead to the birth and life of basically good person who would avoid choosing to do evil.


Here of course we are in sim world, dream world, Matrix world territory. Anything able to be "thought up" in our heads is possible to explain "evil"/evil merely by claiming something -- anything -- explains it. And not just the fantastic claims above. Here at ILP we've had any number members over the years who have offered us their own fantastic theological/philosophical assumptions/theories about every possible thing under the sun.

Right, Fixed Jacob? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41647
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Fri May 21, 2021 6:31 pm

Philosophy of Religion
Chapter 6. The Problem of Evil
Section 4. Theodicy

“The Free Will Defense” by Alvin Plantinga

Summary by Meghan Ramsay (QCC, 2004)

In examining the Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga holds that the Free Will Defense is an acceptable method for overcoming the claim that the Problem of Evil negates the existence of God. Plantinga outlines the Free Will Defense as stating, “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable than a world containing no free creatures.” Plantinga also states that in order to create creatures that are freely capable of committing morally good acts, He must also create creatures that are simultaneously just as capable of committing morally evil acts.


Where to even begin...

Suppose we can all agree that there is a rational manner in which to reconcile an all-knowing Creator -- another assumption? -- with human autonomy. Okay, how then do we go about pinning down which human behaviors are, in fact, objectively good and evil? Do or do not all of the multitude of religious denominations down through the ages agree on some things but disagree on others? And that's before we get to all of the vast and varied contexts in which all of the variables are never exactly the same. Though shalt not kill? When and where given what exact set of circumstances? It's okay in a religious crusade? Or to bring down the infidels? Or to stop a doctor who performs abortions?

Additionally, God cannot simultaneously give these creatures the freedom to commit evil and yet prevent them from doing so.


Ah, but here we are ever and always talking about a God that has been "thought up" by mere mortals themselves. At least to the best of my own current knowledge. Unless, unbeknown to me, an actual God has in fact been demonstrated to exist. When God is the stuff of Scriptures, and Scriptures are the stuff of mere mortals, He can accomplish anything at all. For all we know, God has dumped us all into his very own Matrix or sim world contraption. Just to entertain Himself perhaps.

One objection to the Free Will Defense is that it is possible for beings that are capable of committing evil to never do so. Based upon God’s omnipotence, it is possible that a world full of such creatures could exist.


Am I understanding this correctly? God is all powerful, allows mere mortals to freely choose their behaviors, but then prevents them from acting on what, of their own volition, they want to do?

Instead, more likely to be this:

Those who object to the Free Will Defense use this line of argument to assert that either God is not wholly good or that God is not omnipotent.


I am not personally aware of any prominent proponent of the partly bad [or indifferent] God, but Harold Kushner is well known for embracing a God that set into existence a world that has somehow gotten beyond His control. But, again, this would appear to be just more of the same: a God that is defined or thought into existence. With no way to actually establish which it is. Or if any God at all does exist.

Once it comes down to a thought up God, the sky's the limits as to what one proposes that He is:

Plantinga also offers the argument of Leibniz who stated that since before creation, God had the choice of creating any one of a multitude of worlds, and since the omnipotent and all good God chose to create this world, it must be the best possible world.


This world? The best of all possible worlds? In that case this all powerful and all good God is clearly not all knowing. Starting with the Holocaust itself, which must have gotten by him somehow.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41647
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby Dan~ » Sat May 22, 2021 9:42 am

I wrote that evil comes about via primordial fear.
It would require that God protect infants from all forms of trauma and abuse.
Killing all the "bad people" is typical of the Jew-god solution.
But at that point, it is too late.
Bad people are usually wrecked.
Prevention is the real answer to the problem of evil.

God obviously doesn't manifest worth beans in the big picture.

We need the real deal.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10674
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 22, 2021 8:29 pm

Dan~ wrote:I wrote that evil comes about via primordial fear.
It would require that God protect infants from all forms of trauma and abuse.
Killing all the "bad people" is typical of the Jew-god solution.
But at that point, it is too late.
Bad people are usually wrecked.
Prevention is the real answer to the problem of evil.

God obviously doesn't manifest worth beans in the big picture.

We need the real deal.


We'll need a real deal context of course.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41647
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby Dan~ » Sat May 22, 2021 8:50 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Dan~ wrote:I wrote that evil comes about via primordial fear.
It would require that God protect infants from all forms of trauma and abuse.
Killing all the "bad people" is typical of the Jew-god solution.
But at that point, it is too late.
Bad people are usually wrecked.
Prevention is the real answer to the problem of evil.

God obviously doesn't manifest worth beans in the big picture.

We need the real deal.


We'll need a real deal context of course.


Why do you always ask for a context?

Primordial fear is a fear that babies and adults can both feel.
Someone pulls a gun on you, boom, fear.
That can be a context.
Fear of strangers with weapons.

If God doesn't want evil,
he shouldn't let it germinate.
Example of a disease.
Tumors start small, then they get bigger and bigger.
There is another context. Cancer.

Your daughter gets hit by a car.
God wasn't there to prevent that event from happening.
There is a context.
The real deal would be a God that literally
manifests and talks to people.
Instead of sending prophets and sock puppets.
Context would be the history of prophets
being killed for what they said.
Obviously, the 1 prophet method doesn't work.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10674
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: theodicy

Postby Sculptor » Sat May 22, 2021 9:21 pm

iambiguous wrote:Theodicy:

Theodicy means vindication of God. It is to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil. wiki
]


Theodicy is better called Theidiocy is the bleating of fools you cannot understand why an all powerful god is utterly in capable of designing a decent world to live in ; as if god is restrained by some sort of "as good as it gets" crapola.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 22, 2021 9:47 pm

Dan~ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Dan~ wrote:I wrote that evil comes about via primordial fear.
It would require that God protect infants from all forms of trauma and abuse.
Killing all the "bad people" is typical of the Jew-god solution.
But at that point, it is too late.
Bad people are usually wrecked.
Prevention is the real answer to the problem of evil.

God obviously doesn't manifest worth beans in the big picture.

We need the real deal.


We'll need a real deal context of course.


Why do you always ask for a context?

Primordial fear is a fear that babies and adults can both feel.
Someone pulls a gun on you, boom, fear.
That can be a context.
Fear of strangers with weapons.


First, of course, this thread revolves around a God, the God, my God creating a world in which such fear is grimly common. Given the fact that so many of the faithful insist that God is loving, just and merciful. And then the terror that is inflicted upon millions around the globe as a result of this God creating a planet rife with any number of "natural disasters". A God creating, in turn, such critters as HIV and covid19 and malaria and Bubonic plague.

Harold Kushner's God excepted of course.

And then what if the context revolves around, say, the right to bear arms? The fear of those compelled to arm themselves to the teeth. And then the fear of others afraid of those folks.

You generally post what I call "general description intellectual/spiritual contraptions". Fine, that's your prerogative. But they are only of interest to me given the arguments I make here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929

A thread those like you here tend to steer clear of.

Dan~ wrote: If God doesn't want evil,
he shouldn't let it germinate.
Example of a disease.
Tumors start small, then they get bigger and bigger.
There is another context. Cancer.


Yeah, that's my point. God clearly appears to want what most mere mortals would call evil...if one of us brought it into existence. So, folks like those above on this thread try to think up ways to explain that. Given their own understanding of God.

Dan~ wrote: Your daughter gets hit by a car.
God wasn't there to prevent that event from happening.
There is a context.
The real deal would be a God that literally
manifests and talks to people.
Instead of sending prophets and sock puppets.
Context would be the history of prophets
being killed for what they said.
Obviously, the 1 prophet method doesn't work.


Note to others:

You tell me where he is going with this.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41647
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 30, 2021 6:15 pm

THE PROBLEM OF THEODICY.
BY EZRA KLEIN
at The American Prospect

This is an interesting point from Ross Douthat:

"Consider, for instance, the way in which the dominance of the Christian story has actually sharpened one of the best arrows in the anti-theist's quiver. In Western society, especially, the oft-heard claim that the world is too cruel a place for a good omnipotence to have created derives a great deal of its power, whether implicitly or explicitly, from the person of Christ himself. The God of the New Testament seems more immediate, more personal, and more invested in his creation than He had heretofore revealed Himself to be. But this arguably makes Him seem more culpable for the world's suffering as well. Paradoxically, the God who addresses Job out of the whirlwind is far less vulnerable to complaints about the world's injustice than the God who suffers on the Cross - or the human God who cries in the manger. For many Christians, Christ's suffering provides a partial answer to the problem of theodicy. But for many atheists and agnostics, it only sharpens the question: How can a God who loves mankind enough to die for us allow us to suffer as much as we do?


First of all, Christians need to explain how Yahweh of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ of the New Testament are one and the same God. What difference does it make to make the comparison in regard to human pain and suffering, if they are both the same Dude? It is like some Christians way back then, after seeing just how horrific God actually could be in the Old Testament, figured it was time to show the world another side of Him.

As for, "How can a God who loves mankind enough to die for us allow us to suffer as much as we do?", is there really anything other than either 1] Kushner's less than omnipotent God 2] an omniscient and omnipotent God who works in "mysterious ways".

To put it slightly differently, the God of the Christian Gospels offers more "testable" claims than the God of the Torah. It's not terribly hard to believe that the God who ended Saul's Kingship because he decided not to kill the wives, children, and livestock of the Amalakites wouldn't much concern himself with childhood leukemia. It's harder to say the same of Christ. What makes Christianity so emotionally appealing to some is also what makes it so intellectually vulnerable to others.


There it is in a nutshell. Most progressive Christians bring us around time and again to Jesus Christ...the socialist? Whereas Jews have Yahweh. And how difficult, with a God like Him, is it to rationalize, among other things, the historical plight of the Palestinians given the creation of Israel?

You get the God you need it seems. So, who do you need God to be?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41647
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Jun 01, 2021 4:10 am

It seems taking the English translation of the Bible at face value, particularly the Old Testament, provides logic problems equating the Gods of the Old and New Testament. Thus the creation of the "Demiurge" by Gnostics to explain the God of the Old Testament as opposed to God the Father and Christ in the New. I think the answer might lie in a denial of the inerrancy of the Old Testament and the New in terms of the discrepancy between human-powered meritocracy in the earning of Heaven and Christ-replication in the Christianity of Paul.

As it is, I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to deny iambiguous' observations.

Pantheopsychic theology is the best way to go.

PG
Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?

A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


Image

Jay Marcus Brewer
Austin, Texas
Email: [email protected]
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Texas

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:37 pm

Student Zone
Philosophy of religion » The problem of evil
at The Tablet website

God as either not powerful, not aware or not loving

The first approach has been taken by various different scholars. Some, from John Stuart Mill to Jürgen Moltmann, have suggested that the only acceptable way to defend God against charges of creating or allowing evil and suffering is to argue that there are limits to his power. This leaves God knowing about and understanding our suffering and wishing to do everything possible to ameliorate our situation – but being effectively impotent. For others this God would not be worthy of worship. They prefer to argue that God could act but does not do so either because he does not know about our suffering (as the little-known Socinian Movement suggested) or that God's goodness is more akin to justice than love for humanity. This approach was popular with some Jewish scholars after the Holocaust but has not been popular with Christians, who have more of an interest in defending God's loving, forgiving nature.


Again, that's the beauty of believing in God based on more or less blind faith. Or based on one or another Scripture. He can become whatever you need Him to be. He can be twisted into any spiritual shape you need Him to be twisted into in order to make sense of the world that you live in...the world as you understand it to be. As though God is a character in a novel that you are writing. Or reading.

Of course some Jewish scholars are going to go down this path given the Holocaust. It may not be the perfect explanation but surely it is better than having to believe that there is no ultimate meaning beyond the genocide of your own people. That the Holocaust in a No God world is just another manifestation of the "brute facticity" rooted in an essentially meaningless world.

In other words, theodicy, not unlike God Himself, works in mysterious ways.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41647
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: theodicy

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:50 pm

Student Zone
Philosophy of religion » The problem of evil
at The Tablet website

St Thomas Aquinas succeeded in maintaining the principle of God's perfection by redefining the concept of God.


Beautiful! You can't actually produce this God of yours in order that He might explain all of the terrible pain and suffering that is deeply embedded throughout the whole of nature, so you redefine Him conceptually in order that nature itself is subsumed in the definition.

Just as the No God Humanists among us will encompass the meaning of such things as Freedom and Justice by subsuming that meaning into their own assumptions regarding conflicting goods.

If God is wholly simple, beyond time and space, then the meaning of labels such as "omnipotent", "omniscient" and "omnibenevolent" is only analogous, "univocal" or literal. For God to be timelessly good does not involve moral choices or preferring humanity to other species, let alone some people over others.


Got that? Another bunch of words totally divorced from a context that can come to mean anything that you "think up". Like your own conceptual understanding of "moral choice" itself.

For Aquinas, God's goodness means just that God is fully actual, being all that God can be. His power is just in being responsible for creation and his knowledge in having defined that creation. There is, for Aquinas, no question of there being any inconsistency or irrationality in believing in the perfection of God and the existence of evil – though to be safe Aquinas, like St Augustine, chooses to define evil as a lack, a negative quality, rather than ascribing to it any positive nature. Aquinas therefore adopts the second and fourth approach as well as the first.


How about this, then: "For God, Aquinas..."

What follows then predicated solely on God's own definition and meaning. And, sure, why not "define evil as a lack".

Anyone here willing to go there?

We focus in on things like "natural disasters" or "''congenital birth defects" or all the ghastly pain and suffering endured by the truly innocent children around the globe and explain it all away "negatively" as Aquinas would define a God able to explain it all away Himself.

For example, as a manifestation of His now rather infamous "mysterious ways".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41647
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users