Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)
Heads up!
I quit flying with Air Transit (Air Sardine Can) because of lack of leg room. I heard on the news recently that they were adding leg room.
Both the critic and Christian can agree the certain human needs are not met in this world. The blind need to see, the starving need to eat, and the sick need to be healthy. It is natural to desire that basic human needs to be met, and it is natural for human beings to seek fulfilment. The Christian should accept that God exists and has revealed himself and his plans in a limited fashion in Scripture, and that God is just in willingly allowing the problem of evil. God has a plan to remedy evil through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, and the eventual culminated Kingdom of God. The critic will often reject this supernatural revelation and related theology, especially if he/she is not a theist. The Christian may reason that God is the first cause and that this makes much more sense than the idea of an eternal universe with a vicious regress (a regress that does not solve its own problem as in this case an infinite past cannot arrive at the present) or non-eternal universe beginning to exist by chance. The critic, especially if not a theist, may reject the idea of the Biblical God as creator.
The critic and Christian can share in anger and frustration toward God. I know this is a controversial subject, but to suffer great loss and disappointment effects both the critic and believer alike. I can relate to the critic’s anger with God, but through my studies of theology, Biblical studies, and philosophy of religion, I reason that Scripture and reason inform me that as God has revealed himself through prophets, apostles and Christ, he is worth trusting in as a good God. Therefore, theologically and philosophically the existence of God, or his existence as a benevolent God is not dependent on human needs and human fulfilment being met. This does not mean that if a need is not met, it is not a true need, but rather that God has more important needs and plans in regard to an individual. This is often very brutal and very painful to tolerate and accept for persons, including myself. But when God’s perfect nature is understood, and imperfect sinful human nature is understood, God can be viewed as using the problem of evil for the greater good while dealing with creatures that according to the book of Romans, do not have their own righteousness, will not seek God on their own, and have sin that makes them worthy of death. The concept of a post-mortem punishment and separation from God is also noted with everlasting hell from Jesus’ teaching and with the lake of fire in Revelation, Chapter 20.
The critic and Christian can agree significantly concerning the difficult nature of this universe and the harsh way in which God often treats persons who all eventually end up dead, whether they trust in Christ or not. Human beings cause some suffering upon themselves through wrong actions which God willingly allows, but other things happen to persons that God has willed that were out of human control. The critic could claim that this type of evil makes God’s existence unlikely, but one should know that intellectually denying historically based Biblical supernatural revelation is problematic, and that the problem of origins without a first cause God presents a greater intellectual problem than does the problem of evil. If one does not have some reasonable explanation for origins and first cause, one will also not significantly understand where the process of human existence is being directed. I am very much in favour of the study of science, and not judging science by Scripture, but science in itself does not provide the meaning of life that Biblical revelation does.
End
Philosophical theology and philosophy of religion are the two main featured disciplines in my MPhil and PhD theses work. Philosophical theology deals primarily with problem of evil/theodicy issues from theological and Biblical perspectives, whereas philosophy of religion deals with the same issues primarily from philosophical perspectives. Another distinction would be the academic department where one takes a dissertation. My theses have both been completed in Religion and Theology departments, but could have been completed in philosophy departments without major changes in the projects, I reason.
This being said, I have had to read through philosophical journals and texts and some of the terminology is different than one will often find in theology and Biblical commentaries. This can be challenging work.
Here is one example with some practical explanation. Terminology is often made simpler by a little bit of study and reflection. Therefore this aspect of the article is really not all that difficult to comment on once terminology is somewhat understood. I discuss these terms since one may come across them while reading philosophy of religion material.
Counterfactual Conditional:
Simon Blackburn notes that these are also known as subjective conditionals, although the terms do not always coincide. Blackburn (1996: 85). A counterfactual is a conditional (hypothetical statement) of a form if p were to occur q would, or if p happened q would occur, where the proposition of p is contrary to the known fact, which would be not-p, this would be a counterfactual conditional. Blackburn (1996: 85-86). So simply stated as example, ‘if your hand had been broken, the diagnosis would have been different, would be a counterfactual condition even as the facts are that the hand was not broken. Blackburn (1996: 86). Blackburn explains that there is growing awareness that the classification of conditionals is ‘extremely tricky business’ and categorizing them as a counterfactual or not may be of limited use. Blackburn (1996: 86).
Wayne A. Davis provides another explanation in that contrary-to-fact conditionals, which are subjunctive conditionals presuppose the falsity of a prior proposition. The example used states ‘If Hitler has invaded England, Germany would have won’. Davis (1996: 163). Counterfactuals presuppose and do not assert the falsity of the antecedent (prior) statement/proposition. Blackburn notes that wherever the conditional (hypothetical statement) comes out true, p (the contrary proposition) would be false. Blackburn (1996: 86).
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
DAVIS, WAYNE A. (1996) ‘Counterfactuals’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
End
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/friday-fun-playing-age-game.html
Hoo ray!
ReplyDeleteI get to be the first to post a message to your comment list for this entry.
I have not read it yet. I will this evening.
Also, I want to let you know that I discovered having a large list of interest (on your profile), even peripheral interest is another source of links. So, I add as many as fit my interest.
Russ, have you read Tim Keller's new book, The Reason for God? If not, you should. He masterfully deals with some of these issues you bring up. He deals with a lot of the arguments from the critics, as you call them, and presents a wonderful, reasoned, and passionate defense of Christianity in return. I encourage you to read it if you haven't already. We are going to be teaching from it for our adult Sunday School class at church. It will hopefully equip our people a little better to interact with those around them who do not have not put their faith in the gospel.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jim.
ReplyDeleteI also see that another blog has linked this article.
Thanks, Jake.
ReplyDeleteI have heard of Tim Keller from pastors at church and have been to his blog. He seems quite educated.
Jake, please feel free to post parts of the book on here if you wish.
My article is in the context of the problem of evil and theodicy, but I am approaching the topic from a different academic perspective than with the PhD. With my MPhil, writers such as McGrath and Carson dealt with some of the psychological/theological aspects of dealing with critics and the problem of evil. I suppose this article is dealing with the issue in a somewhat similar fashion.
"but rather that God has more important needs and plans in regard to an individual. This is often very brutal and very painful to tolerate and accept for..."
ReplyDeleteGrowing up in north of the Mason - Dixon line, and finding myself living among the 'hospitable' Southerners of Virgini, I had a difficult time understanding how I used to be misunderstood on a regular basis.
Another friend of mine also named Russell, from New Jersey says what is on his mind and it does not strike me as shocking.
I asked Russell, "Why do you think people are fragile to negative truth? However, as long as you praise them with the truth, that is completely acceptable."
Russell said, "I'm not being negative. I'm being real!"
People do not want to hear about God having a more important purpose than that of what the individual may be calling God "unfair" over.
The more important issue with God, than any other is, "Do you love me?" Our agenda is always for self. What God wants to know is, do we love Him. This brings a new idea for me to look into. The issue of Peter denying Christ Three times. Jesus asking, "Do you love me?" You can be sure to see a post from me on this issue.
I have brought this to a group of friends whom I meet with regularly. I have asked, "What is more important to God; our salvation or our bodies being healed?" This puts a person with their back to the wall. What do you think the concensus was?
Our salvation (relationship).
I have asked, "What is more important to God; our salvation or our bodies being healed?" This puts a person with their back to the wall. What do you think the concensus was?
ReplyDeleteOur salvation (relationship).
Cheers, Jim.
I agree. But, suffering is very real and the Christian can relate to the critic where needs are not met and suffering results.
I have heard some Christians state that God meets all of our needs, but that is only true in this life in the context of God's plans and purposes for his children which also include the use of discipline and suffering.
Evangelical errors to avoid concerning this topic are, denying true suffering as legitimate, as human needs are not always met, and fulfilment does not take place, and overemphasizing human free will in the process, over God's sovereign will. The blind person does need to see even as God wills otherwise. This does not make God unjust or lacking in power, but means that persons in Christ will have to wait for a restored universe for all needs to be met and for far greater fulfilment. In regard to the problem of evil and theodicy, my type of approach with critics works better than negating human suffering and putting too much emphasis on human free will in suffering. I realize some human suffering is a result of individual human sin and foolishness, but much of it is not. The worldlier a person is, the more evil he/she may bring evil upon himself/herself.
Russ:)
As far as 'first cause,' the Atheist must accept the "theory" of Evolution. Yet Evolution (not counting Theistic Evolution) is based on Spontaneous Generation, which was DISPROVED in the 1800's (and yet is still being purported today in schools and universities).
ReplyDeleteThe only other alternative, as far as I know, is Panspermia, the theory of the extraterrestrial origin of life. But this really does nothing as far as explaining the origin of all life.
And as far as the problem of pain, people want to blame God for all the evils in the world, yet MAN'S SIN is what originated all the pain, suffering and evil to begin with. If Adam and Eve (and mankind) had never sinned, there would BE no such thing as pain or suffering or evil on Earth (it would only exist among the fallen angels).
Counterfactual Conditional #1:
ReplyDeleteIf God did not exist, Macro-Evolution would most certainly have to be a fact.
Counterfactual Conditional #2:
If God did not exist, NOTHING would exist!
Excellent points of evolution, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the origin of evil is concerned, I reason it did start with the rebellion of fallen angels and was followed by human rebellion. From my MPhil and PhD studies I know critics will state that God could have prevented this by creating other types of creatures with free will that would not have fallen. The free will theodicy people state this would not be significant freedom. I side with critics on this point, but reason that God had good reasons for creating angels and human beings that he knew would freely fall, without being forced or coerced to do so, as God planned to restore some of humanity through Christ. So, in a sense God is responsible for evil as he could have prevented it and created significantly free creatures that would not sin, as did the angels that did not rebel against God. It must be understood that God is morally just in making significantly free creatures that would not sin or significantly free creatures that would sin, as he does not force or coerce obedience or rebellion to happen and his motives are pure. With the second option those persons in Christ who have been restored from the problem of evil may be considered more beneficial to God than human beings that never fell and were not saved by God.
Human beings cannot be made with experience and the experience of sin, the problem of evil, death and salvation may be considered extremely valuable by God for his children to possess.
Many Christians today seem to believe that all suffering comes from Satan, not from God. With some of them, they apparently believe that natural disasters like hurricanes also come from Satan. After going through Hurricane Andrew, the Pastor of the church I was attending blamed the hurricane on Satan.
ReplyDeleteSome Christians seem to think that, because God loves us, He would never cause us suffering. And, though they believe that God never changes, at the same time, if you show them examples of God's strict discipline in the Old Testament, their response is, "Yes, but that's the OLD Testament. We're living in the Age of Grace now!" And yet, even in the New Testament, with the beginning of the Church, there was strict discipline (i.e., Annas and Saphira; also, Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:20..."The people kept shouting, "The voice of a god, and not of a mortal!" And immediately, because he had not given the glory to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.")
...I know critics will state that God could have prevented this by creating other types of creatures with free will that would not have fallen. The free will theodicy people state this would not be significant freedom.
ReplyDeleteGod is a God of relationships. The Trinity is a relationship of Persons in one Being; God has a relationship with the holy angels; God has a relationship with His chosen people. Disallowing free will is to disallow real relationship.
As far as creating free will/free choice that cannot choose evil, as some have suggested that God should have done, this is an impossibility. God is omniscient, but omniscience does not include creating fictional, imaginary things which are self-contradictory (i.e., creating a rock so big/heavy that even He can't lift it). He creates things that are real.
Counterfactual Conditional:
ReplyDeleteIf British Columbia had joined the United States, taxes would be less.
So, in a sense God is responsible for evil as he could have prevented it and created significantly free creatures that would not sin, as did the angels that did not rebel against God. It must be understood that God is morally just in making significantly free creatures that would not sin or significantly free creatures that would sin, as he does not force or coerce obedience or rebellion to happen and his motives are pure. With the second option those persons in Christ who have been restored from the problem of evil may be considered more beneficial to God than human beings that never fell and were not saved by God.
ReplyDeleteI can't address the issue with angels, since the Bible is silent on whether or not God gave the holy angels the ability to sin (though, obviously, the fallen angels do have that ability).
But as far as mankind, I think the issue bears similarity to Election vs. Free Will. Obviously, God did not create any human without the ability to sin, as evidenced by the fact that we are all sinners. And, even redeemed Christians continue to sin.
But as far as Election, its not that God prevents anyone from going to Heaven. Rather, He enables some to go to Heaven. And, that is not an enabling coupled with free will, as some believe (to me, 'enabling' coupled with 'free will' is an oxymoron, because the two terms cancel each other out, similar to the way that 'salvation by works' and 'salvation by faith' cancel each other out, so that 'salvation by works + faith' is an oxymoron). Instead, He insures that they indeed will go to Heaven (and therefore, you cannot lose your salvation).
For, if even any part of the process was left up to man's free will (including the false idea that God chose those whom He knew would accept Him, which is really not a choosing at all, because that would still be man's choosing), without God securely assuring and guaranteeing their salvation (by His predetermined and unchangeable choice), then it could theoretically happen that NOBODY would accept Christ, and Heaven would then be empty of ANY people.
In other words, if free will is true, then a Heaven without any people would be the risk, and would be a very real possibility, because free will cannot guarantee that anyone accepts Christ at all.
As far as creating free will/free choice that cannot choose evil, as some have suggested that God should have done, this is an impossibility. God is omniscient, but omniscience does not include creating fictional, imaginary things which are self-contradictory (i.e., creating a rock so big/heavy that even He can't lift it). He creates things that are real.
ReplyDeleteThis is classic free will theodicy accepted by many evangelicals. A problem with the view is that in the culminated Kingdom it is believed that human beings will not sin and cannot sin. They could sin if they were left to their own natures, as a human fall could occur again, but as they are filled with the Holy Spirit they are determined not to sin. As well, as they have experienced sin, the problem of evil, and restoration, this experience can be used by God in prohibiting any sin.
Jeff, God is more free than any being, and yet he cannot sin by nature, and this is not contradictory. Therefore God could make and maintain significantly free creatures that cannot sin.
Thanks
Russ:)
Counterfactual Conditional:
ReplyDeleteIf British Columbia had joined the United States, it would have to pay for privatized health care instead of higher taxes.
(The least of 3 evils: privatized health care/medicine or HMOs? ...or taxes?)
My brother in Arizona pays 26% income tax, and here in BC we pay 50%. My brother can afford to pay his health insurance and is still ahead.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
This is classic free will theodicy accepted by many evangelicals. A problem with the view is that in the culminated Kingdom it is believed that human beings will not sin and cannot sin. They could sin if they were left to their own natures, as a human fall could occur again, but as they are filled with the Holy Spirit they are determined not to sin. As well, as they have experienced sin, the problem of evil, and restoration, this experience can be used by God in prohibiting any sin.
ReplyDeleteJeff, God is more free than any being, and yet he cannot sin by nature, and this is not contradictory. Therefore God could make and maintain significantly free creatures that cannot sin.
Thanks.
Good points. But you didn't have to post it twice. I got it the first time. No need for re-emphasis. LOL!
Ah, you've already deleted the double-post. My reply was too hasty.
ReplyDeleteto me, 'enabling' coupled with 'free will' is an oxymoron, because the two terms cancel each other out,
ReplyDeleteI believe in limited compatibilistic freewill. This means God wills all things as the primary casue and humans beings are a secondary cause. Without this we have hard determinism.:)
Jeff, God is more free than any being, and yet he cannot sin by nature, and this is not contradictory. Therefore God could make and maintain significantly free creatures that cannot sin.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Good points. But you didn't have to post it twice. I got it the first time. No need for re-emphasis. LOL!
Jeff, thanks much.
That is a devastating point against notions of libertarian free will, in regard to the idea that a significantly free being must have the ability to choose good or evil.
I edit comments often.:)
I believe in limited compatibilistic freewill. This means God wills all things as the primary casue and humans beings are a secondary cause.
ReplyDeleteIs that related to the idea of the two wills of God?
"1. God’s Revealed Will of Command (Preceptive Will) — That which God commands for us to do, but which is not always carried out as it should be.
2. God’s Secret Will of Decree — That which God has eternally planned for everything and which always comes to pass.
The first one of these, the Lord’s Will of Command, is revealed in Scripture for us to discern in the present what God wants each of us to do and be. (eg. I Thess. 4:1-8)
The second will, the Lord’s Will of Decree, is kept hidden (for the most part) and we discover it when it happens (and it always happens). (eg. Deut. 29:29; Eph. 1:11)"
http://radicallybiblical.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/the-two-wills-of-god/
OR:
"First, there is what we might call God's moral will. This is also known as his preceptual will or will of command."
"Here are a couple of places where the term will of God is used this way:
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. (Mark 3:35 KJV)
In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. (1 Thessalonians 5:18 KJV)"
"The second way the term God's will is used in scripture can be called God's sovereign will, or some call it His will of decree or secret will. Sometimes in scripture we also find this called God's purpose, or the counsel of His will, or his predetermined plan. This sort of will is God's plan for the history of creation, the way He has decided that history will unfold. This plan includes both the things God actively brings about and the things He has decided to allow for His own good purposes. Here are a couple of places in scripture that mention this type of will:
And all the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and [among] the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Daniel 4:35 KJV)
Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. (Romans 1:10 KJV)
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will... (Ephesians 1:11)"
http://everydaymusings.blogspot.com/2004/05/two-wills-of-god.html
My brother in Arizona pays 26% income tax, and here in BC we pay 50%. My brother can afford to pay his health insurance and is still ahead.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a huge difference!
Though we are now practically paying extortionist's rates for health care and medicine here in the U.S., the alternative, government-paid health care, would seem to me to be even worse. I suspect the quality would suffer, as you would presumably be treated like a cattle line. Government workers (i.e., post office employees, driver license office employees, etc.) are some of the slowest, unhappiest, most unconcerned, most lackadaisical employees I have ever seen. I would think that trusting them with my health---especially in an emergency situation---would be a nightmare.
I believe in limited compatibilistic freewill. This means God wills all things as the primary cause and humans beings are a secondary cause. Without this we have hard determinism.:)
ReplyDeleteThe context was human actions. Human beings do not will all things of course. God does have two wills, perfect and permissible.
Russ:)
I suspect the quality would suffer, as you would presumably be treated like a cattle line.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, unless it is a private/public partnership that keeps the best medical professionals working in the country.
I've heard a lot of good about Tim Keller's book, but I haven't yet read it.
ReplyDeleteLike Jeff was saying, many people seem to blame every bad thing on the Devil. I even had one person say to me when talking about some natural disaster, "Well, Satan is back to his old tricks again." A lot of people also seem to like to blame God for a lot of bad things - especially atheists. I find it rather contradictory that they don't believe in a God, and yet, when a natural disaster happens, suddenly they're wondering where God was. You see it in the newspaper all the time. I guess it's their way of using God against us. When debating about atheist ideas, I love doing it to them too. Most of them are so good at debating that they can make a pretty logical sounding statement, and yet, it's not founded on anything but chance.
I have come across some friendly atheists, but with many of them there is an anger against God. I can relate to the anger, but the problem of evil does not intellectually make God less likely once one understands a well reasoned sovereignty theodicy as I have explained in this article and on this blog.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Abbey.
Hi Russ, I'm back.
ReplyDeleteI liked this post. I liked this little bit you wrote; "who all eventually end up dead." At funerals I see God clearly because God is love and the people that are left feel love very strongly at this point in time. I have been able to used this simple fact often to point out that we being created in His Image feel that pain of love as well and the joy of love. I lived on a farm for the first 15 years of my life and never saw the cows have one funeral service.
Catch you again soon. I will be dropping in more often now I'm back.
Russell.
Hi, Russell, wise words as usual.
ReplyDeleteYes, as although cows are important to God, they are not likely made in his image, and Christ did not die for them.
I just commented on your newest article and my latest posting on satire and theology has quite a few comments, a few more than this one does.
Thanks, as always.