Trying to understand the critic

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