Key Theodicy Related Texts (From Theses)

Key Theodicy Related Texts (From Theses)

Revised November 1, 2021, reformatting due to Blogger template updates

I have summarized theodicy material from various posts with new book cover graphics to create something different. I actually discovered in the process that 'The Many Faces of Evil' is now back in print in a new version and ordered it from Amazon.

It actually was out of print during my MPhil/PhD theses work and I had a photo copy. That was not good to work with as a primary source for a PhD thesis. The books are not ordered in any way... 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. 

The question does arise if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. 

I reason in my PhD and on my website work that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately possess a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. 

Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

This was very helpful to me in working through material that was primarily within the Philosophy/ Philosophy of Religion discipline, while working within Wales' Religion and Theology departments. My theses were as much Philosophy of Religion as Theology.   

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. 

Kantian philosophy originates from philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). It would take years of research to become a scholar of Kant, it is complex material. In his Inaugural Dissertation of 1770, 

Kant provides the idea that persons can only have a priori knowledge of space and time by the use of forms of the mind, which are imposed by human experience. 

With the Introduction to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, he noted that a priori knowledge originates independently of senses and experience. In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. 

Human experience will determine the method and forms by which particular things are understood by what Kant calls pure intuition. Concerning human experience, Kant reasoned categories are applied to objects not because the objects make the categories possible, but rather because categories themselves provide and constitute necessary conditions for the representation for all possible objects of experience. 

Therefore any human understanding of metaphysical reality would not be comprehended by empirical knowledge in a posteriori sense. Kant reasons objects that were present in empirical human experience were in the phenomena realm, while objects outside were the noumena realm. 

He writes that the contingent things experienced by persons are phenomena. These are things that could be experienced empirically and would be reasonably accepted as reality. The noumena realm was not available to empirical senses. 

Kant explains in a follow up work entitled The Critique of Practical Reason from 1788, that the noumena is the theoretical department of knowledge denied, while the phenomena is one’s own empirical consciousness. All positive speculative knowledge should be disclaimed for the noumena realm according to Kantian thought. Kant concludes 

The Critique of Practical Reason by noting that the phenomena realm is the external realm where consciousness has existence. The noumena realm is invisible and has true infinity where Kant believes one can reason that contingent personality is dependent on the universal and necessary connection to the invisible world. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

The late D. Z. Phillips was what I found to be an intelligent and interesting, educated, critic of traditional Christianity, although he did not change my Reformed views on God's omnipotence, for example. I was required by my PhD examiners to focus on more of this philosopher's work for my PhD revisions. 

Phillips argued God was not omnipotent because he could ride a physical bike as was discussed in one of the archived posts that also had an audio version. I agree with Phillips that it is not illogical for God as spirit to ride a physical bike. 

But he reasons God is therefore not omnipotent as God cannot ride a bike. In a sense God as spirit could move the bike as if it was being ridden by a person and it could be considered ridden, although strictly speaking he would not be sitting on it and riding it. 

This first suggestion would not satisfy many critics, but may satisfy some theists in particular. I can see the point that some may suggest, that it would be illogical for a being of spirit only to do anything physical. But in regard to God I lean away from this view because of my suggestions and because it appears to limit God from logically acting in the physical universe which the infinite, omnipotent God should be able to do and did in Scripture.

I therefore offer the suggestion in agreement with John Frame (I read Frame after I had come to the similar conclusion) that God could remain as spirit in nature only and yet still temporarily take some type of physical form to ride the bike/do a physical action (Phillips suggests bicycle and not Frame). 

This would not be the same as my other suggestion of Christ riding the bike, which could also be accomplished, as Christ has both the eternal nature of God in spirit and has taken human nature in the incarnation, although the two natures do not mix. 

At the same time I can grant Frame the point that God's omnipotence should not be challenged by the physical finite actions that God does not by nature do. He is correct that it is not a weakness. God is in fact beyond physical limitations.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. 

Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). 

He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292). 

I can deduce that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates. 

By the way, I just noticed, sad to read Professor Hick passed away in February at the age of 90.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

Technically not a text directly concerned with theodicy or with the problem with evil, but the text is concerned with concepts of free will and determinism which are connected to modern concepts of compatibilism and incompatibilism. 

The text would be very historically influential in the development of Reformed Biblical concepts of compatibilism/soft-determinism. I found it very useful and it guided me as did Feinberg's book.

He wrote in 1543 in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. 'If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection.' Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. 

As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). His work influenced my own significantly in regard to the development of concepts on compatibilism, incompatibilism, and theodicy.  

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S. Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26).

Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. 

Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98). 

Panentheism (PhD Edit)/iTunes Personally Evolving Toward Classical

London, Greenwich (trekearth.com)

March 26, 2012

Panentheism

Process theism approaches are sometimes referred to as being panentheistic.[1] The two approaches are not identical but process theism moves in the direction of panentheism.[2] David H. Nikkel (2003) defines panentheism as from the Greek meaning ‘all is in God.’[3] Both God’s transcendence and immanence are accepted, as the world and matter is in God, and God is ‘all-encompassing with respect to being.’[4] Panentheism is not identical to pantheism which postulates that ‘God is identical with everything’[5] or that God is in everything and that God and the universe are one.[6] The difference being that panentheism understands ‘God is in all things’[7] but not identical with all things as with pantheism.[8] As example, God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my traditional Christian theistic understanding God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it.[9] Panentheism attempts to ‘avoid the pitfalls’ of traditional theism.[10] God is prohibited from having a true and genuine relationship with matter and the universe because of traditional theistic views such as that God is immutable, impassible, and eternal and timeless.[11] Panentheism is an intellectual compromise between traditional theism and pantheism.[12] God is more than just the material universe, as there is an unchanging aspect to God’s being and also a dynamic aspect to God as the divine being changes as matter and the universe do.[13] German philosopher, F.W. J. Schelling [14] (1845)(1936) reasons: ‘As there is nothing before or outside of God, he must contain within himself the ground of his existence.’[15] He reasons God’s nature is inseparable from God and yet can be distinguished.[16] Panentheism can reasonably be understood as an overarching view within many process theism approaches[17] which I have contrasted with my own views.[18]

---

[1] Geisler (1975: 153).

[2] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142). I am not stating that this is the case in every documented view of process theism, but it is generally true that the two views are closely related.

[3] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[4] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[5] Martinich (1996: 556).

[6] Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy

[7] Martinich (1996: 556). The doctrine that all things exist in God. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[8] Martinich (1996: 556).

[9] This is my example based on Erickson’s presentation. Erickson (1994: 303-307).

[10] Nikkel (2003: 1). Many modern theologians and philosophers now question the concept of an eternal God. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[11] Nikkel (2003: 1). God is not eternal within this view. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[12] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[13] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[14] Schelling lived (1775-1854). Blackburn (1996: 341).

[15] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32).

[16] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32). Schelling sought to deflect criticisms that he was a pantheist. ‘Unity is of essence, but so is diversity.’ Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxxi). However, his comments make it possible that he had views which were perhaps panentheistic. Material things are dependent on God and yet independent.

[17] Including that of Whitehead. Nikkel (2003: 2-3). Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142).

[18] My views are Reformed but not strictly within a certain camp such as Presbyterian or Baptist. I have primarily come to my Reformed views through MPhil and PhD research.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GUTMANN, JAMES (1845)(1936) ‘Introduction’ in SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

KREEFT, PETER and RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

MARTINICH, A.P. (1999) ‘Pantheism’ in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York.

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

Fire Lake, BC (trekearth.com)

Sole Porto Ferraio, Italy (trekearth.com)

Yahoo Background Image

iTunes Personally Evolving Toward Classical

My former desktop and PhD computer had been infected via YouTube with Zero Access RootKit viruses as discussed on the satire and theology blog. This required a Windows operating system reformat and a reloading of the one week plus worth of songs on iTunes. I have a decent collection of compact CDs from rock (progressive, art), jazz (fusion) and classical music. This has been a collection I have gathered slowly over the years, mainly several years ago. There was then a power outage in our building and I went to visit my Mother in the hospital. I arrived home and the power was restored but a power surge had destroyed the motherboard/mainboard on my desktop computer. I was forced to replace my computer and decided to buy my first modern notebook. My iTunes were of course lost. I am presently at the one week point at reloading iTunes as I type this post. This is just a ‘best of’ from my collection and selection from most discs, I rarely will copy entire discs. That is how I prefer to listen to music. I then set iTunes to random.

I rarely purchase CDs now and when I do they are primarily classical discs. Also the prediction I made to Uncle Chuck about fifteen years ago is basically true. I stated that based on the music trends of the time I would primarily run out of interesting progressive, innovative music to collect in the rock and jazz genres and start collecting more classical discs. Basically from the 1990s onward formerly progressive more innovative rock and jazz artists from the 1970s and 1980s tended to resort to playing for marketing purposes more typical rock, or more typical jazz, and I am not usually interested in such but like rock fusion, more commonly known as progressive rock and jazz fusion. These tend to be more innovative and complex. Also I suppose it would be difficult in today’s music scene for a new music act to make it in rock or jazz commercially performing progressive, fusion music that was not considered mainstream or within one genre.

The issue of secular lyrics has never been an important for me as an adult. For one, I have never paid much attention to them. Two, I am in agreement with a former professor from Columbia Bible College that there is no solid proof that hearing lyrics that one disagrees with in music will necessarily influence a person’s views for the negative. In fact, he suggested it might just as easily have the opposite effect of putting the listener against what the artist is stating.

As well, after four degrees and in particular two secular theses degrees focusing on theodicy, the problem of evil within Philosophy of Religion and Theology, there were many things I read that I disagreed with, and it is quite frankly possible to enjoy aspects of an author while disagreeing with other aspects. This is so even with atheists and critics of Christianity. It also possible to learn from someone that has a different worldwiew on some specific points. So, one could potentially listen to an artist for the musicianship and enjoy it while disagreeing with some of the lyrics. However, as noted in my case I think lyrics have little overall impact.

I prefer how much less in price most classical discs are compared to other genres of music. I suppose the older classical music is considered public domain and there is no estate to collect royalties. 'Newer' recordings of these artists would have copyrights by record companies and orchestras but not necessarily the estates of these artists.


First warm day of Spring 2012, April 7 (Blackberry photo)