Atheism Anti-Theodicy And Praxis (PhD Edit)

Wales coast via trekearth

Atheism Anti-Theodicy And Praxis (PhD Edit)

PhD Full Version PDF 

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Edited on July 15, 2022 for an entry on academia.edu.

---

Why an Atheistic Anti-Theodicy is not Included in the Thesis

One, my sample[1] has to be a certain group, and my advisors for both my MPhil[2] and PhD[3] work determined it must be persons within the Christian Church.  Therefore, sampling atheists would need to be necessarily excluded and I would not review as a primary philosophical presentation a perspective that could not provide me with an empirical sampling.[4]  

Two, there are key atheistic presentations within the work.[5]  The problem of evil itself is largely a critical and sometimes an atheistic criticism of theism and Christianity.[6]  This can be seen as the problem, as framed within the initial pages of the introduction,  and with the atheistic objections of Flew and Mackie,[7] as well as with the argument for gratuitous evil from William Rowe,[8] and with critics of John Hick’s theodicy.[9]  Atheism and an overall critical view of Christianity, from traditional and progressive perspectives, will be examined within this work,[10] but the sample group is those that attend Christian Churches.  Therefore, it was deemed not necessary or appropriate within the context of this thesis to review an atheistic position against theodicy as there are plenty of critical and atheistic citations and critiques within my work, and far more importantly I would not be able to sample those that represent noted positions as they are not within the Christian Church.  This work is not seeking to place God in the docks or primarily to take God out of the docks.[11]

I should point out that the majority of scholars cited within this thesis do not agree with my Reformed sovereignty theodicy.  Certainly Feinberg’s view is similar as would be John Calvin’s[12] but Hick’s would be radically different,[13] and I would not likely receive support from the empirical theologians discussed.[14]  I am also citing many atheists and critics of traditional Christian views that would not agree with my perspectives.[15]  I have not attempted to write a thesis where I face little opposition, as on the contrary, even many of the traditional Christians cited would oppose my Reformed sovereignty perspective, such as Plantinga and incompatibilists.[16]  I also have included many positions critical of my own, such as non-traditional views on omnipotence that follows and the views of Immanuel Kant concerning religious dogma and belief.[17]   Within Chapter Three where I discuss Reformed methodology, I also discuss different non-Reformed perspectives.  As shall be discussed in Chapter Five, many of the questionnaire respondents do not agree with my theodicy on key points.[18] 

Critical/Atheistic Praxis

The three approaches all take an ultimately positive view towards reality and that God would eventually succeed in his purposes.[19]  These three theodicy view evil as part of the end goal praxis of bringing about a greater good and justifying God, his perfect goodness and plans in the end.  C. Robert Mesle has noted these types of views that use greater good arguments make God the author of evil and make evil less than genuine.[20]  As noted, atheist William Rowe states that not all evil can be used for the greater good and certainly some must be gratuitous.[21]   The greater good argument can always be challenged with good counter-arguments,[22] and although I disagree with the concept of gratuitous evil, I accept Rowe’s point that some evil is inscrutable,[23] which is evil that cannot be understood reasonably well by human beings[24]  An atheistic[25] praxis concerning the problem of evil could be that life has no deeper meaning or purpose beyond physical death,[26] and that all persons suffer and die with no further meaning to life.[27]  Science does not offer humanity an end directed goal of continued life.[28]  As noted earlier in this work, Darrow writes the best one can do is basically cling to life on earth as we head toward ‘a common doom.’[29]  An atheistic praxis coming from this type of view could be criticized as negative,[30] but science cannot be primarily sought for support of theodicy,[31] and theodicy should be based on solid religious and philosophical reasoning.  In the case of free will and sovereignty perspectives, there is a heavy reliance on Scriptural revelation which is based in history.[32]  Hick’s view has an understanding that God could begin to be understood to some degree in metaphorical terms through the writings of a variety of religious traditions.[33]  He takes a Kantian understanding[34]  that God could not be affirmed as an actual or possible concept,[35] although God can be assumed as possible.[36]  Hick takes this idea of Kant’s and deduces that when it comes to religious doctrine the noumena realm that relates to the phenomena realm may have little in common with resulting phenomena.[37]

Certainly, an idea behind the writing of this thesis has been to make it clear that blind faith fueled theodicy is not intellectually acceptable.[38]  Theodicy should be based on research and reason using and considering a variety of perspectives.[39]  I reason this thesis has demonstrated a support for a reasonable Reformed theodicy and examined its strengths and weaknesses, as well as objectively reviewing other perspectives.

---

[1] The segment of a population selected for research. Bryman (2004: 543).  Therefore in this context, it is the group of people I chose to survey.  The material within my thesis is directly relevant to people within this population segment.

[2] For my MPhil thesis sample, it was Bible school and seminary students within the Christian Church.

[3] For my PhD thesis sample,  it was those that attend culturally Christian churches.

[4] By the same reasoning I also would not sample agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etcetera.

[5] D.Z. Phillips and his, in a sense anti-theodicy, are quoted throughout this thesis.

[6] Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).

[7] In regard to Plantinga, in Chapter Two.

[8] Chapter Four.

[9] Chapter Four. 

[10] Any critical evaluation of the problem of evil would include atheistic critiques evaluating theism.

[11] Doubtless many critics of theism and Christianity do place God in the docks and so a work should deal with these concepts. 

[12] Although Calvin did not write a theodicy, his views on free will and determinism are similar to mine as will be documented throughout the thesis.

[13] Hick’s theodicy is a non-traditional approach as he freely admits and I document in Chapter Four.

[14] It will be seen in Chapter Five that Reformed and Calvinist views of God’s retribution and punishment for humanity are not strongly emphasized and supported.  The overall presentation of the Dutch empiricists is Christian, but not Reformed.

[15] Frankly, a thesis minus serious critiques of theism and Reformed Christianity would not only be untenable in a secular PhD context, but also a Christian one as well.

[16] This will be discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

[17] Within Chapter Four.

[18] Please see questionnaire results in Chapter Five, and the graphs in Appendix.

[19] A positive view of ultimate reality has been well challenged by those such as Phillips, Roth and Darrow within this work.  Phillips (2005: 247).  Roth (1981: 19).  Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).  An intellectual problem being that free will, sovereignty and soul-making perspectives are all very speculative and state that eventually reality will be different and far better than it obviously is now empirically.  Tennant, contrary to Hick, reasons with his evolutionary view of theodicy that evil might always exist.  Tennant (1930)(1956: 195).   Hick (1970: 252-253).

[20] Mesle (1986: 418).

[21] Rowe (1990: 1-3).

[22] Rowe (1990: 1-3).  Mesle (1986: 418).

[23] Rowe (1990: 3).

[24] Rowe (1990: 3).  Philosophically certain evils and sufferings are inscrutable as Rowe states, but they can still treated with appropriate pastoral care.  

[25] And certain deistic and agnostic praxis as well.                                                                          

[26] Darrow (1928)(1973: 266).

[27] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).

[28] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).

[29] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).

[30] Phillips (2005: 247). 

[31] I will not support a theodicy that is clearly against science, although I reason that metaphysical theodicy approaches are not scientific.

[32] This has been discussed previously within Chapter Three and is a major reason I support sovereignty theodicy as an overall approach.

[33] Hick (1993: 126). 

[34] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1).  As discussed within Chapter Four.

[35] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1). 

[36] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1).  Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998: 14).

[37] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230). 

[38] That type of approach does not reasonably answer the objections and problems of those within and outside of the Church.

[39] As with this thesis and with my MPhil thesis, although I favour a Reformed approach, I do examine other Christian and secular perspectives.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

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

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973) ‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life,  October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

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

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

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

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

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.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1986) ‘The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy’, in The Journal of Religion, Volume 66, Number 4, pp. 412-430. October, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

MESLE, C. ROBERT (2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do Theodicies Do?’, in American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September.  Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

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

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

TENNANT, F.R.(1906) The Origin and Propagation of Sin, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

TENNANT, F.R.(1930)(1956) Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.