Thursday, May 23, 2013

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (PhD Edit)

Lacampagna, Italy-Facebook
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (PhD Edit)

Edited and revised for another version of this work posted on academia.edu on August 20, 2022
---

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (July 1, 1646 – November 14, 1716)

Leibniz was a vital secondary exemplar in my United Kingdom/European theses work, especially the PhD. I have edited sections from my Doctorate to summarize his contributions to my work.

The term theodicy arose from G.W. Leibniz’ book in 1710 entitled Theodicy.[1]  Robert M. Adams (1996) notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice.[2]  Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world.[3]

The Eighteenth century[4] was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy[5] was published as was previously noted, and this era of history was when much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began[6] 

Leibniz reasons God always chooses what is best, freely within his nature and is vindicated within his creation, even though it contains evil.[7]  God co-operates in all the actions of his creatures, and yet is not the author of sin.[8] 

He made it clear that human beings must be free, even though human freedom may appear incompatible with divine nature, as persons must have freedom in order to be considered worthy of punishment for wrong actions.[9]

Leibniz writes that the holy God co-operates in human evil.[10]  Leibniz has a different view than Thiessen,[11] which would be incompatibilistic, that is deterministic and reasons that foreknowledge has to do with God’s determined will and is not dependent on free human actions.[12]  This predetermination should not be understood as by necessity eliminating all human choice.[13]

Leibniz noted that evil itself only comes from privation.[14] Privation has been discussed on this blog, please see archives.

Leibniz believes God had an infinite number of worlds to choose from to create, and chose the best possible world.[15] 

He explains that God permits and promotes evil without distracting from divine holiness and supreme goodness.[16]  Modified rationalism would oppose the best possible world concepts of Leibniz from the Enlightenment era, and Mackie from the modern era.[17]

In Theodicy, God’s knowledge of future events in itself does not make them determinate, rather because certain things will occur, God foreknows them.[18]  This concept means that God can foresee human rebellion as he knows all human souls, but he does not force or coerce persons to oppose him.[19]  However, since I accept that God is an infinite and omnipotent deity,[20] I think it reasonable that he has the ability to influence through circumstances certain individuals to commit wrong actions, but I would consider it possible for God to remain pure in nature as his motives remain good, as Luther and Calvin noted.[21] 

For Leibniz, God has the ability to allow angelic and human sin and the suffering it promotes, yet God can promote and use sinful evil for the greater good.[22]  Leibniz’ approach would be within a traditional Christian perspective,[23] as are many free will and sovereignty approaches, although as discussed in the theoretical Chapters in my Doctorate, Plantinga and Feinberg would deny Leibniz’ claim that God could create a best possible world and would,[24] instead, hold to ‘Modified Rationalism’ which states God, freely and without necessity, created a good world that was one of many he could create.[25]            

I too hold to Modified Rationalism.

Leibniz reasoned that God had very good reasons for his election and dispensation of grace to some persons and recognized that these reasons were unknown to persons in any detail.[26]

ADAMS, ROBERT. M. (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

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.

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

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?  Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004)  Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.

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.

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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.

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

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

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.



[1] Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy.
[2] Adams (1996: 794).
[3] Adams (1996: 794).  David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion explains that geniuses over the ages have continued to look for proofs and arguments concerning God.  Hume (1779)(2004: 2).  Theodicy would involve demonstrating that God exists and is good even as the problem of evil exists.
[4] Hille (2004: 22). 
[5] Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998).
[6] Hille (2004: 22).
[7] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61).
[8] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61).
[9] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 123).
[10] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 123).
[11] Thiessen (1956: 126).
[12] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 147).
[13] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 147).
[14] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 219).  Schelling also discusses this view of Leibniz.  Schelling (1845)(1936: 45).   
[15] Leibniz (1710)(1990).
[16] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61).
[17] Leibniz (1710)(1990).  Mackie (1971) in Plantinga (1977)(2002: 32-33).
[18] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 144).  Augustine (426)(1958: 106).
[19] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 144).
[20] This is discussed primarily within Chapter One.
[21] Luther (1525)(1972: 130).  Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40).
[22] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61).
[23] Leibniz would likely be the equivalent of a modern day compatibilist.  Leibniz (1710)(1998: 61).
[24] Feinberg (1994: 36).
[25] Feinberg (1994: 36).
[26] Leibniz (1710)(1998: 165).

Bayern, Germany-trekearth

This was posted on Facebook by Chucky. Thanks





34 comments:

  1. Oh, your first landscape is wonderfull. I love the red color, it's incredible!Get some wonderful photos

    Have a good days DR!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, I really like the red. Facebook is a very good source.

    Blessings, Miss Winter.:)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe you should write a book, either on theology/philosophy/theodicy, etc., or maybe it should be a book that has questions that blogger and Facebook friends have asked you, and your answers to them. Maybe you could compile questions from past blog article comments, and maybe ask new ones on Blogger and on Facebook, and then, once the book is published, advertise it on Blogger and on Facebook. I think I remember that you did write an e-book in the past, but I haven't heard much about that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for the marketing idea, Jeff.

    Something to consider.

    Yes, I wrote an ebook that is on the right side of the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick
    shout out and tell you I really enjoy reading your articles.
    Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics?
    Many thanks!

    My web-site ... novoline automaten tricks

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Buzz user,


    In October 2011 we announced that Google Buzz was shutting down. On or after 17 July 2013, Google will take the last step in the shut-down and will save a copy of your Buzz posts to your Google Drive, a service for storing files online. Google will store two (2) types of files to your Google Drive and the newly-created files will not count against your storage limits.


    The first type of file will be private, only accessible to you, containing a snapshot of the Google Buzz public and private posts that you authored.
    The second type of file will contain a copy of only your Google Buzz public posts. By default it will be viewable by anyone with the link and may appear in search results and on your Google Profile (if you've linked to your Buzz posts). Note, any existing links to your Google Buzz content will redirect users to this file.
    Any comments that you made on other users' posts will only be saved to those users' files and not to yours. Once the change described in this email is final, only that user will be able to change the sharing settings of those files. This means that if you have commented on another author's private post, that author could choose to make that post and its comments public. If you would like to avoid that possibility, delete all your Buzz content now.
    The new Google Drive files will only contain comments from users who previously enabled Google Buzz, and the files will not contain comments that were deleted prior to moving the data to your Google Drive.

    Once the files have been created, they will be treated the same as any other Drive file. They are yours to do with as you please. This includes downloading them, updating who can access them or deleting them.


    Before these files are created, you can view the Google Buzz posts that you have authored here. If you do not want any of your Buzz posts or comments to be saved to Google Drive files, you can immediately delete your Google Buzz account and data.


    Thank you for using Google Buzz.



    ReplyDelete
  7. 'Hey! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick
    shout out and tell you I really enjoy reading your articles.
    Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics?
    Many thanks!'

    Check out my links...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Customer,

    Our Technical Service department has recently updated our online banking
    services, and due to this upgrade we sincerely call your attention to follow
    below link, click to reconfirm your online account details. Failure to
    confirm the online banking details will suspend you from accessing your
    account online. If you get this message in your spam, move it to inbox to
    enable the link to be clickable.


    https://www1.royalbank.com/cgi-bin/rbaccess/rbc

    We use the latest security measures to ensure that your online banking
    experience is safe and secure. The administration asks you to accept our
    apologies for the inconvenience caused and expresses gratitude for
    cooperation.

    Thanks for banking with us.

    Royal Bank of Canada Security Advisor
    RBC Financial Group

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about marc gasol. Regards

    Review my blog post; cantabria

    ReplyDelete
  10. marc gasol?

    Are you stoned or drunk early this morning?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, this post is good, my sister is analyzing these kinds of
    things, so I am going to inform her.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Howdy! I simply want to give an enormous thumbs up for the nice info you could have right here on
    this post. I will likely be coming back to your weblog for extra soon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I definitely
    enjoyed reading it, you're a great author. I will always bookmark your blog and will often come back from now on. I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great work, have a nice day!

    my website ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ZOJ8dcQIA

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Russ,
    been a long time since I've done this. I see Jeff still has the "good looking" picture of himself as his avatar.,,

    Of course, God does not force us to oppose him. That was an argument from your work, here that stuck in my mind. My thoughts went immediately to Job 1. Satan needs permission to harm people. The idea, I believe in this part of Job's story is, Satan's job is to test man's loyalty to God. Not that God wants to harm men. Neither is he wanting to force men to pledge commitment, devotion,...etc. However, if there were nothing to test our loyalty, devotion and love for God, (i.e, the tree?) would there be hatred, disdain, disloyalty...etc? We know the question here has been posed more times than can be counted. For that reason and the Bibles record of God's Angels and Satan working for God, God does not push us to oppose Him. He asks us to edify Him.

    Russ, I need help on a Webmaster Tools thing. I attempted to submit sitemap data and was given an error for each url I submitted. The tools have a place where I can delete the URL that is causing the offense. So, I did delete them. Now, I have lost my online presence. I'm not in the Google search engine, unless you specifically search for my website. or Blog site. Should I have deleted the Url in the sitemap section of Web master tools? I still have a blog. Those urls are still in the blog and have not disappeared.
    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks, Jim.

    As Erickson has noted, cited on my blogs, God has a perfect and permissible will and most of what occurs in fallen reality is permissible will. Even so, God does will all things, thoughts, acts, actions theologically and from philosophy we would see this as first cause. Human beings, and angelic beings, when involved secondary causes. As Calvin noted, being useful on this subject, God's motives are pure in all that he causes/wills as first cause where as secondary finite causes can sin, and have wrong motives. This assumes significant freedom for secondary causes although limited free will, not libertarian.

    I am not actually familiar with your URL issue. The new Blogger template, if that is what you are discussing is far more tricky than previous. I would sign in to your blog (s) and make sure that is much is activated as possible, correcting errors where you can.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'It appears as though some of the written text in your content are running off the screen.'

    I run/jog up here in the loft, as it is fine for the knees on carpet...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hеу admіn, I just wanted tо give уou а bгіef hеаds up that your сurrent URL is being flаggeԁ аs a ρoѕѕibly maliciοus internet sіte in mу brοwseг safari. Ι'd highly suggest having somebody look into it. You could possibly lose a lot of guests due to this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The main difference between them is that you
    are going to need some basic equipment, and
    the pace will slower down.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The main difference between you and I is my comments make sense in context...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good day! I simply want to give an enormous thumbs
    up for the great data you might have right here on this post.
    I shall be coming again to your weblog for more soon.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What's up mates, how is everything, and what you would like to say concerning this post, in my view its genuinely amazing in support of me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mates?

    From the Southern Hemisphere or the British Isles?

    Fresh shark or fish n' chips...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Great post! We are linking to this great
    post on our site. Keep up the good writing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Whoa! Тhis blog looks еxactly lіke my
    old one! It's on a completely different topic but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Wonderful choice of colors!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes, I like the dark red, rare to see in much anything.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete