 |
| Barcelona:Facebook-Travel+Leisure |
Professor van der Ven and Theodicy
2015 Note
I have been meaning to share this
information for years…
Describing the Research
Professor van der Ven’s theodicy research
project was conducted in a Roman Catholic context through parishes in Tilburg
and Nijmegen in the Netherlands.[1] A key factor is that most people attending
the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands are above fifty years old.[2] There were 158 respondents[3]
within the study and more than two thirds were over fifty years of age.[4] This means that the views of younger people,
which may be more reflective of societal trends, may not be well reflected in
the study.[5] Additionally, van der Ven
writes that ratio of women to men in the survey is 76% to 24%.[6] This is a rather disproportional sample as
women are making up more than 75% of the respondents.[7] The educational level of the respondents
varied with 40% having completed lower secondary school in the Netherlands,[8]
and 32.5% having achieved a post-secondary school diploma,[9]
demonstrating that the educational background of these people appears typical
for the Netherlands.[10] The occupations of the respondents were
varied although over 50% of persons surveyed were business owners or
professionals.[11] Professor van der Ven found that 98% of
respondents favoured left wing to centre political parties, with 70% supporting
a centrist party.[12]
A Summary of the Survey Results
Professor van der Ven’s empirical results
showed that the respondents did not differentiate between theodicy and
cosmodicy.[13] The first conclusion van der Ven arrives at
from the survey findings is that Christian and secular worldviews overlapped to
the point that there was no major difference in how the respondents looked at
theodicy or cosmodicy.[14] There is a coordination of religious and
scientific views, and one is not viewed as superior or containing more truth
than the other.[15] These findings should not be too surprising
since van der Ven’s core concepts remain the same between theodicy and cosmodicy,
other than exchanging God for nature as the cause of all things.[16] There were some key conclusions van der Ven
establishes from the survey that I will summarize.[17] The greater level of education of some
respondents did not conclusively lead to a decrease of acceptance of
traditional symbols.[18] Yes, apathy and retaliation were viewed
negatively,[19]
but the teaching symbols, such as therapeutic, were not viewed differently by
people with different educational levels.[20] The immanence symbols such as compassion,
which represent God’s solidarity with humanity, were less valued by those with
greater levels of education.[21] A conclusion could be made that although
highly educated people tend not to appreciate transcendent theodicy models that
present God as distancing himself from humanity and judging it,[22]
they also do not assume that God immanently will assist sufferers.[23]
Somewhat surprisingly the test showed that
a right-wing or centrist political orientation did not lead to traditional
theodicy symbols reflecting God’s transcendence,[24]
and left-wing political leanings did not lead to acceptance of less traditional
perspectives.[25]
VAN DER VEN,
JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology,
Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing
House.
VAN DER VEN,
JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?,
Leiden, Brill.
VAN DER VEN,
JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud
University, Nijmegen.
VAN DER VEN,
JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud
University, Nijmegen.
VAN DER VEN,
JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in
a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University,
Nijmegen.
VAN DER VEN,
JOHANNES, PAUL VERMEER, AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) ‘Learning Theodicy’, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 9,
pp. 67-85. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.
VAN DER VEN,
JOHANNES AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) Suffering:
Why for God’s Sake? Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
[1] van der Ven (1998: 220).
[2] van der Ven (1993: 185).
[4] van der Ven (1993: 185).
[5] This sample may be
somewhat limited as young persons were not well presented, although it is has
validity, as in statistical integrity.
[6] van der Ven (1998: 220).
[7] van der Ven (1998: 220). My sample has 61% male and 39% female.
[10] van der Ven (1998: 220-221).
[11] van der Ven (1993: 187).
[12] van der Ven (1993: 187).
[13] van der Ven (1998: 222).
[14] van der Ven (1998: 222).
[15] van der Ven (1998: 222).
[16] van der Ven (1993: 174).
[18] van der Ven (1993: 211).
[19] van der Ven (1993:
211). A difficulty with a retaliation
symbol could equate to a difficulty with traditional, Augustinian, and Reformed
views of God that punishes sin and sinners.
[20] van der Ven (1993: 211).
[21] van der Ven (1993: 211).
van Der Ven resurrection and theodicy
van Der Ven theodicy and cosmodicy
