One never learns and understands the true nature of reality

On Facebook I recently viewed a critique of religion and Christianity which included, paraphrased, the idea that believing a religious worldview, if false, leads to the following:

One never learns and understands the true nature of reality.

Not learning and understanding reality, is indeed true in some cases, when a person is not significantly open-minded and educated, however...

In an absolute sense, academically and philosophically, I reject this idea because it is possible and reasonable to learn and understand many worldviews and positions on reality; while only accepting one as true. British MPhil/PhD theses research is largely about the pursuit of learning and understanding many worldviews.

In my work I studied various views within Christianity and outside of it.

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: 

MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Worldview

I fully admit the problem of evil is a difficult topic. There is always much more to learn with this topic but I do have some background with the subject. My world view is one of a Christian conservative who views Scripture as historically and philosophically valid. I believe God guided writers to communicate his word and that Scripture demonstrates the Gospel message of Jesus Christ accurately.

I realize the original Scriptural autographs are missing, and it is not my place here to discuss Greek manuscripts, but there is a consistency in manuscript evidence which can be found, and within the Scriptural message there is philosophical consistency. At times, there is present theological progression in thought, for example Christ’s work established a New Covenant which replaced Old Testament Law, but there appears in Scripture from the Garden of Eden to the Holy City of Revelation, a consistent progressive plan of God to restore his creation.

Although I am conservative in theological position, one of the reasons I entered the University of Wales and the British academic system was because I realized there was liberal theology, and I needed to interact with that theology over time. One must be open minded in order to be scholarly, and realize that truth is truth, and whether written or spoken by a liberal of conservative, it does not matter. I firmly believe that one theological tradition does not contain all the answers, so within my text, most of my authors are conservative as they supported my ideas, but I did not hesitate to quote someone who may be liberal, if what they stated was valid and relevant to my work.

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

Some works on the problem of evil In alphabetical order:

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. Augustine was one of the first ancient writers to deal with the problem of evil. Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger (1996: 231). 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).

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). I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. Gebara is a Brazilian, feminist, Catholic sister. The back of the text notes that she is one of Latin America’s leading theologians. The book is interesting because, although no formal theodicy or defence is presented, she looks at the problem of evil from the perspective of the suffering of women. Gebara, Ivone (2002: 13-59) I can agree with Gebara that women within this corrupted creation have experienced much suffering, and some of it has not been thoroughly acknowledged. However, I disagree with her tendency to reinterpret the Christian faith, for example concerning the doctrine of physical resurrection which she reasons is idealistic theory. Gebara (2002: 122). She thinks it more valuable to look at resurrection in metaphorical terms today as lives are improved and evil resisted. Gebara (2002: 122).

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. A question arises 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 believe 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 posses 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.

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). Ramsay (2004: 2). 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 accept 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.

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.

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

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, and DAVID BASINGER (1996) (eds.), ‘Introduction: Saint Augustine: Evil is Privation of Good’, in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

RAMSAY, MEGHAN (2004) ‘John Hick: ‘Evil and Soul Making’, Philosophy of Religion, (ed.) Philip A. Pecorino, Web Surfers Caveat, Suffolk, Virginia, Philosophy of Religion.