Gratuitous evil

Niagara Falls, Ontario (photo from trekearth.com)

This is material based on MPhil/PhD research:

Gratuitous evil is also known as the evidential argument for evil and has been presented by atheistic philosopher William Rowe on more than one occasion. He presents an argument for gratuitous evil in ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’ in The Problem of Evil.

Rowe’s evidential argument for evil, states the following propositions: Rowe (1990: 1).

(1) God, an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being exists.
(2) Gratuitous evil exists.
(3) A perfectly good being would always eliminate gratuitous evil as far as it can.
(4) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Rowe (1990: 3).

Rowe concludes that there is no good state of affairs where an omnipotent, omniscient being would be justified in allowing evils where no possible good can arise from them taking place; he also calls these inscrutable evils, which are evils that cannot be understood. Rowe (1990: 3). Rowe’s proposition (1) and those like, seem reasonable from a traditional Christian perspective. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 89-99). Proposition (2) is debatable because it assumes that concepts of those within sovereignty and soul-making theodicy are incorrect and that an infinite, omnipotent God cannot use all wrong actions by creatures for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Hick (1970: 292). Proposition (2) really does not prove anything, but simply states a disagreement between Rowe and many within Christian theism on whether or not God’s purposes are being fulfilled, even when horrendous evils occur. Rowe states that there is too much evil that does not make sense in existence. Rowe (1990: 3). Numerous theists would answer that although finite human beings cannot know the purposes of evil, God has a purpose. In my view, the human being is therefore unable to truly judge if too much evil exists. Proposition (3) is questionable because it builds upon the debatable proposition (2). It assumes that God cannot use all evil towards the greater good, and since gratuitous evil would exist, it implies that God likely is not a perfectly good being. Proposition (4) can be challenged by the theist because although God technically could rid the world of evil, both Feinberg and Hick for example, have provided good reasons why the creator would allow preventable evil. Feinberg states that eliminating evil would prohibit other divine plans for the greater good, Feinberg (1994: 130). Hick writes that God must allow a hostile imperfect environment in order for soul-making to occur. Hick (1970: 292).

Rowe has written a logical argument, but it is not necessarily true because theists can debate proposition (2) and claim the infinite, perfectly good God can always use the evil actions of his finite creations for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). It also can be stated concerning proposition (3) that as Calvin noted, God’s motives would remain pure even while horrendous evils take place, and God need not be less than perfectly good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 40). This would seem reasonable and possible for an infinite deity to accomplish as he is dealing with finite creatures that could never match him in morality, power, and knowledge.

Frances and Daniel Howard-Snyder reason that a way to deny premise (3) is to state that there is no such thing as a minimum amount of suffering that God must allow in order for the greater good to be accomplished. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). This idea would not accept the critic’s notion that there is a minimum amount of evil and suffering that God must allow in a situation, and if he goes beyond that amount, gratuitous evil has occurred and God therefore does not exist. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). Jeff Jordon disagrees and argues that the no minimum of suffering claim is false or implausible, because for any distribution of evil for divine purposes there is always a less painful distribution that would accomplish the same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238). I think it more likely that for each varying amount of suffering that God willingly allows there are resulting amounts of greater good or evil that occur. There is also the possibility that if God allows a certain amount of suffering in a given situation that the greater good will not occur and therefore God would not allow this amount of suffering to take place. Since the amount of suffering is largely related to the amount of greater good, it is not likely that a smaller amount of suffering could accomplish the same results as a greater amount, either good or bad. I therefore doubt Jordon’s claim that a less painful distribution of evil would accomplish the exact same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238).

A critic may state that Jesus could have simply atoned for sins by dying with a much less brutal death. Christ could have been beaten less, not been crucified, died in a less painful way, and still died for sins, but I reason that the exact purposes of God would not have been accomplished through less suffering. I conclude that in the case of the death of Christ, a less painful distribution of evil would not have accomplished the exact same purposes. Unfortunately from our human perspective, what we may often view as gratuitous unnecessary evil, is in a sense, God accomplishing his purposes in a situation. I can certainly relate on a personal level, with the atheist and non-Christian that deems this as wrong and unfair, but as human beings we are in no position to judge God’s motives and plans in working in his creation in regard to the problem of evil. I have determined that my sufferings which are often very annoying, do not provide me with a strong enough intellectual argument to overcome the Biblical, theological and philosophical evidence for God's existence. My suffering, and the suffering of others, is certainly very difficult and often unappreciated, but from Job 40:1-2, from the New American Standard Bible, it states.

Then the Lord said to Job,
‘Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.’

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

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

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

HOWARD-SNYDER, FRANCES AND DANIEL (1999) ‘Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?’, American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2, April, pp. 115-130, Chicago, University of Illinois.

JORDAN, JEFF (2003) ‘Evil and Van Inwagen’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 236-238. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

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

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
http://www.otago.ac.nz/philosophy/210/15%20evidential%20prob%20of%20evil.pdf.


Niagara Falls, New York (photo from trekearth.com)

Apologetics and the closed-minded

La Vega, Tajuna, Spain (photo from trekearth.com)

In my previous article on apologetics, in the comments section, I stated that I had been dealing with someone this past weekend that is likely a member of a pseudo-Christian cult, who found this site via another blog. This person would not deal with a contextual evaluation of Scripture and related theology. I spent two hours plus preparing apologetics related emails in reply to his strongly worded criticisms of my theological views, for which he simply breezed over without seriously dealing with the material I presented. He moved on to quoting his next Biblical texts out of context or without full context, and then attempted to change the topic and attack my theology on another point. I put his email address on the blocked senders list, and his latest email went into the 'Deleted Items' folder. I guess he would not accept it when I stated that since he would not deal with the scholarly, Biblical and theological material presented, it was not worthwhile emailing anymore. I sent him a blocked sender email, just in case Outlook Express did not do it automatically. I had email dialogue with the owner of the other blog I mentioned, and found out that the person that I had blocked had been in this kind of dialogue with Christians previously with the results being the same.

This person that I blocked on Outlook Express, as far as I know has never commented on this blog, but I do allow anonymous comments, so in reality at times, I am not aware of who comments on this blog. Quite often when I am challenged it is through the email address I provide with this blog and not through the comments. One can speculate why this is so, but I suppose some persons prefer the confidentiality of email. As ministry, and in the spirit of open-mindedness, if I have the time, I will work on dialoguing with a person of any philosophy on a blog or related topic if the person is open-minded. However, if one is simply in defend and attack mode, it is a waste of my time. My mind will not be changed without the significant use of reason, and as many of you have probably experienced in your own life, dealing with someone over a prolonged period who is closed-minded concerning a issue, is a waste of time since the person does not adequately deal with material and/or information provided that may contrast his/her viewpoint. I have changed my mind in the past on issues, and with God’s help remain open-minded.

I reason that God predestines those who shall follow Christ as in Ephesians 1:4-12, and that God makes the choice to regenerate a certain individual and moulds a person through the work of the Holy Spirit to freely believe. Following Christ is not a human choice primarily, but I do not believe persons follow Christ through compulsion. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). God must persuade an individual through the work of the Holy Spirit to understand what true Biblical religion entails. Accepting this theology, I reason that many persons are closed-minded regarding religion, including some Christians, and others are closed-minded while holding non-religious views. Some persons have a devotion to belief systems that would be quite subjective in manner. This type of devotion is opposed to being tested intellectually. I do not have the knowledge to judge any human heart, but some persons seem so closed-minded in their approach to religion and/or philosophy that it can deduced that no amount of reason and evidence will persuade he/she to believe otherwise. For these persons apologetics seems useless. Without the moulding and persuasive work of the Holy Spirit, if a person wants to hold to a certain religious and/or philosophical perspective, in many cases nothing will change the mind, because seemingly a person wants to believe what he/she believes. For some, nothing contrary to a personal belief system can be seriously considered.

The late Walter Martin wrote that the belief systems of cults are characterized by closed-mindedness. Martin (1985: 26). These groups are not interested in rational cognitive evaluation of facts. Martin (1985: 26). He writes that such systems are in isolation, and never shift to logical consistency, and the mind of the cultist is almost impossible to penetrate because of a commitment to the thought pattern of his/her organization. Martin (1985: 26). I agree with Martin’s reasoning, and deduce that the closed-minded approach is not only taken by cultists, but by many persons who hold to religious and non-religious philosophical views that do not want to be intellectually challenged. If a person is really pursuing the truth, there must be enough of an emotional detachment from views held to at least consider perspectives that may be contrary to a personal belief system.

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

MARTIN, WALTER (1985) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.

Apologetics

Apologetics

Kunoy Island, Denmark (photo from trekearth.com)

Part 1: Preface from July 6, 2023

Published originally September 27, 2007, well before completing my PhD work, and an early article on this website. This article is revised with significant revisions. A major reason for the significant revising is that once I had done the PhD work, I further realized that although apologetics has is importance; I am personally far more interested in philosophical theology within the Reformed tradition and theistic philosophy of religion. But of course, both are connected to apologetics.

Notably discussed in the also recently revised article

Monday, July 24, 2017 Opines on Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics

Part II: apologian

From New Testament Greek, in First Peter 3:15, the Christian is told to provide an answer to others concerning the hope he/she has in the Christian faith. The word ‘answer’ in the Greek from First Peter is apologian (apologian). The Greek New Testament (1993: 793).

5 versions from New Testament.com

Five versions in New Testament Greek from 1 Peter 3: 15.

ἀπολογία: Blue Letter Bible

The Blue Letter Bible has Strong's G627 cited for the initial version of the word.

This is defined a plea, an answer (for self), clearing of self, defence. Strong (1986: 16). The English word ‘apologetics’ comes from the Greek root word. Hoover (1996: 68). William Barclay writes that a defence of the Christian faith must be reasonable. Barclay (1976: 230-231). What a Christian believes should be stated intelligently and intelligibly. Barclay. (1976: 230-231) The Christian needs to go through the mental and spiritual toil of reasoning out the faith, so he/she can tell others effectively. Barclay (1976: 230-231). 

Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling write that apologetics is the formal defence of the Christian faith, and Christian theologians have often differed on the appropriate way to present this defence. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 13). There have been various appeals to rational argumentation, empirical evidence, fulfilled prophecy, church authorities and mystical experience. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 13-14).

Hoover notes that there are different approaches to apologetics, including the Revelation School of thought which is a part of the Objective School which reasons that objective evidence such as miracles and rational proofs for God are important, but that the unregenerate person cannot be converted by intellectual proofs alone. Hoover (1996: 69-70). A person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and the use of truth. Hoover (1996: 69-70). The Natural Theology School which is also part of the Objective School places much emphasis on human reason and philosophy that will persuade the unbeliever to a belief in Christianity. Hoover (1996: 69-70). The Subjective School typically doubts that the unbeliever can be argued into the faith, but places emphasis on personal experience and a subjective encounter with God. Hoover (1996: 69). Sin can be understood to blind human reason and therefore persons are in need of a personal experience with God. Hoover (1996: 69).

I use mainly biblical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, as opposed to apologetics. However, in agreement with some apologetic approaches, I primarily favour an objective approach within my academic work, to a subjective one. This being stated, I fully acknowledge that God must change a human heart for a person to embrace the Gospel. I reason that God can use reason from philosophical and empirical sources in the regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1 as examples) process. It is God and not intellectual concepts in themselves that convert a person, but God can use human means to work divine spiritual plans. I reason that intellect and personal experience should work together in order that a Christian has a faith and philosophy within a worldview, that he/she understands reasonably well and can share with others in an effective way. 

As I favour biblical theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion, I realize that sometimes my work is controversial, but I also attempt to be respectful and open-minded. I revise my own work regularly. There are plenty of very good and useful ‘lighter’ and more pleasant Christian websites out there, and I am willing to link with many of these, but I reason that a ministry God has given me online is to struggle with some difficult theological and philosophical issues and then present them in written form. This will not always be popular and within academic theology there is often a lack of support from Christian academics for one another, if they differ on secondary issues. But, I reason that Christian academic thinkers and writers should (at least theoretically) unite under the essentials and then respectfully discuss secondary disagreements.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

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

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

HOOVER, A.J. (1996) ‘Apologetics’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MARTIN, WALTER (1985) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

God reveals himself in the Bible

Chateau Les Halles, France (photo from trekearth.com)

I am working on revising my statistical chapter for my PhD. The chapter received a good review, and God willing, once I pass the dissertation, I would like to share the full results on this blog. Today, I will briefly touch upon the results of one of the questions and discuss some related theology.

For those of you that completed a questionnaire, you may remember that one of the propositions was God reveals himself in the Bible. With this question 97.7% agreed which was an overwhelming acceptance of the idea. As I attend a secular University, I made a strong effort to survey what would be understood as Christian Churches within a Western cultural context. This means that I emailed, mailed and dropped off questionnaires out to evangelical, conservative, and liberal churches. Some of the churches were moderately conservative (my position), some were fundamentalist, and some were liberal progressive churches. I contacted denominations within Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and non-denominational traditions.

From my findings which are of course limited, as I surveyed 213 persons mainly from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia, and Kenya. It can be deduced that although conservative and liberal Christians can disagree on the nature of Biblical revelation, they do agree that it exists. David A. Pailin explains that since the Enlightenment era the traditional propositional view of revelation has widely, but not completely, been replaced by the understanding that divine revelation comes through events. Pailin (1999: 505). The Bible records these events that are perceived through faith for significance. Pailin (1999: 505). Gene Edward Veith, Jr. explains that Enlightenment age of reason features scientific discovery and the rejection of much of revealed religion in favour of a reliance on reason. Veith (1994: 32-33). This term ‘Enlightenment’ refers to the philosophical movement among seventeenth and eighteenth century Western intellectuals. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 44-45). Enlightenment thinkers tended to reject external sources of knowledge and elevated human reasoning. Biblical doctrines were therefore under suspicion. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 44-45).

Harold Lindsell would support a traditional understanding of Biblical revelation as he states that through special supernatural revelation in Scripture, Jesus Christ is revealed to selected persons. Lindsell (1976: 17). The 97.7% agreement of God revealing himself in Scripture is not necessarily resounding intellectual support for either a traditional or Enlightenment view on revelation. Grenz and Olson explain that Christianity has been changed since the Enlightenment, and it will never be the same. Grenz and Olson (1992: 15-16). The Enlightenment has not only influenced liberal progressive theology, but has affected conservative theology as well. Grenz and Olson point out that the Enlightenment understanding of reason would no longer allow the Church to be the sole teacher of Bible and Christian doctrine. Grenz and Olson (1992: 21). An understanding by individuals of Scripture and theology is an integral part of modern conservative evangelical thought and this can be traced back to Enlightenment thinking, and to the Reformation. Individuals with the use of reason needed to question Church teaching. Grenz and Olson (1992: 21). Enlightenment thought from a Christian perspective has some historical merit, although I do not consider myself a theologian primarily influenced by Enlightenment era reasoning. Christianity and the Enlightenment are not completely antithetical as they are both modernist philosophies, which overlap at points in their pursuit of truth. Veith (1994: 43). Modernity was the dominant worldview of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 79-80). Veith writes that in the late twentieth century these views have been replaced by post-modernism, which has less emphasis on absolute truth. Veith (1994: 19). This is not to state that post-modernism completely sets aside the concept of truth, but post-modern philosophies are often less dogmatic in approach than ones from the modern era. Within traditional Christianity, it is believed that God has supernaturally revealed himself through Scripture and therefore what is stated as teaching and doctrine (in proper context) could be dogmatically held to as truth.

I reason that the original Biblical documents were inerrant meaning that were fully truthful in what was affirmed. Erickson (1994: 234) The original texts were inerrant and without error, but this does not extend to copies and to translations. Erickson (1994: 240). Therefore, it can be stated that God has allowed substantial amounts of copies from various regions in the ancient world to exist, in order that the number of Biblical passages where a reading is in doubt is relatively small. Erickson (1994: 240). Scripture is historically and theologically accurate, and the Biblical messages of the Hebrew Bible, and the New Testament gospel can be trusted as revealing God’s plans for humanity.

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

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

LINDSELL, HAROLD (1976) The Battle for the Bible, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Revelation’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.





I updated the following older article.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/05/arminianism-and-free-will.html