John K. Roth and a limited God (PhD edit)

John K. Roth and a limited God (PhD edit)

Photo: Portugal passage (trekearth.com)

Preface  

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

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

John K. Roth and limited God (PhD Edit)

John K. Roth (1981) also explains within ‘A Theodicy of Protest’[1] that the finite, limited God of William James offered him some intellectual appeal.[2] He reasons that to deny God completely would be going too far, but to affirm God’s total goodness and to apologize for a weak God in anyway would also be going too far.[3] Roth’s theodicy of protest puts God on trial,[4] and any human repentance will have to be matched by God.[5] Stephen Davis (1981) suggests that Roth has given up the notion that God is ‘perfectly morally good.’[6] Roth insists that most theodicy approaches very wrongly legitimize evil.[7] They can attempt to make suffering all deserved, and/or create happy endings due to God’s ultimate goodness.[8] There is within this view ‘no legitimation of evil to acknowledge its existence.’[9] The excessive amount of evil that exists in human history demonstrates that there is an evil side to God which willingly allows it.[10] Davis explains that for Roth, God is not really omnipotent as God does not possess the perfect goodness to redeem all evil.[11] Human beings lack the ability to envision how God could use all the evil within world history for the greater good.[12] Roth, in contrast to Davis, states that he actually shares with Davis a belief in God’s omnipotence.[13] Davis speculates that Roth’s approach weakens a view on God’s omnipotence,[14] but Roth’s claim that he holds to omnipotence should be taken seriously.[15] Roth’s interpretation makes sense, as if Roth sees God as all-powerful then the evil God willingly allows that cannot all be used for greater good, is not redeemable[16] and therefore God should repent of his evil.[17]

I share with Roth an intellectual and personal frustration with the evil that God willingly allows.[18] A theodicy of protest is not completely unmerited as all persons have suffered by the hand of God that is ultimately responsible, logically, as he is all-powerful.[19] Within my Reformed sovereignty theodicy view which I explain within Chapter Three in particular (of my PhD), I reason God does use all evil for the greater good with pure motives.[20] This view accepts a traditional view of omnipotence.[21] Roth does have hope as he looks for a resurrection of the dead in the future, and in the present realm hopes that somehow ‘the waste’ as in unnecessary evil, will be placed in check.[22] He views the traditional concept of God that Davis has as a God that is ‘hidden, absent, even non-existent.’[23] A trust and hope in any type of God is risky, but he reasons that the hope does not completely die.[24] I question whether an omnipotent God with less than perfect motives that would will so much evil, not for the greater good throughout history, would ever change his ways or be convinced by finite creatures to do so.[25]

---  

[1] Within Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.)

[2] Roth (1981: 9).

[3] Roth (1981: 10). I can agree that if God is indeed weak, it should be pointed out as such, and not defended.

[4] Roth (1981: 10). And God’s supposed omnipotence as well, I would suggest could naturally be challenged.

[5] Roth (1981: 10). Roth’s position assumes that God has moral weakness which finite human beings could intellectually detect. God would have to share the blame for the problem of evil. Phillips (2005: 116-117).

[6] Davis (1981: 22). Phillips writes that Roth’s analysis leads to the idea that God is not perfectly good. Phillips (2005: 27).

[7] Roth (1981: 19).

[8] Roth (1981: 19).

[9] Roth (1981: 19).

[10] Davis (1981: 22).

[11] Davis (1981: 23).

[12] Davis (1981: 23). There is certainly a degree of truth to the idea that the evil God allows often cannot be reasonably understood by persons. This could, however, be due as much, or even more, to finite human nature and reasoning as opposed to a moral deficiency or lack of omnipotence with God.

[13] Roth (1981: 32). Phillips verifies this as well. Phillips (2005: 22).

[14] Davis (1981: 23).

[15] Roth (1981: 32).

[16] Roth (1981: 19). Davis (1981: 23).

[17] Roth (1981: 10).

[18] Roth (1981: 8-10).

[19] Roth (1981: 32).

[20] Gratuitous evil is also reviewed and discussed in Chapter Four.

[21] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96). Bavinck (1918)(2006: 233 Volume 2). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).

[22] Roth (1981: 35). Phillips dislikes the use of the term ‘waste’ in regard to humanity and evil and suffering and reasons a loss and gain approach in regard to individual persons is not reasonable. Phillips (2005: 70-71). This is an important point, for the loss suffered by a single individual should never be underestimated for the sake of many persons that do not suffer in the same way and may in some way possibly gain from the suffering of one.

[23] Roth (1981: 35).

[24] Roth (1981: 35).

[25] It is also possible that given God’s omnipotence as Roth accepts, what he and others with similar views understand as evil within God’s nature is simply all goodness. Roth (1981:32). This is not my Reformed view which views evil as separate from good, and not part of God’s nature, but is a reasonable deduction based on Roth’s assumptions on the all-powerful nature of God.

---  

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1893)(2004) William James and a Science of Religions, Wayne Proudfoot (ed.), Columbia University Press, New York. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902-1910)(1987) Writings 1902 – 1910, The Library of America, New York. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902)(2002) The Varieties of Religious Experience, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1904) ‘Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?’, in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Volume 1, pages 477-491. New York, Columbia University. 

JAMES, WILLIAM (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Longman and Green Company, New York. 

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

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.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

July 27, 2011

Secular Departments?

Since earning my PhD from Wales officially in October I have spent 2011 sending out over 200 CVs (Curriculum Vitae) looking for employment in the fields of academia, publishing, and media. Since I have degrees in Theology, Philosophy of Religion and Biblical Studies I have been seeking to use my talents and skills in those areas for employment. Within academia I have concentrated mainly on sending CVs to Christian institutions in the United States, but a few elsewhere, most of which are moderate conservative establishments. I am also checking monthly with job listings with the professional associations I have joined.

My last two degrees are research only secular theses degrees in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, and so in the second half of 2011 I will more so, where needed, send out letters to secular institutions. There are some concerns...

As a moderate conservative Christian of the Reformed tradition that holds to the Bible as the inspired, inerrant (the original letters) Scripture, how do I present myself for potential employment in secular departments where this type of view is not often held to, and also where there are views different from mine concerning, for example, the exclusivity of Christ for salvation (John 14:6), and the ever controversial and in a sense popular issue of homosexuality (Romans 1-3, 1 Corinthians 6) ? Not that I will even mention this last issue, but it is well-discussed today, let us face reality.

My take is that if I work in a secular department I am seeking academic freedom to teach my philosophical, intellectual, academic findings within my worldview while at the same time following the instructions of the institution concerning course guidelines etc. I am also allowing others academic freedom. At the very beginning of applying for any job I would respectfully present my views clearly. My reasoning is that God has not primarily guided me to spend my life fighting against those of non-Biblical views as much as God has guided me to teach Theology, Philosophy of Religion and Biblical Studies to those within the Church, and when I have an opportunity, outside of the Church. So, in other words, I will always work (fight when needed) for my rights within this democratic Western World to present my worldview but do not see it as God's will for my life to try to work against the personal lives of others (for example) that disagree with my Christian worldview, although I do believe there are at times within a respectful environment places for dialogue concerning issues of theology, philosophy, morality and related, and academia should be one of these avenues.

There are cultural and legal battles that need to be considered always, and a main focus for me as a Christian Theologian and Philosopher is the maintaining of overall justice is society, yes. But, I am prepared to the let the democratic process take its place while at the same time support freedom of religion for the Biblical Christian Church. The rights of the Christian Church to remain Christian within its institutions is essential.

God's culminated Kingdom of Revelation 21-22 will be a different realm than this one and I await better justice.

Blog Template

Once again I have changed my customized Bowman blog template and by going with a white background instead of the black one this blog has had since 2004 this site looks more like a standard professional website, based on my web searches. Not that the black background did not look as good in my opinion, but I have decided as I am looking for work as a professor or related with my Doctorate I will try and standardize my blogs to look like websites to a point. Typically websites have white, or off-white backgrounds with black or blue as the main text colour with perhaps red or other as a secondary colour.

Now of course blogs with various other coloured backgrounds and text colours can be just as esthetically pleasing, this is not the issue I am dealing with. There are some very creative, fantastic blogs on the web that look little like typical websites and that is excellent.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) The ‘Limited God’ PhD Edit

A. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) The ‘Limited God’ PhD Edit

Annecy, France (trekearth.com)

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), Wilson (2007: 1) is a well-known British philosopher, economist, political and social theorist, and empiricist. Fred Wilson suggests Mill’s views on empiricism and liberal political views on society and culture are among the most effective in modern thought. Wilson (2007: 1). 

Blackburn states Mill is ‘the most influential liberal thinker of the nineteenth century.’ Blackburn (1996: 243). He is the son of Scottish philosopher James Mill (1773-1836). Carey (2002: 115). 

George W. Carey (2002) writes that John Stuart Mill reasoned that traditional Christianity needed to be replaced and Mill introduced a concept of a ‘limited God.’ Carey (2002: 115). Mill reasons there is a ‘final cause’ that appears to be God working within the natural order, Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). But this God was not omnipotent and had limited powers that were incapable of bringing about the full reality of what God wanted. Mill within Theism from 1833 explains that there could be no real belief in a ‘Creator and Governor’ until humankind had begun to understand the confused phenomena which existed around them. Carey (2002: 116). Humanity must bring itself out of the chaos and confusion of reality to have a workable system in able to work out ‘a single plan.’ Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6). This type of world was anticipated ‘by individuals of exceptional genius’ but could only become true after a long period of scientific examination and thought. Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6). Mill desired to replace the God of Christianity with a Religion of Humanity. Mill (1874)(2002: 16). He reasoned traditional Christianity had been overrated in its promotion of human virtue and morality in society. Carey (2002: 114).The Christian God was not the actual creator of the world.

Mill theorized of a God that resembled the ‘Platonic Demiurge.’ A demiurge is a Greek term meaning ‘artisan’, ‘craftsman.’ It is a deity that develops the material world from ‘preexisting chaos.’ Plato introduced the concept and term in his text Timaeus. The perfectly good demiurge wishes to present his goodness and shapes the chaos as best he can, and the present world results. Wainwright (1996: 188). The demiurge is a limited, non-omnipotent God, that did not create original matter. Wainwright (1996: 188). Blackburn (1996: 98). This God did not measure up to the highest human morality and was not concerned with the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number of human beings. Carey (2002: 116). Mill likely thought Christianity was a false religion which limited the freedom of persons. Gordon (2000: 2).

Since God was so limited, it was up to humanity to bring about greater human happiness. However, Mill still reasoned that God as is, without omnipotence, would have intelligence and power beyond that of human beings. Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 24). Mill embraced a type of secular altruism and a selfless concern for society as a whole as opposed to concerns with personal salvation for the typical person. Within Mill’s philosophy there was room within the world for human beings to improve it and the for persons within it to improve. Mill desires to philosophically develop a positive view on the material universe and the place of human beings within it. Within The Utility of Religion which was published in 1874, after his death in 1873, Mill reasons the improvements that have taken place in humanity and that will continue to proceed over time should produce religion with the best human morality. Mill (1874)(2002: 3).

The religious goodness can be reasoned out from ‘philosophical, Christian, or any other elements.’ Mill (1874)(2002: 3). Modern religion, once it has freed itself from the questionable consequences of concepts of bad doctrine, can be examined for its philosophical usefulness. Religious belief should serve as an instrument of social goodness for humanity.

Mill’s views strike me as being influential within modern secular thought, and modern western religious concepts. I can support, in limited terms, human effort to understand reality and improve human conditions. Indeed humanity should come together as much as possible to develop a plan in order to benefit all of humanity. I would not support a ‘Religion of Humanity,’ but do favour persons of various religious and non-religious backgrounds working together for human benefit.

Mill rejects Christianity and traditional Christian doctrine concerning omnipotence. Mill’s deity is similar to the ‘Platonic Demiurge’ and this deity simply develops matter from preexisting chaos and therefore would not only be limited in power but also finite in nature. Mill supports a concept of a first cause idea: Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 10), as in a series of events: Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7), but this leaves the nagging question and problem of what was the cause of the Demiurge? 

An infinite eternal God can be understood as the first cause not needing a cause. A finite deity, although admittedly logically possible, requires further explanation. If the being is not revealed through Scriptural revelation, it is a God of primarily philosophical speculation and requires further elaboration on the part of Mill in regard to, for instance, why humanity should believe in and follow this type of deity, assuming that there is not a greater, infinite, eternal first cause that would necessarily exist behind that being.

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3. Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half –Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CAREY, GEORGE W. (2002) ‘The Authoritarian Secularism of John Stuart Mill’, in On Raeder’s Mill and the Religion of Humanity, Volume 15, Number 1, Columbia, University of Missouri Press.

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

GORDON, DAVID (2000) ‘John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control’, in The Mises Review, Volume 6, Number 1, Auburn, Alabama, Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1789-1861)(2003) Utilitarianism and On Liberty, Mary Warnock (ed.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1825-1868)(1984) Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, John M. Robson (ed.), University of Toronto Press, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1833)(1985)(2009) Theism: John Stuart Mill The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(2002) The Utility of Religion, London, Longman, Green, and Reader.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(1885) Nature the Utility of Religion and Theism, London, Longmans, Green and Co.

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

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ’Demiurge’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WILSON, FRED (1996) ‘James Mill’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

WILSON, FRED (1996) ‘John Stuart Mill’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WILSON, FRED (2007) ‘John Stuart Mill’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.


Saint-Etienne, France (trekearth.com)

San Francisco, California (trekearth.com)


Castletown-Tower, Dundalk, Ireland (trekearth.com)

July 2, 2011: Understanding the Problem of Evil


This graph is from my PhD. It is perhaps useful is regard to understanding on a small scale how people may learn about the problem of evil.

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

David Hume (1711-1776) PhD Edit

Saint Petersburg, trekearth

David Hume (1711-1776) PhD Edit

David Hume: Preface

Blackburn describes David Hume (1711-1776) the Scottish philosopher, historian and writer as the most influential modern naturalist. Blackburn (1996: 179). Hume would also be known as an empiricist and Blackburn correctly notes Hume as a key figure in the Enlightenment. Blackburn (1996: 179). The following is edited material where I dealt with Hume within my Doctorate. I add more material for this article.

David Hume on Theodicy

David Hume (1779)(2004) discusses the danger of traditional superstition in religious presentations, Hume (1779)(2004: 7) and doubtless a reasonable, open-minded, philosophical approach from a theist would be far more helpful within a theodicy. He also warns against theistic claims of being able to adequately understand the Supreme Being, if there is one. Hume (1779)(2004: 21-27). This Being’s attributes would be ‘incomprehensible and it basically impossible for the theist to understand the nature of this being. Hume (1779)(2004: 21). If Hume is correct, constructing a theodicy would be largely meaningless. To counter this problem, Biblical Revelation would be required in order that God reveals self in context of the issue of theodicy.

May 29, 2011

Within my PhD research Augustine’s free will approach to theodicy made use of Scripture and yet was also philosophical. Plantinga’s free will defence was philosophical. Feinberg’s sovereignty theodicy was both Biblical and philosophical as was my sovereignty approach which was not formally presented separately but was basically embedded within my work. My project with the use of exemplars and my own earned expertise did not fall prey to Hume’s criticisms of constructing largely meaningless theodicy. This is not a claim of intellectual perfection by any means.

David Hume on God’s Sovereignty

Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that God has the freedom to act as he wants. Phillips (2005: 22). This would be God’s sovereign providence, but Hume is skeptical of this concept. Hume (1779)(2004: 50). People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity. Hume suggests that these are superstitions, and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’ The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness. Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

May 29, 2011

This is the logical problem of evil. ‘The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness’. Much of the problem of evil and theodicy discussion within my thesis concerning free will, sovereignty, and soul-making presentations and atheistic counters concerns the logical problem of evil and also the gratuitous problem of evil. Other theses, books and articles may deal with various approaches, perhaps of other religions and worldviews. For example, hypothetically, evil could be denied as a reality.

Below is edited from previous work, but is a good summary of the major views to briefly answer Hume:

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.

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.

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.

David Hume on Consciousness

Consciousness is not a new intellectual subject, as David Hume writes in the article A Treatise of Human Nature’ that most philosophers think personal identity begins with consciousness, which is reflected thought or perception. Although the exact nature of human consciousness is not known, it does work with human thought and perception. Hume found no theory of consciousness provided him with intellectual satisfaction. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) in Conversation with Burman, defined consciousness as the possible internal source of knowledge concerning a person’s own thoughts or mental occurrences. To have consciousness was to be able to understand one’s own thoughts.

I dealt with more philosophical/scientific journals in my PhD in regard to consciousness for post-viva revisions and documented some of the work in this post below. From my reading, academically consciousness and the related subject of desires, still lacked much intellectual clarity even as they were being studied within the fields of philosophy, religion, psychology and psychiatry.

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

---

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 (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

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

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)  Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,  Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLOCHER, HENRI (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

DESCARTES, RENE (1648)(1996) Conversation with Burman, in Eric Lormand: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan.

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.

GIERER, ALFRED (2003)‘Brain, mind, and limitations of a scientific theory of human consciousness’, Preprint of a contribution to the symposium: Proteus im Spiegel-Kritische Theorie des Subjekts im 20, Tubingen, Max-Planck-Institute Biology, Tubingen.

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

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.

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, Lawrence, Kansas.

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.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

Restoration Why Later? (PhD Edit)

Lake Wakatipu, New Zealand (trekearth.com)

I am going to try to write one post per month per blog (thekingpin68 and satire and theology) and I will attempt to place more than one section/article in each post. So two posts per month overall, with always the possibility of more.

I am not personally interested in a 'Twitter' like short blog approach with several monthly posts. Although I admit some have success with it.

Thank you to you loyal readers including the anonymous ones. Commenters, followers and links also appreciated of course. Cheers.

A. Restoration Why Later? (PhD Edit)

Sovereignty approaches such as those of John Feinberg, state that God was just and perfect in how he dealt with creation.[1] These claim that a good God created a good world and that human rebellion and the problem of evil existed for a good reason.[2] Yet sovereignty approaches believe that God would ultimately culminate his Kingdom of God[3] and eliminate the problem of evil.[4] As D.Z. Phillips notes, ‘Theodicists want happy endings.’[5] Feinberg admits the difficulty with his approach because it defends God allowing the problem of evil in his creation for a time period that is unknown to human beings,[6] and at the same time claims that God would eventually restore his creation.[7] He notes that free will and evolutionary theistic approaches to the problem of evil also assume that God would restore his creation, and so this was a common theistic assumption.[8] The fact that his sovereignty approach accepts restoration of the creation within it in no way makes his presentation internally inconsistent.[9] Phillips explains that this general type of approach views God as compensating persons for the sufferings in life.[10] Evil and suffering is therefore redeemed in some way.[11] Evil and suffering would be worthwhile within a Christian world view where Christ prevails. Phillips warns that at its worst Christianity can push one to back the right supernatural force,[12] as in not backing Satan.[13] Phillips suggests that no one wants to back a loser and so Christians should logically, within their worldview, back God and not Satan.[14] God becomes a means and not an end within this type of Christian approach.[15] It should be interjected that Christianity should not be primarily about being on the winning side, rather it should be concerned, for the most part, with doing God’s will obediently in love.[16] Phillips views it as problematic that Jesus stated his Kingdom was not of this world and yet in the Second Coming establishes his Kingdom on this earth.[17]

Feinberg thought it was not his objective to answer why God allowed the problem of evil and would eventually bring restoration, and I view this as a weakness.[18] Rather, Feinberg believes he was successful in presenting an approach that showed God was good,[19] as was his creation.[20] Calvin writes that God would begin anew in humanity by abolishing the fallen will, leaving the human will in its original state.[21] God would turn evil to good, according to Calvin,[22] thus bringing a new humanity which was a new creation.[23] This human restoration and rebirth, Calvin (1552)(1995) notes,[24] would lead to the culmination of the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate blessing of immortality.[25]

Within a sovereignty approach, I deduce a theoretical, possible and suitable reason why God created a good world and allowed human beings to rebel against him.[26] My theory is that human beings that are saved through Christ with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God. If the idea of a literal Adam and Eve is rejected, as was mentioned by Jackson and Fretheim[27] it can be reasoned that those within the culminated Kingdom of God will surpass those first persons in spiritual maturity as well. This would be so because those God saves will have experienced their own sin, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. These would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God.[28] Persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity.[29] Those within the culminated Kingdom of God would not possess the initial inexperience and immaturity of the first persons. It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature,[30] not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature[31] but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God.[32] It is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world[33] and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope.[34] The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history.[35]

[1] Feinberg (1994: 136).

[2] Feinberg (1994: 136). Phillips questions this type of reasoning as there is often a lack of correlation between suffering and virtue. Phillips (2005: 81-82). Humanly speaking this can be granted, but God, traditionally understood at least, could make these correlations.

[3] Mounce (1990: 368-397).

[4] Feinberg (1994: 141). These theories are often viewed with ideas of optimism and progress. Phillips (2005: 82).

[5] Phillips (2005: 247).

[6] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[7] Feinberg (1994: 141). Phillips doubts a notion of life after death makes sense. He uses as example comparing death to being asleep or unconscious. Phillips (2005: 85).

[8] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[9] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[10] Phillips (2005: 81).

[11] Phillips (2005: 81).

[12] Phillips (2005: 247).

[13] Phillips (2005: 247).

[14] Phillips (2005: 247). A decent point is made, however, in light of Reformed views on compatibilism, Christians are not going to primarily choose God, but are chosen by God.

[15] Phillips (2005: 247).

[16] For example, Matthew 22 and Mark 12 has Christ instructing the reader to love God first and foremost, and others as much as self. Jesus in John 15 tells his disciples to love one another just as he loved them.

[17] Phillips (2005: 247). Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this temporal world, not of this present realm. The world shall be changed and restored. Mounce (1990: 368-397).

[18] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[19] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[20] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[21] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[22] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[23] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[24] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[25] Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).

[26] This is logical and reasonable and also open to refinement in the future. But I reason this explanation is a superior approach to Feinberg’s non-explanation.

[27] Jackson (1941)(2006: 1). Fretheim (1994: 152).

[28] Moltmann (1993: 256). Calvin (1552)(1995: 415).

[29] God can create a perfect person, but God cannot logically create a perfect person with experience as such. The act of creating implies newness and inexperience. Admittedly, God could hypothetically create a being with false memories of a perfect life, but this would not be the same as having experience. I deduce the results would not be the same.

[30] Finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness.

[31] Isaiah 43 makes it clear there was no God formed before God and there will be no God formed after. Isaiah 44-46 make similar statements. The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 816-821).

[32] By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[33] Moltmann (1993: 256).

[34] Moltmann (1993: 256).

[35] Moltmann (1993: 263).

---------

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Grand Rapids, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

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

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

JACKSON, JOHN G. (1941)(2006) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, New York, Truth Seeker Co.

MOLTMANN, JURGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

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

Lake Superior, Ontario (trekearth.com)

B. Philosophy of Sport

This is posted on my Facebook page:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=364902

This was the comment I found amusing

'"I would be personally interested in seeing if we could do a deal with (Research in Motion president Jim) Balsillie," added Lieberman. "I think the best thing we could do is to get him to buy it and keep it here for 10 years and then I don't give a damn what he does with it."'

Glendale looking to renew contract to keep Coyotes

'The City of Glendale wants to reach into its pocket to guarantee at least one more season of NHL hockey in Arizona. City council is set to vote on a propsal on Tuesday to renew the existing contract with the NHL for another year and cover up to $25 million in potential losses.'

As I was stating/texting to Big Bro in AZ last night, the NHL will do almost anything to keep the team in AZ. It has the dream of a huge national t.v. deal in the US and does not want to give up PHX. If it was just about money and having a ...team make a profit the team would be in Canada, but not WPG or QUE but S. ONT. A problem is even though the game is growing in the US it will be in many cities the number 4 or 5 sport.

End

Note Balsillie had his potential purchase of the Phoenix Coyotes blocked in court via the NHL as he wanted to move the team to Hamilton, Ontario with a court process. He offered far more than the team was worth and in court the NHL admitted the team in Southern Ontario would have eventually been a very valuable franchise in the League.

Further in the news, the potential buyer of the Coyotes from the NHL is rumoured to be backing out and interested in another more profitable team which means the city will cover losses for another year while the NHL owns the team for another year while also taking losses.

I am sympathetic to hockey fans in Arizona like my brother and others in my family that just want to attend games.

I am sympathetic to the city of Glendale which needs to have a tenant for its suburban arena for which it has invested millions of dollars. But in reality they could have a minor league team. I realize that is not as profitable, perhaps, but it would still help pay the bills, taking longer.

I am not sympathetic to the NHL which in my mind seems to be using Winnipeg as a pawn with possible relocation for the Coyotes for the last two seasons, and then the NHL simply owns the team for another year in Phoenix. There are the rumours about the Atlanta Thrashers being available for Winnipeg and I expect the League to use the Manitoba city once again as a pawn. As a good friend of my mine notes, news about teams possibly coming to Canada helps generate more interest in hockey. The team moved to Phoenix from Winnipeg in 1996.

Philosophically, I do not think a league should operate this way. As an individual club, break even and/or make a profit in a city as a business in partnership with the other clubs or fold or move on.

C. Philosophy of Sport

The NHL reasons hockey eventually can be sold successfully in non-traditional southern US markets known as the sunbelt because hockey is 'exciting'. In other words, if persons not very culturally familiar with it can see it, they will find it 'exciting'.

My take as a philosopher is that is 'exciting' as they use is a rather subjective term. Hockey may be fast and quick, but 'exciting' is largely tied into cultural connections and cultural appreciation for a sport. So, someone from Glasgow is more likely to typically find 'football' exciting, someone from Alabama is more likely to typically find 'football' exciting, but a different kind of 'football', and someone from the Bronx, more likely to typically find baseball exciting.

It is difficult to establish a sport as substantially culturally relevant when there are already several sports in front of it in a given market already considered more subjectively 'exciting'.

Therefore, the League's approach to marketing is largely flawed on that point.

D. Eye Surgery Update

May 17, 2011

I fully admit here that I have a Doctorate in Theology and Philosophy of Religion and not Ophthalmology, but as I have discussed my vitreous floater issues on this blog previously (see archives via search and also my satire and theology blog) I thought I would update. I received a few emails and comments on the issue. Some people are really suffering with vitreous floaters and related and they are concerned about the issue. I wish to help where I can.

I do have a myopic eye which is also amblyopic. My other is normal. I had a posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) in my one eye and a massive floater and the eye was filled with floaters. In 2007 I went down to Fort Myers, Florida (Dr. Geller) and the massive floater was destroyed but his laser could not destroy the smaller floaters as they could not be seen. In 2009 I went to Los Angeles and had more of the smaller floaters destroyed by an another laser (Dr. Johnson). But the eye still remained flooded with floaters. Both are fine Doctors, by the way. So, I gave in and received a vitrectomy from the fine Doctors at UBC (2010) that I had been in discussion with on the issue for four years. I was warned that there was a significant chance of complications at 5-15% by one Doctor, these included chances of infection, blindness, retinal detachment with 90% chance of reattachment and the possibility my eye could end being tossed in a jar after the surgery. So, one can see why I took the Florida and Los Angeles laser surgery options first, even though UBC did not think them a good idea.

Well, as it turns out, just prior to the vitrectomy, UBC found two retinal tears which my surgeon kindly and quickly fixed with a laser. With investigation I found out from an Ophthalmologist and from reading that the remnants of the PVD and the vitreous can cause such tears. The remaining vitreous may have been tearing away at my retina which is thinner in a larger eye. Now all that remains is the tiny retinal scars. My vision is not damaged.

So, I conclude here if I would have had the vitrectomy very soon after the PVD I would have quite possibly avoided the retinal tears which if left untreated could have led to retinal detachment and blindness in that eye.

This may have been a case of 'Damned if you do and damned if you don't', philosophically speaking. Sorry if I offend a fundamentalist for using the word damned, but that is the saying.;)

Further, having recovered from the vitrectomy I have had a lens replacement in the same eye and vision is now significantly better although still amblyopic. I may need a prescription lens.


Lake Bohara, BC (trekearth.com)


Lake Tahoe, California (Ron Niebrugge)


My 'Estate': May 18, 2011 at a prayer time (thekingpin68)