Theodicy -- Let's Dig Deeper

[metis]

In other words, does God not only allow evil in the world, but is He the proximate cause of much evil in the world? Discuss.

How about if one tended to believe in "Spinoza's God", to use Einstein's terminology?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How about if one tended to believe in "Spinoza's God", to use Einstein's terminology?

Well, how about it? Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”. ... Therefore, God is just the sum of all the substances of the universe. God is the only substance in the universe, and everything is a part of God.

To me, that equates to the idea that God and the universe are an identity, and that ought to mean that one can accept either as the foundation of all being, but that leaves nothing to be "playing the part" of God, as it were. Which leaves us with ... the universe.

 

[thomas t]

Quite apart from the fact that it is manifestly untrue that "All the genuine evil in the world is the result of the choices of creatures with free will", free will itself, in any sense that would make your argument valid, is itself a contradiction.

We make our "free" choices either as entirely deterministic systems (in other words, each choice is the direct result of our nature, nurture, and total life experience up to the moment of choice) or not. If not, to the extent it is free from being deterministic, it must be random (which is hardly freedom).

From the point of view of an omniscient, omnipotent creator, there can be no created being with free will because said creator would have effectively chosen (by the act of creation) everybody's nature, nurture, and life of experience.

omniscience is not biblical.
In a sense that there is no Bible passage indicating God's all time omniscience.
The whole philosophic debate hinges on that assumtpion.
Yet it can't be found in the Bible.
True, many Christians decide to believe in it. But still, it's not scripture. It's doctrine.

Bible only. That's my favorite rule here.
You can't show God's omniscience using scripture.
But philosophers need it to keep their enterprise going, I'm afraid... that's why this assumption is that popular, I guess.

My suggestion: let's do without it. @pcarl for a change?

 

[metis]

Well, how about it? Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”. ... Therefore, God is just the sum of all the substances of the universe. God is the only substance in the universe, and everything is a part of God.

To me, that equates to the idea that God and the universe are an identity, and that ought to mean that one can accept either as the foundation of all being, but that leaves nothing to be "playing the part" of God, as it were. Which leaves us with ... the universe.

Those that tend to go in Spinoza's and Einstein's direction on this tend to not go so far as to try to state with this refers to pantheism or panentheism. Nor do I "favor" one over the other, but I do tend to think that there's Something out there/in here, however I can't really take it any further than that.

BTW, how's Outlander coming?

 

[1213]

...
In other words, does God not only allow evil in the world, but is He the proximate cause of much evil in the world? Discuss.

I don’t think God does evil. When/if He kills, it is because person is unrighteous and evil. And if righteous person dies, he gets eternal life with God. That is why I don’t see death as a problem, or evil, if God allows it.

Also, Bible tells person is destroyed in the hell. That is why I don’t think anyone is living in the hell and feeling pain eternally.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

But, by what I see, “evil” is very subjective word. Obviously, criminals would probably not want justice to happen and think it is evil, if they are judged.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Those that tend to go in Spinoza's and Einstein's direction on this tend to not go so far as to try to state with this refers to pantheism or panentheism. Nor do I "favor" one over the other, but I do tend to think that there's Something out there/in here, however I can't really take it any further than that.

BTW, how's Outlander coming?

My point, @metis, is that if there is an identity between the universe (which we might call "all that exists") and God, then does that provide a reason to suppose that there is something which may be thought of as "in control" overall of the whole thing? I propose that there is not.

Think about the workings of the termite mound, which is so spectacularly well-built that it even includes the ability to heat and cool itself, maintaining a uniform internal temperature regardless of what is happening outside. Does anyone really suppose that the queen, that pulsating, egg-laying sac, is directing activities from her "mental blue-print?" Of course not! Nor does anyone really suppose that there is one "mind" controlling the murmuration of starlings in this video.

 

[Glaurung]

The predestination of God seeks the salvation of all. But the predestination of God also humbly respects our free will. And so this predestination to salvation does not occur in such a way that free will has no choice or no ability to obtain salvation, but only in such a way that all future free will decisions are included in the knowledge of God, with the grace that makes the will free and the offer of every grace without exception needed to obtain eternal life. God also knows in advance which souls will be lost to Hell forever by their own free will decisions, despite all His graces. But this knowledge does not compel, and this free will decision not to repent from actual mortal sin (final impenitence) is made despite every grace needed to repent.

I have not denied the free choice of men in predestination at all. But the prevenient grace that stirs a soul to initial faith always precedes any human choice. Hence the term 'prevenient'. Our freedom consists in the ability to either cooperate with or refuse the stirrings of this prevenient grace. It is not that God denies anyone the ability to come to faith. The inability to come to faith is always due to a freely chosen obstacle that deafens one to the small quiet voice which urges us to God. Therefore final impenitence is truly and always the freely chosen fault of the individual. Nonetheless to claim that we can come to faith by our free will alone - that is preceding any grace - is Pelagianism. And that is a heresy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have not denied the free choice of men in predestination at all. But the prevenient grace that stirs a soul to initial faith always precedes any human choice. Hence the term 'prevenient'. Our freedom consists in the ability to either cooperate with or refuse the stirrings of this prevenient grace. It is not that God denies anyone the ability to come to faith. The inability to come to faith is always due to a freely chosen obstacle that deafens one to the small quiet voice which urges us to God. Therefore final impenitence is truly and always the freely chosen fault of the individual. Nonetheless to claim that we can come to faith by our free will alone - that is preceding any grace - is Pelagianism. And that is a heresy.

Out of curiosity, where would that "prevenient grace that stirs a soul to initial faith" come from for a child being brought up in a Hindu household?

More importantly, how would they recognize it, never having heard of Christ or the Abrahamic God?

 

[Glaurung]

Out of curiosity, where would that "prevenient grace that stirs a soul to initial faith" come from for a child being brought up in a Hindu household?

To the degree the Hindu cooperates with grace is the degree we can hope for that Hindu's salvation. One school of thought would say that no one who is truly open to the truth will fail to obtain a Christian faith. God in his foresight will arrange the circumstances in such a way that will allow for that person to hear the Gospel in one way or another. Another school of thought holds that those in circumstances which make an explicit Christian faith impossible can nonetheless cooperate with grace even if it is in a way known only to God. This cooperation will lead a person to predestination. According to the Catechism.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. CCC
​

The question comes down to cooperation with grace. To reject the Christian faith knowing its necessity in preference for Hinduism would be non-cooperation with grace and dangerous for salvation.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

omniscience is not biblical.
In a sense that there is no Bible passage indicating God's all time omniscience.

Yes there is. Psalm 147:5. "Great is our Lord, and abundant in power, to his understanding there is no measure." The Hebrew is also translated as by my Schotterstein edition of the Psalms as "his understanding is beyond calculation." Some translations use say "his understanding is infinite." There is a particle of negation with the noun "mispar." Mispar means number, and is used in Job to mean "without number, i.e., innumerable," according to Gesenius. At Psalm 147:5 it is used as elsewhere in the Old Testament with such a negation as meaning innumerable, but in the Psalm context it is talking about the Lord's understanding, which is without number, not measurable, in other words, as some translations give "infinite." That which is finite is limited, i.e., numerable. That which is innumerable is another name for infinite, which is, but definition, omniscient in understanding.

Now whether this is consistent with other scriptures in the Old Testament or an overall theological understanding I have not checked. But with the usage of the Hebrew noun mispar with the particle of negation it always means innumerable or infinite in a few places. Hence it is a biblical view in at least two of the books, Job and Psalms. My Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia reads "his understanding has no limit." In other words, that which is finite is that which has limit. That which is infinite has no limit, hence "infinite."

Interestingly my Koehler Baumgartner Bilingual Dictionary of the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament has the "Aiyn Mispar" at Genesis 41:49 where Joseph's grain storage was so vast that it is said to be "not measurable." Granted, in this sense it is simply too much for one man to count, not infinite. But in the Psalm context it is applied to the Lord's understanding. And the Hebrew doesn't use a usual word Olam as eternal or unending either, but uses aiyn mispar.

 

[Clara Tea]

Evangelicalhumanist wrote:



" God permits evil. Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God "



"Theos is translated "God" and dikē can be translated as either "trial" or "judgement". Thus, theodicy literally means "justifying God.”"



"Eternal punishment for not believing in Christianity or God."









We could assume that the first born were special, and got special treats. Red tide is poison, and makes certain shellfish poisonous at certain times of the year. Jews have dietary laws preventing them from eating shellfish at all (their laws kept them safe from swine-born illnesses, as well). Could it be that Jews wanted to scare Egyptians into releasing them by knowing that a red tide would kill their first born, so telling them that their God will attack their first born?



Fear of eternal damnation gets (and keeps) converts. But, I thought that Satan rules by fear.



Is Satan the jailer of sinners, and is hell the prison? If so, it would take a lot of mental energy to maintain the bars/constraints of hell. If Satan is willing to maintain that expenditure of energy, God doesn't have to.



Maybe God can see a reason for Satan, since God can see the future? Maybe Satan will eventually turn good? Maybe the tortured evil souls of hell will finally have enough and repent?



Maybe God is just a made up character in a story?



If we substitute Fred Flintstone for God, we would see that Fred doesn't always spend time fixing the world's problems. Fred doesn't listen to prayers and answer the needs of the world. One could argue that Fred is a made-up cartoon character, but what about Wilma, Pebbles, Barny, Betty, and Bambam? Aren't those characters who, like the apostles, could vouch for his existence?



Should we all go to church to learn about Fred Flintstone? Should we tithe to fund churches in honor of Fred? Should we tell people that they will go to hell if they don't worship Fred?



In the Dark Ages, people would be put to death for suggesting that Fred was not real or the savior.

Let us consider, turning to the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira. They sold their property, but withheld some of the price for themselves, giving the rest to Peter and the Apostles. Because they withheld some of their own money, and did not admit to the true price they had received, they died on the spot – a story presented in a magical-enough way to make it clear that these were miracle deaths, and therefore caused by God. But in the story (Acts 5), Peter himself made it clear that Ananias was in control of his own money, and could give or keep it as he saw fit. Were their deaths at the Hand of God just?

In other words, does God not only allow evil in the world, but is He the proximate cause of much evil in the world? Discuss.[/QUOTE]

 

[RestlessSoul]

I hold an Eastern perspective but not necessarily a strictly Hindu one.

From this perspective, we are all players in God's "great dream", governed by 'maya', the principle of illusion, that makes God' dream seem like reality and us seem like separate beings.

In this dream, we enjoy apparent happiness and suffer apparent misery. But when we finally wake up, become enlightened, achieve moksha, the illusion falls away and all our happiness and misery are realized as not having been more than a dream from which we've awakened.

And we discover that the apparent joy and apparent suffering led inevitably to that eventual awakening. So the problem theodicy attempts to address resolves into people being "shaken" in order to help them wake up.

Thank you for that perspective. Yours is an interpretation of our human existence that I’m instinctively drawn to; but while I am more than willing to accept that much of what is apparent to us is in fact illusion, there is no denying that the suffering of innocent humans is very real to the sufferers. So it doesn’t really answer the basic question of “why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?”

Unless you take the view that God exists beyond the concept of good and evil, I suppose. And that even the darkness serves the light. But that, for me, doesn’t make the suffering of innocent beings any more palatable.

Perhaps, ethically, the question we should each be asking ourselves is not, “why does a loving God allow the innocent to suffer?”, but rather, “what can I do to alleviate the suffering of others, and so serve God?”

 

[ratiocinator]

omniscience is not biblical.
In a sense that there is no Bible passage indicating God's all time omniscience.

Bible only. That's my favorite rule here.
You can't show God's omniscience using scripture.

There are plenty of people who claim to base their beliefs on the bible just as much as you, who'll give you an argument (just google it). In fact 'bible only' is meaningless. The bible is a confused, incoherent, often self-contradictory mess.

The whole philosophic debate hinges on that assumtpion.

The point about the incoherence of "free will" remains as do the instances where god directly causes suffering (according to the bible).

 

[firedragon]

As defined by Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the "answer to the question of why God permits evil." Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the evidential problem of evil that seems inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity. Another definition of theodicy is the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The word theodicy derives from the Greek words Θεός Τheos and δίκη dikē. Theos is translated "God" and dikē can be translated as either "trial" or "judgement". Thus, theodicy literally means "justifying God.”

I don’t think this definition goes far enough, however, and would like interested members to explore further, into not only what God allows, but what God Himself does. What follows is taken from the Christian perspective, as I couldn’t do justice to any other religion. Other members may take that challenge on if they’d like.

What traditional theodicies never seem to look at are questions about what God ordains, or does, or causes to be done. Things like: eternal punishment after death, and unjust, God-ordained or God-committed actions in this world.

For example: we are told that defaulters from Christian belief are condemned to eternal torture in hell. We are also told that believers, although they may have committed horrible crimes in life, can repent and have a chance to avoid that eternal punishment and achieve salvation. That is never available to someone who simply cannot bring himself to believe, given the lack of any evidence whatever. The question is: is that just?

Let us consider the flood of Noah, or the plagues of Egypt, or the Massacre of Canaanites: the flood, we are told, was deliberately caused by God and drowned all humans on earth except Noah and 7 family members, and all of the animals except a few saved on the ark. All humans, including the infant born just when the rain began to fall. God orders that the Canaanites be destroyed, including the women and children, except for the females who were still virgins, who the Hebrews could keep for themselves. In Egypt, God finally sends a “destroyer” targeted on the first-born of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the lowly farmers sheep. What on earth was the crime committed by those first-born sons of Egypt – including the children? Can we say, after all this, that God acted justly and rightly? Or did God do very real evil?

Let us consider, turning to the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira. They sold their property, but withheld some of the price for themselves, giving the rest to Peter and the Apostles. Because they withheld some of their own money, and did not admit to the true price they had received, they died on the spot – a story presented in a magical-enough way to make it clear that these were miracle deaths, and therefore caused by God. But in the story (Acts 5), Peter himself made it clear that Ananias was in control of his own money, and could give or keep it as he saw fit. Were their deaths at the Hand of God just?

In other words, does God not only allow evil in the world, but is He the proximate cause of much evil in the world? Discuss.

What about process theology?

 

[thomas t]

Yes there is. Psalm 147:5. "Great is our Lord, and abundant in power, to his understanding there is no measure." The Hebrew is also translated as by my Schotterstein edition of the Psalms as "his understanding is beyond calculation." Some translations use say "his understanding is infinite." There is a particle of negation with the noun "mispar." Mispar means number, and is used in Job to mean "without number, i.e., innumerable," according to Gesenius. At Psalm 147:5 it is used as elsewhere in the Old Testament with such a negation as meaning innumerable, but in the Psalm context it is talking about the Lord's understanding, which is without number, not measurable, in other words, as some translations give "infinite." That which is finite is limited, i.e., numerable. That which is innumerable is another name for infinite, which is, but definition, omniscient in understanding.

his understanding is infinite. This does not necessarily mean understanding equals knowledge.
It is as simple as that.
For instance, you can have infinite understanding of music, while at the same time not knowing one and every tune there is in the world.

So I stay with my opinion: God's purported omniscience is a theory. But not Bible.

 

[thomas t]

There are plenty of people who claim to base their beliefs on the bible just as much as you, who'll give you an argument (just google it).

When people claim so, this does not make it factual.
True there are plenty of verses concerned with the issue.
But not one verse that google could potentially list actiually shows God's omniscience.
Even if a Bible verse is about the topic of knowledge in general.... that doesn't mean that omniscience is shown.
Google it and convince yourself!

In fact 'bible only' is meaningless. The bible is a confused, incoherent, often self-contradictory mess.

I disagree. In my opinion, the Bible is not confused and never self-contradictory. It's not a mess. So I stay with my point: Bible only please if you want to refer to the Christian God.

The point about the incoherence of "free will" remains as do the instances where god directly causes suffering (according to the bible).

I do believe that God was powerful enough to install free will, within certain limits.
Man is accoutable, I believe.
Yes, God sometimes directly causes suffering.
For instance, he eradicated the city of Sodom, I started a thread about this.

 

[ratiocinator]

When people claim so, this does not make it factual.

Same goes for your claim.

Google it and convince yourself!

I did - it's ambiguous - even contradictory. Take, for example Psalm 139:4, which implies knowledge of the future, as does Isaiah 46:9-10. Then there are also plenty of verses that suggests that god was surprised, disappointed, or angry about things. As I said, the bible is a mess.

I disagree. In my opinion, the Bible is not confused and never self-contradictory.

See above. It's also got two contradictory genealogies of Jesus, for goodness' sake. Joseph can't be the son of Heli and the son of Jacob. There are endless others.

I do believe that God was powerful enough to install free will, within certain limits.

Do you think god can do the logically impossible or self-contradictory? Can god draw a square circle? If not, then free will in any meaningful sense (from the point of view of a creator god), is just as impossible.

 

[thomas t]

I did - it's ambiguous - even contradictory. Take, for example Psalm 139:4, which implies knowledge of the future, as does Isaiah 46:9-10. Then there are also plenty of verses that suggests that god was surprised, disappointed, or angry about things. As I said, the bible is a mess.

Psalms 139:4 is about God understanding a prayer, even if the speaker can't put it properly, I think.
It's not a mess.
No contradiction.
Isaiah says that God sometimes looks into the future. Well, sometimes.

See above. It's also got two contradictory genealogies of Jesus, for goodness' sake. Joseph can't be the son of Heli and the son of Jacob. There are endless others.

Well, the one geneology was aboiut real fathers, the other about bloodline.

Do you think god can do the logically impossible or self-contradictory? Can god draw a square circle? If not, then free will in any meaningful sense (from the point of view of a creator god), is just as impossible.

God can't make the square triangle right now.
But this isn't comparable to free will, I think.

 

[metis]

My point, @metis, is that if there is an identity between the universe (which we might call "all that exists") and God, then does that provide a reason to suppose that there is something which may be thought of as "in control" overall of the whole thing? I propose that there is not.

I tend to agree with you, but then what do I really know?

 

[ratiocinator]

Psalms 139:4 is about God understanding a prayer, even if the speaker can't put it properly, I think.
It's not a mess.
No contradiction.
Isaiah says that God sometimes looks into the future. Well, sometimes.

I didn't interpret those verses - I simply chose them as examples which your fellow "bible-believing" Christians have used to claim god is omniscient. If the bible were clear, then there wouldn't be endless disagreements about its interpretation and hence there wouldn't be all the endless sects, cults, and denominations that all claim to follow it.

Well, the one geneology was aboiut real fathers, the other about bloodline.

I've seen endless excuses - but the fact remains that the two gospels flatly contradict each other.

God can't make the square triangle right now.
But this isn't comparable to free will, I think.

To the extend any event (such as a choice) is not fully determined by all its antecedents, it is determined by nothing (and is therefore random). There is no logical way in which free will can make sense to a god whose creation determines all events (the antecedents to all choices) or who has deliberately introduced randomness (which can have no bearing on anybody's will). It is every bit as contradictory as a square triangle.