Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 28, 2024, 19:10 (30 days ago) @ dhw

Plantinga

DAVID: […] I am not joined at the hip with Plantinga! I take from Him what I wish. His defense of theodicy is exactly how I feel.

dhw: You have never said a word against his “defense of theodicy”: i.e. God allowed evil and its terrible consequences in order to make sure we loved him of our own free will....Why did you produce and endorse this defence in the first place if you disagreed with the one and only "morally sufficient reason" he could offer us?

Unfortunately I have to rely on memory for past exchanges. Thanks for reminding me. 'Morally sufficient reason' was exactly what I agreed with, as did Plantinga's critic!

DAVID: His loving God (note Adler's point) is pure Christian theology, not mine.

dhw: You’ve forgotten that I pointed out to you the fact that Plantinga’s theory, which you endorsed, conflicted with Adler’s theory!

Again, you assume whole hog swallowing of Plantinga. I always take bits pieces I like. I'm clearly with Adle rabout possible love.

DAVID: Your worthless use of the holocaust to accuse God when it is totally a human problem, when He has put us in change of ourselves, and leaving the OT times, He is no longer our Shepard of the OT.

dhw:I have not accused God of anything! I have pointed out that Plantinga’s one and only defence of evil (e.g. the Holocaust) is that God allowed it to happen in order to make sure that humans loved him of their own free will. You embraced his theory, still endorse it (“his defense of theodicy is exactly how I feel”) and try to blame me for pointing out your self- contradictions which you now try to gloss over!

I've now told you exactly what I accept. Back you scurry to the Holocaust! Humans did it, not God.

dhw: […] your new theory of one-to-one relationships has nothing to do with your acceptance of Plantinga’s theodicy. Your championship of what you call your “personal theology” is also a remarkable switch from your recent attack on process theology and deism because they are not “mainstream”. It appears that personal theologies are only justified when they agree with yours.

DAVID: Process theology and deism definitely are secondary stream theologies. Just do the numbers.

dhw: And you have your very own “personal theology” and your very own “personal relationship” with God. Now you are even sneering at Plantinga: “His loving God is pure Christian theology, not mine”.

The sneers are yours. I've known Plantinga for years when we did some discussion together.

dhw: Since when was pure Christian theology “secondary stream”? Rabbi Held – another “mainstream” theologian – also devoted his article to God and love. Held is in the role of softening the OT God ,which I have pointed out previously.

HELD

dhw: I pointed out that this vividly illustrates the fact that your fellow theologians do exactly the same as you: ““I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows." […]

DAVID: You are swaying in the breeze without any firm decisions except to criticize theism. I have very firm positions you attack.

dhw: I do not criticize theism. I criticize your firm positions by pointing out all the illogicalities and self-contradictions with which they are riddled and which you consistently try to dodge when they are pointed out. Your Plantinga comments today illustrate the point.

DAVID: Your strawman "Holocaust" is why I have to dodge around your so-called agnostic logic about God.
And:
DAVID: Plantinga is not swallowed whole as you imply. I use him sans love.

dhw: Sans God’s wish to be loved, you are rejecting the whole of his “defense of theodicy”. The holocaust was an example of the evil which Plantinga’s God allowed, so that he could be sure humans loved him of their own free will. Will you now declare that Plantinga’s one and only "morally sufficient reason" for evil is a load of twaddle, so that we can leave him out of our discussions? [...]

No, it is exactly the right sort of reasoning.

dhw: […] I’m intrigued to see that you are now blaming God for all the other suffering he has inflicted on us in his love for us and despite his being all-good.

DAVID:[…] God's creation has dangers for human beings, cannot be denied. It is all how you see proportions. You see mostly black. Is it purposeful?

dhw: The subject is theodicy – why God created or allowed evil. You cannot discuss evil without discussing evil, and evil is black.

And blackest for you.

Good and bad bugs

DAVID: Many more good than bad, as usual.

dhw: Theodicy asks why an all good God would have produced the bad bugs which cause so much suffering. Until yesterday you had glibly told us to ignore the bad because there’s much more good. Yesterday, however, you performed a remarkable U-turn: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” We can now add this to your view of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. I wonder how many of your “mainstream” theologians agree with you, and also how this will affect your “personal relationship” with God.

Doesn't affect me.