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

by dhw, Friday, March 29, 2024, 11:33 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

DAVID: 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!

All our past posts are available for reference. This is what you agreed with: “Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so —that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil”. The only reason Plantinga could think of, and which clearly neither he nor you realized would make God a self-centred monster, was that evil was justified because he wanted us to love him of our own free will. The theodicy problem raises the question of whether God really is a morally perfect, omnipotent being! The general argument of which you still approve is vacuous if you can’t find a morally sufficient reason. You might just as well say that Hitler’s slaughter of 6 million Jews would be acceptable if he had a morally sufficient reason for doing so. If you can’t find one, then God and Hitler make a fine pair.

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!

DAVID: Again, you assume whole hog swallowing of Plantinga. I always take bits pieces I like. I'm clearly with Adler about possible love.

So what was your purpose in presenting the Plantinga article? Your response to it was:
DAVID: this article is on the point of human caused evil. it presents all of my points given in the past. What it does not cover directly is the evil in bugs, but Plantinga's answer really does. What good bacteria do far outweigh the evil side effects and they are present for good reason.

You now reject Plantinga’s explanation of human-caused evil, and as regards bugs etc. you have just written: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters”, which include bugs causing diseases. How did you manage to extrapolate that from Plantinga?

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

I’ve now explained to you exactly what you accept. Do you still accept it?

dhw: […] 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”.

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

You have just emphatically rejected his one and only defence of God’s evil.

dhw: Since when was pure Christian theology “secondary stream”? Rabbi Held – another “mainstream” theologian – also devoted his article to God and love.

No comment from you. Your dismissal of deism and process theology as “secondary stream” rings hollow when your own personal theology rejects mainstream theology (both Christian and Jewish) in respect of God’s love. This is called “double standards”.

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.

DAVID: And blackest for you.

A silly comment. I love life and its “goodies” just as much as you do. The precise ratio of good to evil is irrelevant if the subject is why an all-good God created or allowed evil.

Good and bad bugs

DAVID: Many more good than bad, as usual.

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: Doesn't affect me.

Thanks to your double standards.