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

by dhw, Saturday, March 30, 2024, 08:37 (236 days ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga

dhw:. 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”.

DAVID: Back you go to the Holocaust which is a human-caused event. God did not do it!

But according to Plantinga, he allowed it to happen.

DAVID: "Morally sufficient" is in "God's mind" not ours, and in His judgement justifies what happens. We trust Him, you don't, the great gulf between us.

You agree with Plantinga that IF God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, that will justify the evil. You might as well say the same for any evil-doer, including Hitler. The whole question is whether there IS a morally justifiable reason. (Hence the problem of theodicy, which is Plantinga’s subject and ours.) Yes, says Plantinga: God wants us to love him of our own free will, and so he allows evil (e.g the Holocaust) to take place. Why have you omitted this from your comments? God allowing evil, and in his omniscience knowing what is going to happen, means he has chosen to let the Holocaust happen so long as people love him. You have belatedly rejected the only reason Plantinga offers (which makes God a self-centred monster), and you can’t offer any morally sufficient reason either. Plantinga does not say: “I can’t think of any morally sufficient reason, but I trust Him.”

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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'm not. Plantinga is pure theology, not discussing at our level of science proves God.

Theodicy does not deal with proving God's existence! So do you now reject Plantinga’s moral justification of evil (as it is needed in order for us to love him properly) or not? If not, please tell us exactly what points you agree with.

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.

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

DAVID: See above. I have not. Your interpretation and mine differ widely.

Once more: The only reason Plantinga can find in order to justify his God allowing evil to happen, is his God’s desire to be loved by us of our own free will. You have emphatically rejected this, and your solution to the theodicy problem is that you trust God.

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

dhw: 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”.

DAVID: Just like your interpretations.

Please tell me which of my “interpretations” denote double standards.

DAVID: Held is softening the OT, I previously told you.

The article you quoted admiringly tells us that God “risks a lot, and puts up with a lot, all in the name of love – both the love God has for us and the love God hopes that we will embody and bring into the world.”

Do you accept his view of a loving God?

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: That is your black view! God created a very great reality for us.

Will you never understand that theodicy deals with the question why an all-good God has created or allowed evil. Everyone who asks that question acknowledges that evil exists. That is not a “black view”!