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

by dhw, Sunday, March 31, 2024, 12:32 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga

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

dhw: But according to Plantinga, he allowed it to happen.

DAVID: That is Plantinga, not me. God does not run the world but is in touch with individuals.

Thank you for rejecting Plantinga’s arguments. I don't know why you presented the article in the first place, since now you want us to ignore it. And I have no idea what you mean by God being in touch with individuals. How often does he talk to you? Next time, please ask him why he allows such evils as the Holocaust, why he used such an inefficient method to produce you, and whether or not he wants you to love him.

dhw: […] 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.”

DAVID: Plantinga in this article does not go to that depth, but I'll bet he would agree with me.

So when Plantinga says the moral justification for God allowing evil to happen is that he wants us to love him freely, he would agree that he is totally wrong, and instead we must simply trust in God's goodness.

DAVID: Once again you have avoided my thought: it is God who has a "morally sufficient reason" to allow evil. God has not given us an explanation, so we accept it in trust of God and His personal reasons. Again, " God does not run the world but is in touch with individuals". Humans create human evils, and God never stops us. God expects us to correct them.

I was not dealing with YOUR explanation of theodicy but with Plantinga’s, which initially you presented to us with your full support. I’m pleased to see that you now reject it. Your own explanation is that you have no explanation, but we must trust in your interpretation of your God’s thoughts and motives.

DAVID: I view it this way: God giving us free will sets up a challenge that we must meet, which is not to do evil, or correct it on our own.

And what in heaven’s name do you think is the purpose of that? Do you think it’s a game for him? Please explain.

DAVID: The issue of a loving God: Adler puts it at 50/50, which I accept as a reasonable judgement.

Strange that you never mentioned that when you presented us approvingly with Held’s article, which puts love at the very centre of his theology.

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.

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

DAVID: You twist my points constantly to create your own defense of Darwin, constantly discussing evolution as a naturally occurring process driven by a survival instinct.

A process which is perfectly compatible with the existence of God. Where are the “double standards”? The term is perfectly illustrated by the fact that you condemn a theory because it goes against the mainstream, but then approve of your own theory even though it goes against the mainstream. That's what we call "double standards".

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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”!

DAVID: I fully understand theodicy. Your black view is to magnify the proportion of evil problems as a rejection of a benign God creating what He knows is needed for humans to exist. Humans were and are God's primary purpose for creating the universe and starting life. For some reason, known only to God, evil must necessarily be here.

I do not magnify it. I give you examples of it, because you want us to ignore them. Do you deny that evils such as war, murder, rape, the Holocaust, bugs, natural disasters exist? You kindly gave us Plantinga’s answer, but that turned out to make God into a self-centred monster, so now you revert to trust and to blaming me for pointing out that evil is real!