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

by dhw, Friday, April 05, 2024, 09:00 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga

DAVID: The real quote from 3/15/24: "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. […] (dhw's bold)

dhw: You have just confirmed that P’s theory is an “if”. That in itself is totally vacuous if you can’t find a good reason! You might as well say Hitler’s Holocaust would be acceptable if you could find a morally good reason for it! P. could only come up with one theory, which you have left out: that God allowed evil because he wanted us to love him of our own free will.

DAVID: This discussion seems at two levels. I claim, with Plantinga, evil comes from God's morally sufficient reasoning. God's level!! You demand at your level I produce a human reasoning! The point is God's reasoning, not ours.

That is a misrepresentation of the article. Plantinga claims that God can still be morally perfect IF he has a morally sufficient reason for the evil he allows. Plantinga then provides what he considers to be a morally sufficient reason: that allowing evil is necessary if humans are to love him of their own free will. You have joined me in rejecting this reason (which makes God into a self-centred monster). If you and Plantinga cannot think of a morally sufficient reason, you are left with nothing but your faith (or wish) that God is perfect. You are a good person, and I’m sure Plantinga is a good person too, but you are both blind to the fact that your reasoning could be used to justify any evil deed you can think of. All Hitler’s supporters could have said exactly the same as you: “We have faith in Hitler. We trust him, and that is enough to justify whatever he does.” It is YOUR reasoning, not your God’s that I am criticizing. Nobody knows God's reasoning (if he exists) - hence the following:

dhw: That is a perfect illustration of your basic principle: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” You seem to find this a rational and even laudable defence of your theories!

DAVID: Double standard. I must be wrong if I can't think of God's reasons as you unreasonably demand.

I have not said you are wrong! I am saying that you have no reason for your faith beyond your wish that God should be perfect! I apply the same “standard” to the atheistic faith in chance as the creator of life’s complexities. Your faith and theirs are equally irrational.

DAVID: Obviously, faith and trust in God implies accepting God's creations without knowing His reasoning. Then recognizing evil, profoundly trying to understand its presence, with explanations in theodicy.

You have faith in God’s perfection without knowing whether he is perfect and without being able to think of a single argument to explain how a perfect God can create or allow evil. This puts you on an irrational par with the atheists (faith in chance) and the Holocaust supporters (faith in Hitler) mentioned above.

THEODICY

DAVID: Stop concentrating on horror you magnify to justify ignoring God's good works.

dhw: The subject of theodicy is the horrors of evil, which you agree exist. Stop concentrating on God’s good works in order to justify ignoring the whole point of the theodicy problem.

dhw: Not answered.

DAVID: No need. You won't accept proportionality as a reasonable view.

Of course I won’t. You admit that evil exists, and the question is why your perfect God has created or allowed it. The proportion of evil to good is totally irrelevant.

Held, wishful thinking and double standards

dhw: Next comes your dismissal of deism and process theology on the grounds that they are not “mainstream”, and your defence of your own theology which you admit is not mainstream. This is a clear example of double standards, and you then accused me of the same fault. […]Not having faith does not mean having double standards.

DAVID: It is how you compare your non-belief to my belief.

I have given you an example of your double standards, in which you reject an argument (e.g. deism) for a particular reason (not mainstream) and then defend another argument (e.g. God might not love us) which can be rejected for exactly the same reason (not mainstream). Please give me an example in which I do the same, or drop the accusation.

DAVID: I have my stand you have yours, each different.

dhw: That does not exonerate you from having double standards or from accusing me of the same!

DAVID: See discussion above. Demanding reason at the wrong level.

I have no idea what level you expect to be on. You are happy to offer a logical reason for your belief in an intelligent designer, but since you cannot find any reason for some of your other beliefs, you are merely left with wishful thinking, which is not much of a basis. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with your double standards, as illustrated above.