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

by David Turell , Saturday, April 06, 2024, 15:38 (229 days ago) @ dhw

Plantinga

DAVID: Welcome to faith which does not need rationality. Faith is enough for us. I cannot follow Plantinga to using it as a proof of love. That is Catholicism's theology. My view does not misrepresent the article. I take what I like, and as usual you swallow all of it to criticize, as you do with Plantinga.

dhw: All you have accepted is Plantinga’s vacuous statement that IF his God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, that would justify permitting the evil. You reject the one reason he offers (which makes God a self-centred monster), but you cannot see that the same “if” could be applied to every evil-doer in history: IF you can find a morally sufficient reason, then well done Hitler, well done murderer, well done tyrant, well done rapist.

It is well for you to state vacuous ifs can justify evil, when morally they cannot. You don't seem to understand that at God's level of reasoning, if God says it is moral, it is moral.

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.

dhw: 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.

That you reject both sides is what creates your double standards.

DAVID: What is irrational to you is not to me.

dhw:You have just said; “Welcome to faith which does not need rationality. Faith is enough for us.”

Yes, it is.

DAVID: Your defense of agnosticism is everyone else who picks a side must be using double standards. MOST OF US can take sides!

dhw: Firstly, my defence of my agnosticism is that I am too ignorant to be able to take sides. Secondly, taking sides has absolutely nothing to do with double standards. Once more: The term entails rejecting an argument for a particular reason (e.g. deism is not mainstream) and then defending an argument which can be rejected for the same reason (e.g. maybe God doesn’t love us, even if mainstream theology says he does.)

You combine two different concepts to make a so-called double standard.

dhw: 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.

Because I offer you Plantinga's perfect reason, I am able to 'think of' exactly what you wish for and then you deny me. That is a double standard. Only what you think is OK!

DAVID: Only you are rational according to your principals.

dhw: Do you or do you not accept the rationality of the above? It is you who have just stated that your faith is irrational.

Faith based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is rational.

THEODICY

DAVID: You won't accept proportionality as a reasonable view.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: No it isn't!!!

dhw: So if someone lives to be 100, did nothing but good for 99 years and only spent one year murdering and raping people, they can apply for sainthood.

Not a likely possibility. Irrational example.

wishful thinking

You have complained that my quest for rational thinking is at the “wrong level”.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Calling faith 'wishful thinking' is a dirty poke.

dhw: It is what you have explicitly admitted! Listen to yourself: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And:
dhw: You make your God what you wish to make him.

DAVID: Of course we do.

Note what I bolded above. I have full reasons for all beliefs. It is God's reasons I do not know.

dhw: So your faith is based on the God you wish to believe in!!! That = wishful thinking.

Only in your mind. Faith and wishes go together.