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

by dhw, Friday, April 12, 2024, 11:50 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga

DAVID: “If God says it is moral, it is moral.”

dhw: If God says that what we think is evil is actually good, and the Holocaust, murder and rape are just as moral as being kind and helpful, then of course we can’t argue.

DAVID: The ethics and morals at the human level are quite clear. God has told us not to murder or rape.

dhw: The Bible tells us not to murder or rape, but it also tells us to kill people who don’t believe in the only God. […] You regard the Bible as God’s word if you agree with its morality, but it’s not God’s word if you disagree. Another example of your double standards.

DAVID: Remember, I didn't use the Bible to develop my theological thinking […]

dhw: How do you know that God has told us not to murder or rape, if you didn’t get that message from the Bible? Did God tell you so himself?

DAVID: From the Ten Commandments, which I think Moses wrote himself.

So it was Moses in the Bible, and not God, who told you not to murder and rape. Back we go. You wrote: “If God says it is moral, it is moral.” That means one answer to the problem of theodicy would be that God has different standards of morality from ours, and the Holocaust, rape and murder are good. Is that your theological thinking?

DAVID: I can pick one single piece of Plantinga without his example, because I feel the statement stands by itself by itself as reasonable.

The statement is: “a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so.” Perfectly “reasonable”, just as the Holocaust would be perfectly reasonable if Hitler had a morally sufficient reason for it. But if you can’t think of one, then that is no defence of the evil!

Double standards
dhw: Double standards occur when you defend a stand based on an argument which you then contradict in order to reject a different stand. […] Simple example: you have rejected deism because it’s not mainstream. You call yourself a panentheist. Since when was panentheism mainstream? […] Down with non-mainstream + up with non-mainstream = double standards.

DAVID: I have known you all these years and suddenly I learn how you defend Agnosticism. What you label as double standards by your rigid rules, I accept as judgement calls of choice.

Nothing whatsoever to do with agnosticism. Stop dodging. A “judgement call of choice” only involves double standards if it conflicts with the standards you have used to reject any alternative, as illustrated above.

David’s contradictions

dhw: […] you have just contradicted yourself by telling us that your beliefs are rational, but they depend on faith which does not require rationality.]…]

DAVID: Stop blaming me for not knowing God's rationales!

dhw: I don’t. […] The fact is that nobody can know your God’s purpose, methods or nature, and your faith in your theories is based purely on your wishful thinking: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

You say your beliefs are rational, but they depend on irrational faith because you can't know God's reasons. Not a contradiction?

DAVID: That evolution ended by producing us is fact, open to interpretation.

Correct.

DAVID: Your is, to avoid God, we are not that special. Isn't that an example of your wishful thinking?

Totally wrong, and the most unethical of all your dodges. I have always acknowledged that we are special, and that life’s complexities can be used as evidence of God’s existence. I never avoid God, and all these discussions concern THEISTIC interpretations of evolution and the possible purposes, methods and nature of your God. You can’t find any explanation for your interpretation of evolution, and you admit that your views on God’s nature are based on your wishes. Please stop dodging, and please stop pretending that any view of your God that you dislike is a way of avoiding God! It's just one more contradiction!

THEODICY

dhw: […] what do you think was the purpose for which your God allowed such human evil as the Holocaust, and deliberately designed such evil as all the natural disasters (including bugs) for which you blame him? And please tell us why you blame him?

DAVID: First, God did not allow the Holocaust. The Holocaust is not a part of theology. It is pure human history.

The Holocaust is an example of evil, and theodicy is a major problem for theologians. Your omniscient, omnipotent God must have given humans the wherewithal to commit evil, and must have known what evil would entail, but he allowed it to happen.

DAVID: As for the natural disasters, plate tectonics, vulcanism, etc. were necessary to form the hospitable Earth we have. We know how to identify quake zones and create proper building codes, as examples of protection our big God-given brains give us.

You’ve left out the bugs, and you haven’t explained why you blame your God for the suffering caused by them and by other natural disasters that are no longer necessary to form the hospitable Earth we have.