I left a comment on the YouTube video debate between atheist Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) and Catholic Bishop Robert Barron on the topic, "Christianity or Atheism?"
Here's an excerpt of a conversation I had in the comments:
AP: Starting with evil and suffering is starting from ingratitude and lack of appreciation. Atheists like Alex need to not only see the evil and suffering in the world, but need to open their eyes more to the good and beauty in the world too. IF they start doing that, they will move in the direction of finding and trusting God without having to know all the intricacies of why God allows the evils and sufferings that He does.
black baron: You're wrong. We already know the answer to why a loving God would allow the evil and suffering we see in the world. He wouldn't. If you love someone you obviously don't want them to suffer GRATUITOUSLY. Good parents sometime let their children suffer, but only to teach them important lessons or make them better, stronger people. They have to do this though. They are not omnipent. They can't always teach the lesson while avoiding the pain. If there is no reason for our suffering it is incompatible with a loving God. Its not an issue of gratitude. It just doesnt make sense. Theists have given answers such as the instrumentality argument or claim that God gave people free will. But these answers don't add up. To start with theres no such thing as free will
AP: @black baron In the philosophical and theological literature on the Problem of Evil [PoE] the deductive forms of the PoE have pretty much been acknowledged by most philosophers as having been solved. That the deductive/logical form of the PoE against God's existence have all failed. That's why most attention nowadays is on the inductive [i.e. probabilistic] versions.
- Agnostic Philosopher Paul Draper in his essay "Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists" wrote: "I agree with most philosophers of religion that theists face no serious logical problem of evil."
Atheist Philosopher William L. Rowe in his essay "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" wrote:
//"Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is <i>logically inconsistent</i> with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed, granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God."//
Deductive arguments aim for certainty. Inductive arguments don't. They can only rise to the level of probability. Such inductive arguments often appeal to gratuitous evil and the hiddenness of God [e.g. Shellenberg]. But whether there actually are gratuitous evils has yet to be proven by any anti-theistic arguments. As one online encyclopedia says, "Skeptical theism is the view that God exists but that we should be skeptical of our ability to discern God’s reasons for acting or refraining from acting in any particular instance. In particular, says the skeptical theist, we should not grant that our inability to think of a good reason for doing or allowing something is indicative of whether or not God might have a good reason for doing or allowing something. If there is a God, he knows much more than we do about the relevant facts, and thus it would not be surprising at all if he has reasons for doing or allowing something that we cannot fathom."
Besides the Skeptical theism Defense and the Free Will Defense of theistic or agnostic positions, there are positive theodicies on behalf of theism. Like 1. the Soul and Character Building/Developing theodicy; 2. the Glory of God [Reformed] theodicy, 3. Heaven Theodicy, 4. Recompense/Reward Theodicy, 5. Felix Culpa Theodicy [et al.] which could explain why God would allow the evils in the world He has. Unless and until such theodicies are refuted, then the claim of gratuitous evils hasn't been proven.
Regarding omnipotence, some ask, why couldn't God just have created us in a heavenly state and bypass/skip this "vale of tears"? God's omnipotence does not enable Him to instantiate/actualize contradictions. God cannot violate the laws of logic because they are part of His nature. It's logically impossible to develop character virtues like courage, self-sacrifice, charity, perseverance (etc.) in an unfallen world where evil, sin, suffering and adversity hasn't entered. It's logically impossible for God to justly recompense moral agents with rewards and punishments if they didn't actually commit certain acts deserving them and if they only had false memories implanted within them. It's logically impossible for God to redeem, atone for, and save unfallen creatures. Et cetera regarding other theodicies.
I tend to reject the Free Will Argument myself since I'm a Calvinist who rejects libertarian free will and opt for compatibilistic free will. Though, I don't rule it out completely since maybe libertarian free will and some form of middle knowledge is true [either Arminian-like Molinism or Calvinistic-like Suarezian Congruism]. Regarding the omnibenevolence of God, I reject the idea by many that God must be as gracious to every creature equally and to the highest degree. As I understand it, God's omnibenevolence, when attenuated by the Biblical data, merely requires that 1. God is the standard and source of all goodness, and 2. God has some benevolence and love to all creatures. Not that He loves and is gracious to them all equally and to the highest degree. Couple that with various definitions of evil. For example privatio boni whereby evil is the privation/absence/negation/twisting/corruption of the good. God is also sovereign according to the Bible. He can love some more and others less in His sovereignty. Moreover, God is not obligated to be gracious to guilty sinners deserving only of condemnation. That God saves some is a matter of mercy and grace. Grace & mercy by definition are unobligated. If they were obligated, then it would be justice, not grace & mercy.
black baron: thoughtful response. It may be a day or 2 but looks well worth considering when I get a spare couple of hours to myself. thx
No comments:
Post a Comment