From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The problem of evil (reply to Steve Adams)_REPOST_
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:24:20 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug28.013822.7183@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> In article <adams.714961727@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> 
>>>In article <adams.714863266@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>
>>>> I do smell a fish! ;-)  In your logic again.  If God created people who
>>>> would ALWAYS chose the right way, they aren't truly free!
>> 
>>>Why?  My friend M. will ALWAYS choose not to murder a child who annoys her
>>>mildly.  I personally will ALWAYS choose not to brutally beat a child who
>>>steals my hat, and runs away, taunting me.  Am I not "truly free?"
> 
> Humor me and answer the above question. :) You're saying that people
> who ALWAYS chose the right way aren't truly free. I'm saying, in certain
> kinds of situations, you and I ALWAYS choose the right way. This is
> a fact.  There is no chance at all that I will brutally beat a child
> who steals my hat.  There is NO possibility of me freely choosing to do
> that. This is a fact. For 50 points, explain how this can be, in the light
> of your theory of free will.
> 
> (points are redeemable for valuable cash prizes, conditional on my winning
> the lottery)
> 
>> 
>>>* WHY will I ALWAYS make the same choice, seeing as how I'm truly free?
>>>Or, assuming I'm dead by the time you read this, why DID I always make
>>>the same choice, since, according to Christian doctrine, I'm truly free?
>> 
>> Your freedom does not imply that you will do these things.  The point is
>> that they are actually possible, and you freely chose not to do them.
>> Ever.  The point is that you truly could and are able to do them.  Note
>> well that some people do.  
>> 
> 
> But WHY don't I choose to do them? When a child steals my hat, I do not
> look at the situation and say: "Hmmm. Free choice time! Will I or won't I
> beat this child? It doesn't matter which, so I guess I'll..." 
> 
> What is the key phrase in that fictional quotation? The one that makes
> nonsense out of it (and out of the whole concept of free will that you
> are advocating)?  Ten points if you find it! Bonus points if you can 
> show how it shows that the concept of free will you are advocating has
> no relation to reality. 
> 
> Again, humour me and answer the questions as best you can. 
>  
>> The specific idea of 'evil' is not simply horrible, terrible things.  All
>> sin (that is, that which separates us from God) is evil.  I would be
>> willing to bet loads of money that you sin (whether you happen to be
>> Christian or not). 
> 
> Who, me???  Nahhh....
>  
>> Thus, you do, occasionally, chose to seperate yourself
>> from God.  The evil may appear to be minor, but that's not the point.
>  
> Ah...this hurts no one but me, as I well know. This, however, is a side
> issue.
> 
>> 
>>>And since God is omnipotent, and therefore BY DEFINITION always gets
>>>what he wants,  he WANTS evil to exist, he WANTS people to fail, be separate
>>>from him, etc. 
>>                
>> No, I disagree. 
> 
> Ok - watch this carefully. If I may point out, your response to this consists
> completely of unprovable assertions. I mention this because I know how easy
> it is to get in the habit of responding from the internal textbook instead
> of using our own noodle. 
> 
>> He wants freely given love and worship. 
>> A byproduct of
>> this is people separating themselves from Him.
> 
> Maybe...but the reasoning is questioning if this is compatible with the
> supposed "omni" characteristics of God. You haven't responded to the argument
> yet.
> 
>>  But, God has provided a way
>> for all of us to reconcile ourselves to Him - Jesus Christ.  I do not claim
>> that it is an 'unintended' or 'unforseen' consequence.  God knew *exactly*
>> what would happen, but chose to create anyway.
> 
> Ok - so you accept foreknowledge then. That's something - it means you're
> stuck with the nasty dilemma outlined below.  Notice that you have not 
> responded to the above argument with anything other than doctrinal 
> assertions. You haven't dealt with the argument at all except to say,
> "I disagree." Just pointing this out. Forgive me if I don't eat my words
> just yet...:)
>  
>>>I'm interested to see if you are as flexible in your thinking 
>>>WRT the next step in this logical chain. This one is a little nastier, 
>>>I'm afraid, because, as I explained before, and will again now, a God
>>>who is omnipotent and omniscient knew beforehand who was going to be
>>>saved and who was going to be damned - but he created the ones who 
>>>were going to damn themselves ANYWAY.  Again, you can't run from this one. 
>>
>> Nope.  I won't run from it at all.  You are truly correct.  Omniscience
>> requires this stand.  I can't deny it.  To do so would be to contradcit
>> what I'm trying (note well, trying!) to defend.
>  
> Brave man! You're heading into dangerous waters with head held high. :)
> 
>> Although reasonably well formed, and seemingly (at least to me) consistant,
>> they aren't carved in stone...
>> 
>>>Calvin, the theologian who is perhaps most responsible for modern 
>>>conservative Protestantism, freely admitted this. He was a hard-nosed
>>>cuss who didn't object to a God who would knowingly create beings
>>>who would condemn themselves to eternal torment. Today, we're a little
>>>more decent, I'd say - such a God seems repugnant to us. Alas - the
>>>God described by hellfire and brimstone Christianity is just such a
>>>being. There is no escape from this conclusion, as Calvin knew - except
>>>one:
>> 
>>>"That's the spirit, Blackadder! When all else fails, irrational stubborness
>>>and a thick-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will carry us
>>>through..." - Gen. Melchet, "Blackadder Goes Fourth"
>> 
>> Well, I don't happen to agree.  I don't see that God is to blame for this.
>> Sure, he is *responsible*, but the individual is to blame. 
>                 
> Maybe - but he IS to blame for creating a being that he KNOWS is going to
> damn itself to eternal hell. And he didn't have to. But he did it
> anyway. Nice guy.  Do I leave a kid alone in a room with a gas can and
> a lighter?  After all, it's his free choice whether or not to play with the
> lighter....   I wouldn't do this to a kid I hated, let alone one of my own
> children. God's supposed action is worse - after all, he KNOWS beforehand
> that the kid is going to play with the lighter. BEnefits of foreknowledge.
> But you're saying God sends the kid in anyway, just so he can exercise
> his "free choice." 
> 
> AND *important*  Since God does do this, and he doesn;t HAVE to, it means
> he must WANT some people to go to Hell and suffer forever. He must WANT it,
> because if he didn't he just wouldn't create those people. Christianity
> says he did.  Forgive me if I am not overcome with adoration for such
> a "loving" being.
> 
>> Remember, God
>> alone knows the final result.  It may well be that Iraneus is correct, and
>> that ALL souls eventually end up with God.  Iraneus didn't believe in a
>> literal fall.  He thought that life was learning and growing, and that this
>> continued even after death, and that all souls eventually came to God.
>> John Hick is a modern proponent of this idea.
> 
> Fair enough. I'm not attacking you, rather I'm attacking the concept of God
> that says an all-loving God can knowingly, unnecessarily (he's omnipotent,
> after all) send his own children into unceasing torture.
> 
>> Any comments on the resolution of this are purely speculation.  It is
>> within God's purview to do as He pleases. 
> 
> Maybe so - but we don't have to love him for it, if he wants to be a 
> bastard like that. Love for a being that does stuff like that is
> just horrifying, in my view. Inhuman in the extreme. Like the love the
> SS had for Hitler:  "After all, he's good to US..." 
>  
>> And it is not my position to
>> complain. 
> 
> Why not?  Did you ASK to be created?  (mind-boggling concept, that!)
> Do you have no natural love for anything?? Do you only love what you're
> told to love? 
>  
>> Eschatology and theodicy are unclear and undefined. 
> 
> Another way to put that is : our concept of God has big problems that
> we can't fix, despite 2000 years of trying. Since we don't dare question
> the fundamental postulates that underlie that concept, we have to 
> paper these problems over with the word "mystery."  
>  
>> I believe
>> Calvin himself said that God didn't want us to know too much about it...
> 
> Calvin was a son-of-a-bitch, make no bones about that. He was quite content
> to think that his God could desire the destruction of His children. And it
> suited him well, as he burned anyone who disagreed with him, to cover over
> the evil of his own doctrine with advice like that...
> 
>>>God KNEW before he created us which of us were going to return to Him
>>>and which of us were going to reject Him. Right? 
>>
>> Yes.
>> 
>>>If so, he could simply have created those of us who were going to 
>>>freely choose GOOD. And not created those who were going to choose
>>>evil. He could, as it were, figure out that "If I create this particular
>>>person, he will reject me, given the conditions of the universe I am 
>>>making. How cruel it would be to create him and let him damn himself!
>>>I will not do such an abhorrent thing. I will create only those who 
>>>I know will freely choose to accept and love me."
>>
>> But since (and boy are my fundamentalist friends going to have fits) none
>> of us knows the mind of God, none of us can know who will be saved, and who
>> will be damned (if anyone).
>>
> 
> If you don;t mind my saying, this is true, but irrelevant.
> 
> GOD knew. You admitted this. This is all that counts. He could have said
> the words I put into his mouth above, but your doctrine says he did not.
> Your doctrine says that he knowingly, WILLINGLY created souls who would
> choose damnation.  He did it willingly, even though he had other options
> (not to create them) - therefore he MUST WANT THIS TO BE THE CASE.
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> HE MUST WANT THERE TO BE SOULS THAT WILL BE SEPARTE FROM HIM,
>    DAMNED, TORMENTED, etc. 
> 
>  QED
> 
> I put this in caps because you seem so (understandably) reluctant to confront
> this nasty conclusion head on. For the sake of the discussion, deal with it.
> 
>> Thus, since I am not in a position to judge a persons salvation, I'm not in
>> a position to judge God on His plans. 
> 
> Irrelevant. The issue here is the fact that ANYBODY who is going to
> damn themselves gets created at all!  Don;t judge God - judge the CONCEPT
> of God that has been taught to you by people who knew less about this
> matter than you do, probably!   I'm saying: you can't have the doctrine
> of salvation (Christian style) and still have a "omni" God. 
> It's like having a sqaure circle. It's a broken defintion. 
> 
> The problem of evil is a false problem of exactly the same nature as
> the square circle or the boulder that God can;t lift.   Both arise from
> attempts to break a definition.  In this case, instead of a 
> square circle, you want a cruel, loving God.   <Buzzz> Can't do it!
> Sorry!  I'm not saying reject God. If you have a personal conviction of
> the existence of a loving creator, hey, go nuts. But the Christian
> theology is in direct contradiction to this loving creator, (if he exists.:)
>           
> That's all I'm saying!
> 
>> I simply accept the situation as it
>> is.
>  
> See the quotation from "Blackadder" above.... are you sure you want to do
> this? 
> 
>> I do believe, though that if God only created people who would ALWAYS chose
>> the correct way, then they wouldn't truly have free will.  Where would the
>> possibility of evil come from?  I maintain that with no acutal possibility,
>> there is no free will.
> 
> Right. Go back to the top of the post for the free will business. 
> 
>  
>> As you can see, what I'm saying in lots of words is that I don't have an
>> answer to this.  I'm tending more and more to Hick's position.  My problem
>> with it has to do with actions having consequences.  In this case, our
>> actions have no real consequences, as we gain salvation no matter what.
>> 
>> Perhaps, someday, I'll have a good, strong answer for it.  Who knows.
> 
> You won't, unless you radically alter Christian teaching to the point 
> that you're effectively a heretic of some form or another. The 3 "omni's"
> and the doctrine of salvation and damnation stand in the same relation
> to each other as do the words "square" and "circle."  Theodicy is
> an endless search for the square circle. A loser's game. The root of
> the problem lies in the formulation of the question. You have to 
> look at the two premises. One of them has to go. Which is up to you,
> I guess. God hasn't revealed it yet, as far as I know... :)
> 
>> I agree with you.  That's why theodicy is where I expend a lot of my
>> effort.  I want an answer that works, is logical and is supported by
>> Scripture.  No one has got it yet.  I fall back, at the moment, finally to
>> "My ways are higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thougts"
>> and do not claim to be able to explain everything about God.
> 
> You fall back on what may truly be called blind faith. That's fine, just
> don't pretend it's reasonable. Of course, you can do that too, if you want...:)
> And there is a reason, as I said above, why "no one has got it yet,"
> and why no one ever will.
> 
>> Intellectual honesty is one of my prime requirements for myself.  And
>> probably the biggest stumbling block there is.  I could fall into one 
>> of the fundamentalist schools and just ignore it.  But that would not
>> answer my own questions in any way that I found satisfactory.
> 
> I respect that.  It'll take cojones for you to face up to the implications
> of the stuff we're discussing here. Only you know if you've got 'em.
> 
>> Yep, that's right.  I'm trying to answer the questions just as many
>> theologians have for centuries...
> 
> I hope this discussion helps you. When you get them solved, e-mail me,
> please!!!  :)
>  
>> My theology is, as you say, a product of 2000 years of human interpretation.
>> But, I've already rejected a lot of what I was taught when I was younger,
>> based on what I've read in the Bible.  I have disagreements with most
>> Christians I know on this topic.  My theology is a hodge-podge of various
>> ideas, gleened from what I read.  I should have a huge 'under construction'
>> sign on my statements...
> 
> Aye, shouldn't we all...
> 
>>>The ultimate disclaimer:
>> 
>>>The above opinions are not my responsibility, but Yahweh's, since he created
>>>me in such a way that I would feel that they are correct. Complaints should
>>>be directed to Him, not me, bub. 
>>
>> YHWH is responsible, but you would be at fault...that's the implication I
>> find...since you have the ability to chose!
> 
> Wrong, comrade.  These opinions seem to me to be correct - I was led to them
> by inescapable logic. I did not choose them. My intelligence was created in
> such a way that these opinions would seem correct to it. I can't help it
> if they look right to me!! Talk to the guy who made my brain! 
> Ask yourself: is it possible to CHOOSE to hold, I mean really sincerely
> believe, an opinion which appears false to you? Can you believe something
> you don't believe? If you can, tell me how! I'll convert tomorrow! :)
> 
> If you don't mind my saying - you're hung up hard by a completely
> artificial notion of free will. A notion that is logically valid, 
> but that has no connection at all to experiential reality. Let's hit that
> one hard in the next posts.
> 
> Sean Hartigan
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca
> 
> Wheee! Isn't this fun??
>