RE: The Problem of Evil (XXVII)
June 7, 2016 at 1:03 pm
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2016 at 1:05 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
IMHO, all a Christian believer can really say is that skeptics have not adequately shown that a better world than ours was possible. Skeptics have only their incredulity. The bible records many instances where people of faith expressed the same doubts about Divine Justice. Job comes to mind. So we, as believers, shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we have any proof that vindicates God. In the end, we really only have plausible excuses and our trust in His Lordship. For the faithful, the mere possibility of a plausible excuse is sufficient to overcome their own incredulity.
That said, the skeptic cannot say that Christian’s offer no plausible excuses. There are many, but even still, Christian vindications of Benevolent Providence remain tentative at best. The problem of evil is and emotional, not logical, rejection of the Christian God**.
Steve, I question the notion that natural evil is necessary for gaining knowledge of God. That knowledge could be inherent as in the case of angelic beings. For that reason, I do not consider your premise for proposed theodicy a sound one. I find the free will argument more persuasive but only when coupled with the notion that because God is eternal He cannot have middle knowledge. For God there is no past or future. Every moment is fully present. So the idea that He knows what anyone will do in the future doesn’t make any sense. He only knows what potentials a free agent will actualize as it is doing it. To paraphrase something I read elsewhere – “God knows what we will do tomorrow, but he doesn’t know it today. He already knows it tomorrow.”
(** To Drich: You are right that the special revelation of the Bible does not explicitly call God All-Loving and Romans 9:13-15 would suggest that to be so. At the same time, the general revelation reveals a god that Goodness Itself. As such, I do think there is sufficient reason to say that the God of the Bible conforms to Goodness Itself. In summary, I think you are right in a naïve kind of way but wrong as it relates to God’s Essential nature.)
That said, the skeptic cannot say that Christian’s offer no plausible excuses. There are many, but even still, Christian vindications of Benevolent Providence remain tentative at best. The problem of evil is and emotional, not logical, rejection of the Christian God**.
Steve, I question the notion that natural evil is necessary for gaining knowledge of God. That knowledge could be inherent as in the case of angelic beings. For that reason, I do not consider your premise for proposed theodicy a sound one. I find the free will argument more persuasive but only when coupled with the notion that because God is eternal He cannot have middle knowledge. For God there is no past or future. Every moment is fully present. So the idea that He knows what anyone will do in the future doesn’t make any sense. He only knows what potentials a free agent will actualize as it is doing it. To paraphrase something I read elsewhere – “God knows what we will do tomorrow, but he doesn’t know it today. He already knows it tomorrow.”
(** To Drich: You are right that the special revelation of the Bible does not explicitly call God All-Loving and Romans 9:13-15 would suggest that to be so. At the same time, the general revelation reveals a god that Goodness Itself. As such, I do think there is sufficient reason to say that the God of the Bible conforms to Goodness Itself. In summary, I think you are right in a naïve kind of way but wrong as it relates to God’s Essential nature.)
