Theodicy and kicking the can

[RobbyPants]

I was thinking about the apologetics of theodicy (the reconciling of the problem of evil), and I realized that the whole notion is nothing more than kicking the can another one or two steps back in a shell game to try to absolve God from the problems of the world.

So, we start with the basic form of the problem of evil, and it basically comes down to saying that either God can't stop evil or he won't. The most common answer to this lately is the notion of free will. It's basically the idea that we're allowed to do evil because it's super important (typically because of some very creepy, narcissistic reasons).

Now, take the concept of heaven. I've mentioned before the problems of heaven and the problem of evil. In short, people assume there is no suffering in heaven. This leads me to believe that either people can't do evil in heaven or they won't. If they can't, then free will obviously isn't important. If they won't, then why can't we be set up on Earth to just "never be bad", even if we technically have the choice? So, the apologists will come sweeping in to say things like free will is super important on Earth to test us, but then once we're in heaven, it's served its purpose.

This makes me wonder why this test is so important. Now, I'm not going to harp on the notion of a future-seeing god needing to test people being pointless. It is stupid, but the the apologists will typically hand wave away some portion of God's omniscience to make this necessary (God's power frequently waxes and wanes depending on the proximity of skeptics). That's neither here nor there. My concern is with why the apologists think there needs to even be a test. What is God learning? Apparently, it's super important to God to know who really loves him. So, we need to be given the ability to rape each other so that we can make the choice to turn that down to show God that we really love him. Now, if that sounds incredibly selfish, creepy and narcissistic, it's because it is. This one isn't really explained except something about God really loving us in a very non-convincing fashion. Probably something about salvation and needing to save us from ourselves (the nature he gave us, because free will was super important).

So, God really loves us and sent Jesus to save us. Now, at this point, it looks like we've completely changed topics and are no longer discussing theodicy. And that's really it in a nutshell. Theodicy is nothing but kicking the can back one step at a time, hoping the person will stop asking questions, because, eventually, you're going to have to truncate the conversation with "mysterious ways" or change the subject all together. Nothing is ever resolved; it's just moved about with some sleight of hand, hoping no one will notice.

[Tonus]

As I recall, the JWs explained it thusly: god created man and woman as perfect creatures. Perfection meant that they had full control of their thoughts and actions; if they wanted to follow god's orders, they could do so without succumbing to temptation out of some fleshly weakness. So when they ate from the fruit they were performing a willful act. At that point they became imperfect, and passed that imperfection to their offspring. Since god had declared his creation "good" it meant that he couldn't just wipe everything out and start over. He had to prove that mankind could be redeemed.

But first there had to be a lengthy period during which imperfect humans filled the Earth and made a mess of it (as imperfect humans were doomed to do). With that experience clearly in mind, once god cleaned up the mess and returned humanity to perfection, no one would want to perform evil acts. And with the question of sovereignty settled, even if someone did decide to turn against god, there was justification for removing that person immediately and not starting the whole mess all over again. Presumably the few people who would falter would be easily made up by new births of perfect humans, and things would be just peachy from then on.

[GrandizerII]

As I recall, the JWs explained it thusly: god created man and woman as perfect creatures. Perfection meant that they had full control of their thoughts and actions; if they wanted to follow god's orders, they could do so without succumbing to temptation out of some fleshly weakness. So when they ate from the fruit they were performing a willful act. At that point they became imperfect, and passed that imperfection to their offspring. Since god had declared his creation "good" it meant that he couldn't just wipe everything out and start over. He had to prove that mankind could be redeemed.

But first there had to be a lengthy period during which imperfect humans filled the Earth and made a mess of it (as imperfect humans were doomed to do). With that experience clearly in mind, once god cleaned up the mess and returned humanity to perfection, no one would want to perform evil acts. And with the question of sovereignty settled, even if someone did decide to turn against god, there was justification for removing that person immediately and not starting the whole mess all over again. Presumably the few people who would falter would be easily made up by new births of perfect humans, and things would be just peachy from then on.

What they fail to explain is how one can be perfect and yet with fleshly weaknesses.

[RobbyPants]

As I recall, the JWs explained it thusly: god created man and woman as perfect creatures. Perfection meant that they had full control of their thoughts and actions; if they wanted to follow god's orders, they could do so without succumbing to temptation out of some fleshly weakness. So when they ate from the fruit they were performing a willful act. At that point they became imperfect, and passed that imperfection to their offspring. Since god had declared his creation "good" it meant that he couldn't just wipe everything out and start over. He had to prove that mankind could be redeemed.

And this is, of course, more kicking the can. If you switch form the problem of evil to the problem of suffering, this is how the apologist shoehorns free will into things that cannot possibly be governed by human decision. Why was the kid born with Tay Sachs? Original sin.

The whole issue can be stated about God can't or God won't fix the problem. Then they bring in free will to "explain it". Still, their notion is that original sin somehow fucked up our DNA and allowed us to get genetic diseases. That being said, that state of thing could have been fixed by God. It can still be stated as whether God can't or won't fix it. They've decidedly ordered up "won't" and added a side of "and we deserve it".

Again, this notion runs afoul with the idea of a future-seeing god needing to perform tests on humans in the first place. Also, for some stupid reason, the test has required six thousand years and counting, but he decided to drastically change the rules two thousand years ago.

Ad hoc justification is ad hoc.

But first there had to be a lengthy period during which imperfect humans filled the Earth and made a mess of it (as imperfect humans were doomed to do). With that experience clearly in mind, once god cleaned up the mess and returned humanity to perfection, no one would want to perform evil acts. And with the question of sovereignty settled, even if someone did decide to turn against god, there was justification for removing that person immediately and not starting the whole mess all over again. Presumably the few people who would falter would be easily made up by new births of perfect humans, and things would be just peachy from then on.

Heh. As time marches on, it looks like humanity is moving further away from Christianity. It looks like the JW version of God isn't very good at seeing the future. It reminds me of the Simpsons where Bart is placed in remedial school, and he notes the absurdity of being behind and catching up by moving slower.

What they fail to explain is how one can be perfect and yet with fleshly weaknesses.

Yuuuup.

[Nope]

Robby Pants, you explained perfectly my problem with free will. When something obviously evil occurs, my Christian friends respond very knowingly that we have free will so god had nothing to do with the murder of innocent children. They never go further and question why we have free will in the first place.

[RobbyPants]

Robby Pants, you explained perfectly my problem with free will. When something obviously evil occurs, my Christian friends respond very knowingly that we have free will so god had nothing to do with the murder of innocent children. They never go further and question why we have free will in the first place.

Thanks.

Yeah, the thing is, every time they kick the can back another step, that step can still be analyzed as "God couldn't or wouldn't fix the problem.". Free will is nothing but a way to try to get out of that way of thinking... but it doesn't work.

Another hand wave you'll likely run into is the notion of "God's nature". This is basically to say that God is a certain way, so issues of "wouldn't" don't count. Of course, it begs the question of from where this nature comes. If God has no control over it, then he is not omnipotent. If he does, the it's arbitrary. Also, you may notice that the first is a "can't" and the second is a "won't".

It's nothing but ad hoc justifications to try to get skeptics to stop asking "can't or won't". Heh. Who would have thought that Archer would make such compelling counter-apologetics?

[Tonus]

What they fail to explain is how one can be perfect and yet with fleshly weaknesses.

Any attempt to explain how original sin works has the problem of dealing with the Genesis story, which is both vague enough in some places to allow for wide interpretation, but also specific enough in other spots to create some very thorny continuity issues. The fact that so many theists try to resolve this by tying god's hands in some way is evidence of that. God had no issue wiping out nearly every living thing with a global flood, but the world became that way because he was limited by a technicality... even though he makes all of the rules and cannot be held accountable for his actions.

The many confusing and contradictory parts each require additional clarification, which inevitably wind up undermining or conflicting with other views. It's one of those areas that I don't think is reconcilable in any way; even "magic" can't undo the tangle.

[RobbyPants]

Any attempt to explain how original sin works has the problem of dealing with the Genesis story, which is both vague enough in some places to allow for wide interpretation, but also specific enough in other spots to create some very thorny continuity issues.

What do you mean by "continuity issues"? I mean, I know what the phrase means, but how does it relate to the story? Just how they back-read Jesus into stories written hundreds of years before hand?

[Tonus]

What do you mean by "continuity issues"? I mean, I know what the phrase means, but how does it relate to the story? Just how they back-read Jesus into stories written hundreds of years before hand?

Yeah, that and more. The story of the fall of man almost* works all by itself because what it tells us of god's nature and of his creation doesn't derail the story. But once you start to add the rest of the books and claim that they are part of a cohesive universe with its own rules, the stuff in the later chapters has to align, or you wind up with plot holes.

*Almost, because we go from god deeming his creation as being "good" to watching a snake and a naked chick derail it because they had a case of the munchies.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The most common answer to this lately is the notion of free will. It's basically the idea that we're allowed to do evil because it's super important

What I as a believer finds super important is love in all its forms: love of God, brotherly love, romantic love, and, yes, erotic love. What is at stake is whether people love of their own accord or if external influences fully override their ability to decide who they love.
How someone feels about their role in loving. For example, suppose someone was under the influence of a ‘love potion’ or some form of mind control, such that they had no say over the feelings of affection and duty towards another. Can anyone claim that such a person truly loved the object of their love. Now replace the love potion with the initial conditions of the universe. I don’t see much of a difference.

Given free will, someone has the potential choose to love some and not others. Anyone can see that the absence of love introduces the potential for relationships based on indifference or malice. Which potentials, for good or ill, are actualized depends completely on the free agent.

Determinism is expensive and taking a compatibilist position doesn’t really solve the problem either. To have free will means being the originator of your will. Compatablism gives someone the appearance of being the ultimate source of his or her love, while in reality he or she has been conditioned to love by prior states of being.
Whether reality is in fact deterministic, indeterminate, or participatory is not germane to whether free will adequately solves the problem of evil.

Now, take the concept of heaven… why can't we be set up on Earth to just "never be bad", even if we technically have the choice? So, the apologists will come sweeping in to say things like free will is super important on Earth to test us, but then once we're in heaven, it's served its purpose.

Calling life a test is a metaphor. I don’t take it too literally any more than when people call it a game or journey. I think journey is the more apt metaphor since it implies moving forward toward a goal. Sure there are many tests along the way, but they all serve to further our personal growth.

Why not just make Earthly life “never be bad”? Because removing the potential for moral evils simultaneously removes the potential for moral goods like love. For example, learning to harness the power of fire is a tremendous benefit, but the same power can be misused, as in the case of arson, or handled carelessly, as in the case of grease fires from cooking.

Then how can Heaven be a “never bad” place? Because Heaven is a state of being only attained by a process of moral development*, either by experience or instruction. One objection to this position, for which I do not have an adequate answer, concerns the fate of unborn and young children who have neither experience and/or instruction. Here I rely on the promise of Scripture that teaches that there are “many mansions”. I take that to include specific provisions for the innocent.

*New Church theology denies both Salvation by Faith Alone, as in having the correct intellectual beliefs, and Eternal Security, as in “once saved, always saved”. We believe that people work out their salvation with fear and trembling.