"There is a distinction between fighting with one hand held behind your back and fighting with one hand tied behind your back. I shall argue that God created the universe in such a way as to restrict, but not eliminate, the divine power. For I hold that God brought about iron laws..., rather than nihil obstat ones. Iron laws have no exceptions, and constrain even God. I hold that God brought these about so as to give full responsibility to creatures. Otherwise, every act of ours would come about God willing. That God is thus bound by the natural order is, I say, the key to theodicy."
[Peter Forrest, 'Developmental Theism', p. 28 (New York, Oxford University Press, 2007)]
-
Yes, indeed.I strongly agree that this is the best approach to theodicy, as it posits a self-imposed limitation of divine power - thus, we maintain omnipotence whilst also weakening the argument from evil and strengthening the defence from free will, hence moving the theist into position for a strong theodicy.Voted for by Alexander Hine.
Tell me what you think, whether from my side of the fence, the other, or somewhere in between.
I eagerly await such glad tidings as your replies.
K. F. -
Here's my problemHere's my problem with this approach. I'll be honest and say that I don't know much about 'developmental theism.' On the other hand, from what I read here, I think my main objection would be, how do you know that God is like this? Just because this kind of God makes sense to you, and it seems rational, that doesn't make it true. I'll go even further and say that if you think you understand God, that automatically disqualifies your 'god' from being God. Higher beings understand lower beings. We understand things about ants, ants don't understand much of anything about us. For God, to be any kind of god at all, He would have to be beyond us by far. Therefore, although we can begin to learn things about Him, things that are true about who He is. 99.99...% will always remain a mystery to us.Voted for by Makessenseright.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Yes, that's true. But we can know things about the universe, through science. The universe does appear to have iron laws: you don't see lead balls floating in the air, or dead people walking around. The universe, or at least the earth, is also full of suffering - most of it natural. So if God directly controls the universe in every way then we must hold God responsible for every child that gets cancer, every village wiped out by a tidal wave. So, if we assume that God is, in some sense vaguely analogous to the human sense, good - or, at least, not evil - then we can infer things about God's relationship with our universe, for example that - for the sake of free will, perhaps - He has instituted 'iron' laws of nature. Of course it can simply be argued that God's ways are inscrutable and we should just accept evil as part of creation - and I think that is true - but, for the sake of a coherent theology, I think it is valid to speculate about what God is like, and try to understand His nature - of course, just because ideas about God make sense doesn't mean they're true (as you point out) and I agree that 99.9% (or something like that) of God's nature is probably beyond our comprehension. But, I still feel it is valid to attempt to understand. Then again, some people consider the very idea of theodicy to be blasphemous, and maybe they're right.
K. F. -
I like what most of what you are saying here, and anything I don't respond to, I probably agree with. On the other hand...
I believe your idea about 'iron' laws is a bit flawed. It would seem to rule out the miraculous. The argument is pretty simple, if science has seen 100 million dead people, and all of them stay dead, it would seem that we have an iron law. But what's important to point out is that a miracle is impossible without seemingly iron laws. If every time you dropped a lead ball, it zipped off in a different direction, sometimes up, sometimes down, sometimes sideways. You would never be surprised by what it did. Only if you have dropped the ball many times, and gotten the same result every time, will a different result surprise you. So yes, I believe there a natural laws that God has put in place, but that sometime, he supersedes them, hence miracles.
I like the beginning of the next thing you say, God allows free will, we do not hold God accountable for our actions or their results. But I don't think 'iron' laws is a logical deduction. You see, if God is all knowing, past, present, and future, then He would have know EXACTLY every single result or implementing iron laws. He's still responsible for every cancerous child, because He knew that implementing iron laws would lead, inevitably, to that child being born with cancer. I'm not claiming I know the answer to this problem, but it's one I would like to leave in our 99.9% because I think most of our guesses in this regard distort our view of God.
Yes, I think the attempt to understand is 100% valid, in fact, I think it could be argued that the desire to understand is the main thing that sets us apart from animals. What I disagree with are the methods, even if the smartest people come up with the best view of God, they will be infinitely below what God truly is.
Personally, I think the only way to hope to understand God is for Him to willingly reveal Himself to us. I believe He did this through His Son, and His Word, the Bible. But opinions on this vary, the key though, is that our quest to know God starts by seeking out what He has revealed to us.
Like I said, I think the Bible is that revelation of God, I believe this for various reasons. But I understand that there are TONS of other 'holy books' out there. So why the Bible, over the rest? Now I think we come to the proper place for some common sense, and some uncommon sense. We must believe in a God of order, otherwise we are totally lost. Assuming a God of order, it would be natural to assume that God's chosen method of revelation would make sense. That it would be free of contradictions, or errors. One last thing we can infer is that God would want to leave us with a way of determining which 'holy book' was authentic. For this, I point to Old Testament prophecy, coupled with the historic person of Jesus.
You asked for my opinion, there it is... -
Some good points...
I think you have some very good points, and - as I said before - I agree with you about the percentages. I have a theory about the miraculous - and it is speculative, tentative and all that - studying quantum physics (casually, I'm no scientist) my understanding is that the miraculous is entirely possible (eg. spraying a bottle of perfume and having it all spontaneously return or water flowing uphill) just incredibly unlikely. So I figure maybe G-d, in His wisdon, has instituted the laws with this 'loophole' for the miraculous. That way, we have 'iron' laws but G-d can, at times, perform miracles, inspire dreams etc through manipulations at a quantum level. As I said, this is very speculative (and I could be completely mistaken about both the science and the theology behind it), but I think it is neater philosophically than supposing that G-d suspends or breaks natural law - that seems messy to me. [And, of course, my aesthetic taste is the fial arbiter of truth :-) ]
As for your point about G-d still being responsible, due to his omniscience, for suffering, you are right. Though, I submit, only partially. If G-d instituted said laws w/ foreknowlede of suffering that shows that G-d is indirectly responsible for suffering. It shows that He can accept the cost of creation and, as you point out this is where G-d gets into the realm beyond good and evil (and all human categories) where our minds reach their limit, or close to it. I still feel though, that the 'iron' laws theodicy does exonerate G-d of direct responsibility for evil, though not of all responsibility. I don't think this is a real problem though.
I am enjoying this discussion immensely, thank you.
Your point about the place of reason being in choosing a specific holy book is interesting. I agree, but my searching has led me to Judaism, yours to Christianity....'tis interesting.
K. F. -
'tis most definitely interesting.
I hate to say it, but if we are talking about shear messiness, loopholes and 'manipulations at the quantum level' seem more messy than God overruling natural laws. I'll give you an example that may or may not clarify this. I teach Sunday School at my church, and I have laid down a law, it is simply, 'sit.' The 7 and 8 year olds are supposed to sit during the lesson. 99 out of 100 times you will see me rigorously upholding this law. But sometimes, I will supersede the law. The rule is still in place, but lets say for example a fire broke out, I would be telling the kids to stay seated. Something more important than consistency came up.
You say that the idea of iron laws, in your view, diminishes, if not eliminates God's responsibility for evil. My question is, where does this happen? What's the difference between God directly controlling everything that happens moment by moment and God indirectly controlling everything that happens moment by moment. I still don't see the free will, or the release from responsibility. It doesn't matter if I throw a brick through your window, or I start a process with the full knowledge that a brick will end up flying through your window. A decision I consciously made will still cause a brick to smash your window, the way I see it, I carry the same responsibility either way.
'tis most definitely interesting, especially since the 2 are so closely related.
I am enjoying this discussion as well.
SVD -
-
Yes, you've definitely got a good point there, about G-d's responsibility I mean. I'll try to clarify what I mean (I don't always express myself clearly, too much private thinking, not enough debate), I concede your point; iron laws don't exonerate God of responibility for evil, and I don't even think this is necessary. The advantage of this theodicy, perhaps, lies in a different area: iron laws serve the purpose of bestowing responsibility on creatures. That is, if G-d were constantly interfering, changing things etc. humans would never have to stand on their own two feet and become independently moral, like Jesus was, but would be able to remain as children. So, perhaps, G-d is not exonerated from evil but is a G-d who risks: who sees that, to create a particular kind of universe will entail sufering, but creates anyway. This, I guess, is why I consider G-d's essential nature to be beyond good and evil and all human categories: His ways are not our ways, and all that.
Maybe I'm just getting philosophically muddled now, I might try thinking through this thouroughly and getting back to you with a more concisely written account of my thoughts.
As for your objection to my 'quantum interference' hypothesis, I feel I have a stronger ground to stand on than above. You perception that my idea is more 'messy' than simply 'overruling' natural laws may lie (and I could be wrong) in the fact that quantum mechanics is itself very strange and complex (something I am well aware of) and, hence, using it to explain might seem messy because ideas about it in the mind's of laymen such as ourselves are themselves messy. That is speculation, of course. Here is why I still think my solution is neater: if G-d works miracles through manipulations at a quantum level then there is nothing fundamentally wrong with science and its assumptions and miracles can possibly be accomodated within a scientific view of the world - not as a fact, but as a possibility. If, however, G-d works miracle through 'overruling', that is removing, the laws of nature, then we have real problems: this means that scientific accounts of the world would be true sometimes and untrue at other times, depending on whether G-d has lifted the laws or not, This would put theism in serious opposition to science, and this is a dangerous road in my opinion. I also find the analogy between the universe and a classroom a little stretched; dissolving the laws of physics is of a somewhat different order than breaking a few rules at a man made institution.
Well, there are my thoughts, flawed as they undoubtedly are. I pray G-d I have not been too foolish.
K. F.
P. S. Oh, and on that classroom analogy, you have foreknowledge of the possibility of a fire, no doubt. This is why you are prepared to break the rules and, all being well, have a contingency plan to be used in the event of a fire. Now, surely G-d has foreknowledge - even if we deny pre-determinism - of the potential need for miracles in the world, so would it not make sense that He, in his wisdom would work in a contingency plan (quantum manipulation) - rather than simply decide to uncreate and recreate the laws of the universe? It seems that way to me, but maybe you have a different angle on it. I secretly hope so, or else we'll have one less thing to discuss. :-)
-
-
Alright, I have to disagree, simply putting iron laws in place, does not negate God's responsibility, as you say, but I don't believe that iron laws in themselves do anything to give humans any responsibility. Using the exact same argument, God knew, 100% for sure, exactly what every action of every human would be, as a result of the iron law being put in place. If He had made the laws even slightly different, the result would have naturally been different. So at that point, somewhere before time, when He specified the laws, He was predetermining all of history. I fully agree with your conclusion however, God is an amazing God who risks, and His ways certainly are not ours.
Here's what I find, debating muddled thoughts often serves to make them more precise and organized.
Ok, I think if I correctly understand your idea on quantum level manipulations in relation to miracles, you are saying this. God set natural laws in place, that never change, but built into those laws there are specific patterns that caused the miracles to happen. If that's what you are saying, I don't know if I disagree. The results seem almost the same, at one particular time, either because God superseded the laws of nature, or because there is something programmed into those laws that we cannot understand, Jesus was able to walk on water. Now no matter what explanation we chose, science will most likely not be able to understand it, and you and I will not be able to reproduce it. I guess the Bible never gets into the exact science of miracles. Possibly because we wouldn't get it, even if it was explained...
Here's why I think that God simply overrules the laws of nature. He wants it to be clear when He is doing something special, if someday we discovered, that through a series of natural events, water could turn to wine, would we still consider it a miracle? Isn't that some of what it means for something to be a miracle, for it to be unexplained, and unexplainable? I don't know, just some thoughts.
Signing off,
SVD -
Are you still interested in continuing this discussion? Because I think it has been very interesting.
-
-
I am indeed still interested. I have been on holidays so I haven't had as much access to the net as usual. My ideas on G-d are always changing, I am beginning to think that theodicy itself rests on a foolish premise - ie. that G-d needs to be defended. Perhaps G-d has become confused, in much theology, with his commands and is not in fact moral at all...? Rather creative, but desiring human morality because He desires human joy, as this increases divine joy.
I dunno, I am just freestyling (so to speak) with this. Unfortuantely I am very inconstant, I change my position very rapidly. On the miracles thing, I still think that miracles that were enabled by quantum "weirdness" would still qualify as really miraculou: explaining how they happened (through quantum manipulations) does not explain the reason for them happening (in scientific terms), ie. transcendent consciousness.
Well, I am buzzing with joy and must go and express it somehow, TTFN
K. F. -
Oh, on an unrelated point, I found out my IQ is 133...pretty neat, huh? I dunno how meaningful IQ tests are, but it sure boosted my ego!
K. F.
-
-
I guess the roadblock we are running into is my lack of knowledge on the subject of quantum anything. But still, I think if you could look at it, and find a hard natural law that explained the miricle, it would be easy to write off as a fluke. We don't call the Northern lights miracles, even though they are amazing, because we know the natural process that makes them.
Ok, you've said quite a few times, that God stands outside of morality, or that God cannot be called good or evil. Can you explain that? I believe God to be perfectly good and I believe that our moral code is based on His character. Your thoughts are obviously quite different, but I'd like to hear them explained.
133, not bad at all, of course it all depends on what test you took, I took a free online one once and ended up with 160 O.o so I guess it depends on the quality of the test... -
Sorry it's been so long. I think you're missing the point (by the way, I don't know a great deal about quantum physics; but I have read some philosophy articles/books that discuss it); if there was a natural law that could explain how miracles could be possible (I think I touched on this in my last post) that would not mean that a miracle could be explained by natural law/s - the miracle must be the result of a conscious agent. It's just like if I tear down a house; nothing I have done exceeds or destroys the laws of nature and yet if someone were to come along and explain the house falling down in terms of pure physics or chemistry, we would consider them quite daft - the reason the house fell down was my decision to tear it down.
"But still, I think if you could look at it, and find a hard natural law that explained the miracle, it would be easy to write off as a fluke."
On your use of the word 'explained' - well, I hope I already covered that.
You have a point about the fluke thing - but I fail to see how it would be possible to distinguish anyway between miracles and flukes on your account of the miraculous. As quantum phenomenon will still exist and so any miracle could still be explained that way - as a fluke.
Which brings me to another point; at least as far as current science is concerned 'quantum weirdness' is a fact - that is, it is possible for a lead ball to suddenly float in the air: but highly improbable - so, why would G-d create a universe with these qualities, but then not utilise them for his purposes and instead insist on destroying and recreating the universe whenever He wanted to do anything?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
...
Now, on the matter of G-d and morality, I'll give you a clue (to buy me time while I think of an eloquent explanation):
Gensis 1:31 is key to my understanding of G-d's moral status; that plus my own musings.
Well, hope it's warm and sunny where you are 'cause it's raining and freezing (three days of rain now!) whhere I am.
See ya
K. F.
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free