In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume asks the question regarding the nature of God, "Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent? Then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" Picking up on this train of argument one of the more prominent atheists of the 20th century, J.L. Mackie, wrote an article entitled, Evil and Omnipotence. In this work Mackie argues that the presence of evil in the world requires that God must either not be wholly good or all powerful. In this work he explains that many theologians attempt to redefine the words omnipotence (all powerful) or omni-benevolence (wholly good). Two of the examples he gives is that some theologians define omnipotence by either asserting God is as powerful as is possible or that the Bible does states that God is good, not wholly good.
Is it possible that these definitions of omnipotence and omni-benevolence that Mackie and most of us use are actually constructs formed out of the Enlightenment and Modernity? Perhaps the open theists are right and God only has knowledge of everything that has happened up to the present moment in time and therefore is not all powerful in the modernist sense, but is as powerful as possible given the conditions. Perhaps God is Blind. Perhaps there is magic (space and time) that even God, himself, is subject to.
6 comments:
Either God is God all powerful and all knowing.
Knowing and understanding the beginning to the end.
Or He is not God at all.
AND HE IS GOD.
The problems come when we try to explain and understand Him through our finite lenses.
Anytime theolgy takes us away from God it's time to put away the theology and get back to the God that says:
"I am that I am" or "I shall be that I shall be".
Yesterday, today, forever.
Your last statement is a VERY foundational theological statement. To even talk about God is to be "theological".
You're right that trying to comprehend Gods through finite lenses has inherent difficulties. However, these finite lenses that come from various worldviews are all we have. Even revelation itself is communicated through the worldview of the receiver.
I don't think the answer to Hume (or to whomever asks these questions) is to back off God's attributes. The 'problem' is that an all-good God allows pain despite being all-powerful and thus able to stop pain.
God is all-good
God does allow pain
God is all powerful
But this would only be logically problematic if God was without answer to the problem of pain (ultimately, the problem of death). Instead, we see that God has and will answer the problem via resurrection.
Knowing this, the problem changes to why God is allowing temporary pain, which is a much easier question to discuss since we all see the merits of temporary pain.
Ask any olympic gold medalist if temporary pain can have a purpose? Ask any parent watching their kid fall while learning to walk. Ask me if 'the belt' helped discipline me. Ask a cancer survivor if it helped them set their priorities right.
The tough part of these questions evaporates with the evidence. Does God just sit up there and do nothing? No, He became flesh. Does God not care? He sent His only Son. Won't God defeat death? He did, and He provided us with evidence that assures we'll experience the victory.
I don't see the open-theist answer to be necessary, let alone likely.
Matthew:
Mackie would ask: if God is all powerful and all good then what makes it necessary for him to use pain and suffering (evil) to accomplish some great(er) good?! Isn't God good enough or powerful enough to accomplish these goods apart from evil?
Your second premise is the very thing Hume and Mackie would challenge? As it does not appear to be consistent with your first and third premise. They would both assert that you are presuming these premises to be true,and challenge what logical or warranted reason you have for presuming these 3 premises, other than you presume God exists.
I understand their argument. It's just not very good in my opinion. Every day, as humans, we recognize the value of difficulty and how it produces something of more value. Why would we be so surprised when God accomplishes things in the same way.
What's more, I believe the default position is theism. We have to have obvious common sense darkened to disbelieve in Deity. It's a matter of understanding reality, not proving that reality exists.
Who says "pain and suffering" is necessarily evil? Spanking your kid, causing him/her "pain and suffering", so to speak, isn't evil (although it might seem to them, in their finite lenses - I love your thoughts, msl :) -), because it accomplishes a greater good in the end, which we, as the adults, knew beforehand. I think maybe we put too much stock in catagorizing something as either "wholly evil" or "wholly good" and confining everything to those two boxes.
Post a Comment