“Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science”

_{William Dembski

April 20, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

An essay that employs NewcombÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s paradox to show how natural evil can be a consequence of human sin in a world where natural evil nonetheless exists before the advent of humanity:

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.04.christian_theodicy.pdf.

Comments

Lurker, the means isn't always morally questionable. Work is a not a morally questionable action. It is actually considered moral to work. Only when the means is itself morally wrong do we say that the ends shouldn't be used to justify it. If the means is not evil, it needs no justification at all.Atom_{April 21, 2006
April
04
Apr
21
21
2006
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

A comment about the so-called "means-to-an-end fallacy". In reality that line of reasoning is overly simplistic. In other words, it's not true all the time and is therefore not a fallacy. Greg Koukl at STR clears it up here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5444 "Think about this. If the end never justifies the means, then no means would ever be justifiable. If no means are ever justifiable then you'd never be able to do anything at all." "Every single thing that you strive to do involves a means and an end. As I mentioned before, the goal might be to get money for your church and the means could be to work for it. But if the statement is true, then no matter what your end or goal is no means would ever be justifiable. You could never do whatever you wanted to do."Lurker_{April 21, 2006
April
04
Apr
21
21
2006
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Tinabrewer: You may not like my proposal, but I've carefully considered the other proposals out there (I'm unclear where you're coming from). If you've got something better, lay it on the table. I'm interested. As for the way I connect love and suffering, I don't see anything in what I've written that invites us (or God) to become a doormat. Christ gave up his life willingly, not neurotically. With regard to your example of someone stealing your car, what if the thief is your son? When humanity sins, the sin is against God who is not a stranger but our Father. As for your charge that my proposal makes God an idol, how do you make sense of humanity being made in the image of God? --WmADWilliam Dembski_{April 21, 2006
April
04
Apr
21
21
2006
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

A couple of impressions from someone outside the theologically orthodox Christian camp: One, the first half of the essay is a beautiful reflection of a human spirit who posesses the qualities of earnestness and a desire for clarity. All of the very difficult questions of the moral and natural evil are stated with such lucidity and there runs through this entire segment a golden thread of love for the justice and truth of the Creator! On the other hand, as soon as the second half begins, in which you attempt to answer all of these powerful questions, the weaknesses of your underlying assumptions about God become quite clear, and the entire second half reads like a giant house of cards, carefully and very intellectually constructed, but leaving a totally unsatisfying overall impression which leaves out so many fundamental questions of human life (questions intimately connected to the problem of evil, both natural and moral) that your arguments are quite easily refuted or at least weakened. First, running throughout your work is a picture of God which is quite idol-like in my opinion. God is depicted as being a creature with a will which is essentially analogous to a human will, only more powerful. Will is seen as a wish for certain particular things to occur. The divinity which should be associated with God would evoke an entirely different quality of will. Will with a capital W, perhaps. Of a substance and expression entirely different from the particularist wills of human spirits, who are mere creatures. Also, the view of God expressed is idol-like in that it depicts God as being emotionally dependent upon restoring a relationship with humanity, and being willing to exert all manner of effort to achieve this. (Example: "God's overriding task is to find a way to heal this rift" :Why? Why is God's overriding task immediately assigned to something which benefits humanity? This presumes that God is the servant of man. A more reasonable view might be that"humanity's overriding obligation is to find a way to heal this rift") Even in mundane life, we never place the burden of making good on a rift upon the one wronged. If a criminal steals my car, is it even remotely reasonable to say "My overriding obligation is to find a way to atone for the criminal's guilt" ? Of course not. The guilt and responsibility lie squarely on the criminal's shoulders, and we expect that the person will be held accountable for this act. The question of forgivenness is secondary here. I am only referring to the natural assignment of responsibility for the crime and the natural road to overcoming the effect of the crime. Logically this always falls to the one who committed the crime in the first place. Erring humanity, having committed sin, has consistently been admonished by prophets, and even by Christ himself, to strive in the direction of goodness. To exert their free will for the good. such exertions are logically unnecessary and arguably impossible if 'the fall" so corrupted humanity that literally everything they do or will is pervaded by sin, and only redeemable through an act of sacrifice external to their own free-willing agency (namely the Cross) On the other hand, calls to reformation of the human will through the earnest absorption in the true way of living, such as those given by Christ, fit logically with the schema in which the criminal (sinner) remains responsible for his crime. Your view that love in a tainted world is only fully expressed through a willingness to suffer is a sad and deeply confused view of love, that all-embracing quality of purity and light which is said to be inextricably contained in the Creator himself! It makes of love a tool designed to overcome the ego-limitations of fallen humans ("suffering removes the suspicion that the good we do for another is for ulterior motives..." and begs the question of what form love might have taken in a world untainted by sin (?)) Furthermore, it radically enslaves God to the demands of fallen humanity by saying, that "The extent to which we can love God depends on the extent to which God has demonstrated his love for us..." and even more unbelievably "...and that depends on the extent of evil which God has had to absorb, suffer and overcome on our behalf." This view makes of God an entitiy which, were he a mere human, would lie beneath out contempt. If such a principle, namely that we display love through a willingness to be spit upon and abused, were to become commonplace, the resulting overgrowth of sinful behavior is almost indescribable. This is not to speak of the way in which such a shoddy view flies entirely in the face of the fact that the creature is COMMANDED, on pain of suffering the wrath of God, to worship God before all others. Christ himself ADMONISHED those who sought to kill him, saying "you seek to kill me because my word hath no place in you." and further that "If GOd were your father, ye would love me..You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do." This certainly sounds like someone who deeply opposed the idea that the purpose of his coming was to be abused and treated with contempt, and it certainly speaks of a view of love which is entirely free from the lusts of the devil such as suspiciousness and self-interest. Also, your entire explanation of the use, by God, of natural evil as a way to get humanity to perceive the gravity of sin seems to be another example of the "means-to-an-end" fallacy which you condemn in other philosophers. In seeking the truth, it is necessary first of all to be open to all possibilities. To take as a foregone conclusion that your task is to defend a pre-concieved interpretation makes it at least possible that the truth (which ,as you agree, IS, in spite of humanity's flawed attempts to understand it) will lie in some other possibility. The Darwinist takes, as a foregone conclusion, that his task is to defend RM+NS as the only possible correct interpretation of natural history. He then builds an ever more teetering house of cards upon this premise, while with each passing day this premise itself becomes more and more obviously flawed to the objective observer. The truth lies totally outside his conceptual framework, and only his own, self-imposed limitation of materialism prevents him from grasping the simplicity of design. Is this the fault of truth itself? Clearly it is only the fault of the human who dogmatically seeks to narrow truth into his self-created box in order to see himself as masterful in understanding, rather than admitting, in all humility, that he doesn't know the whole truth.tinabrewer_{April 21, 2006
April
04
Apr
21
21
2006
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Oh, I also wanted to add that the folks at Deal or No Deal appear to owe Newcomb some royalties from their gameshow that's clearly a knock-off of his paradox. Change the colored boxes to numbered briefcases, throw in Howie Mandel, and it's the same thing!! :)iDoc21_{April 21, 2006
April
04
Apr
21
21
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

To choose both boxes therefore leaves you
necessarily $990,000 poorer.If you are losing $1,000,000.00, and getting $1,000.00, won't you be left $999,000.00 poorer??Anyways, I still haven't finished reading it all, but it is excellent. You tackled a lot in this paper Dr. Dembski, and given me a lot to think about. I hope that those that will disagree will take your points seriously, and not post some immediate, half-a**ed respone and call it good. These are too important of issues. Thanks for sharing this.

I'm a mathematician, not an arithmetician. ;-) I'll fix it! --WmAD
iDoc21_{April 21, 2006
April
04
Apr
21
21
2006
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

You know Dr. Dembski, your contribution with this essay is nothing short of amazing. I appreciate the several novel insights you revealed in the paper: natural evil in its full form is a reflection or "picture" of our human sin, G-d allowing it to run its course as a way of showing us the reality of sin, the fact that a garden was necessary (never considered that before), etc. I'm sure your work will ruffle some feathers, but I suspect you are onto something. Your name will one day be remembered among the giants of our age. Now if you could just learn to focus on humility, you'll have nothing hindering you from that destiny. Stay blessed.Atom_{April 21, 2006
April
04
Apr
21
21
2006
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Awesome! Not light reading. I'll read and think about it on the weekend.geoffrobinson_{April 21, 2006
April
04
Apr
21
21
2006
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

I read it all. Wow. I have lots of questions and comments. No offense, leebowman, but this work is the antithesis of navel gazing. I need to sleep on it before I respond.kathy_{April 20, 2006
April
04
Apr
20
20
2006
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

I've only had a chance to read a portion of this dissertation, and I'll likely have more to say later, but I thought I'd give my initial impression. One of the hardest things a Christian (or any religious person) has to do in the face of skeptics' criticisms, is answer questions like, "Is there free will?", and "If so, why did God allow sin", or "Why does He allow illness, calamity, war ... " On and on. Personally, I don't have a problem with these questions. I welcome them. Reality is reality, and facing it squarely will provide answers. Philosophical views of Patricia Williams and John Hicks (pg. 5) are tenable and viable. Both confront the concept of 'free will'. I still find it difficult to embrace the Calvinist notion of predestination. Frankly, I reject it. Is life a puppet show? Or further, does God know our every move ahead of time? It's not that he couldn't, perhaps, but of what value is a world where everything is preordained? Kinda like watching the same movie over and over, ad infinitum. I believe that our creator, along with angelic beings, not only watch, but participate in the adventure of our lives down here! If we didn't have free will, there would be nothing to achieve, no personal improvement attainable, no choosing (or rejection) of God. But polarities exist; i.e. the aspects of good and evil. Paradise does not exist on this plane, nor was that intended IMO. It's for later, perhaps, but for now, we have been provided a realm, so to speak. A place to live, to love, to grow, and yes, a place for the polar opposites (greed, lust, revenge, etc). As John Hicks believes, the Fall of Man is an occasion for 'soul making'; a place for people to deal with, and overcome evil. More than just a philosophical guess, it's stated in scripture! So after grabbing a Big Mac, I'll read the rest, and maybe contemplate my navel, but assuredly gain some food for thought. Cheers ...leebowman_{April 20, 2006
April
04
Apr
20
20
2006
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Fight on Dr. Dembski. I'm a HUGE fan of your work and enjoyed your reading your distinctions of chronos and kairos. However (as a YEC) you seemed to have chosen an exegetical model that is able encompass an old earth, natural evil before the fall, and one that also encompasses special creation of humans and original sin. The biggest difference I believe (wish you touched upon it more) is that YECs don't have the luxury to choose a hermeunetic model that fits scientific data (and AFTER they look at the data), but rather subjects the data to fit to a faithful reading to Scripture (and the priority that it/Scripture takes). Trust me, if I really believed the Scripture could be interpreted that way I would more than happy to be old earth it would save me a lot of stress! Anyways, let's not be like the Democrats who ripped each other apart during the 2004 primaries before the main election, who knows what if they could've won by building each other up? Until the world actually looks at the evidence and sees that their is a designer on a purely scientific level and relinquish all their naturalisitic biases both groups should encourage each other to fight for design (and not focus on their disagreements; that's why there's blind evolutionists right? they don't need any more help :P ). Well, till blind evolutionists concede, I'll be praying for you. -John Parkjpark320_{April 20, 2006
April
04
Apr
20
20
2006
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply