The late Mennonite theologian, John Howard Yoder (to be sure a fallen man himself), crtitiqued theodicy with the following questions. I’d like to hear from both the theists and atheists on this site what their responses are to his questions:
a) Where do you get the criteria by which you evaluate God? Why are the criteria you use the right ones?
b) Why [do] you think you are qualified for the business of accrediting God/s?
c) If you think you are qualified for that business, how does the adjudication proceed? [W]hat are the lexical rules?
Jackson Knepp,
It certainly suggests an alternative to the idea that people believe because of solid arguments for the existence of a god or gods. Indoctrinating people before they have the ability to critically evaluate claims is tends to result in belief.
The ideas that a god or gods exist, that salvation is possible, and even that salvation is necessary all require supporting evidence.
What are the one or two you consider the strongest evidence for the existence of a god or gods?
Sure, but my suspicion is that, in the absence of childhood indoctrination, far fewer people would buy into the theistic beliefs and those they did adopt would be less fundamentalist in nature than what we see now.
Possibly, but that isn’t evidence for the object of their beliefs.
Thanks for the pleasant conversation.
I was taught all the Christian doctrine as a child, and even confirmed. But my parents did not use coercive or manipulative techniques to force me to believe or to stay active in church.
Having no pressure to believe, I simply stopped. Mostly by age 12. by age 16 I had lost the fear of social stigma, and never went back as a member of any church.
Nearly all the people my kids associated with are lapsed (although one became a priest). In is my — approaching universal — experience that when kids are not pressured into religion, it fades away.
phoodoo,
Atheist and agnostic are orthogonal categories.
Rumraket,
So to you its a bad thing that a child dies. Ok, I don’t get your point past that.
I asked you earlier what things you would allow in your perfect world, and at first you just wanted less rape. Then you wanted no starvation. So you changed the goalposts. Ok, heartache? Is that allowed? Broken bones? Death, is that allowed?
You are God now, what do you allow?
No, I haven’t read Frankl yet. One of these days I intend to sit down and read side-by-side Frankl with Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz. I have very little interest in theodicy, but I have a strong interest in post-Holocaust Jewish philosophy. I keep on meaning to return to it eventually — but there’s so much that’s fascinating in other ways!
No, we don’t. Of course, you’re wrong, that’s no surprise.
The surprise is a Gregory comment which contains not one insult or creepy-stalkerish phrase.
Wonderful surprise, Gregory!
I can’t recall ever thinking prayer wasn’t stupid, and I can think back to age 11, when I took confirmation classes.
I wonder if keiths thinks God should step in and prevent euthanasia.
Mung,
I think an omnibenevolent God would step in and eliminate the need for euthanasia in the first place.
I’ve answered your questions, Mung. How about answering mine?
1. Do you think the uncle who lets a dog eat his niece’s head is a loving uncle? Why or why not?
2. Do you think God approves of the uncle’s behavior? Would he say to the uncle, “Well done, my good and faithful servant?” Or would he regard the uncle’s behavior as immoral?
3. Do you think God is a perfectly loving God? Why or why not?
4. If you think, as most people do, that the uncle’s behavior is reprehensible, then why do you approve when God behaves the same way?
Please be brave and answer the questions, Mung.
Theism seems to be all about knowing God, until bad stuff, then it’s “through a glass darkly”.
John Davison often reminded me Science could not answer ‘why’ questions. Religion is for that. So why do theists think there needs to be a universe at all. Just cut out the middle man and move straight to heaven.
Alan Fox,
But.. It’s a test, Alan!
The fact God knows who’s going to pass and fail ahead of time might be a problem, though.
For whom? God or the things she creates?
That is a conundrum! 😉
Mung,
I’m still waiting for your answers to my questions.
1. Do you think the uncle who lets a dog eat his niece’s head is a loving uncle? Why or why not?
2. Do you think God approves of the uncle’s behavior? Would he say to the uncle, “Well done, my good and faithful servant?” Or would he regard the uncle’s behavior as immoral?
3. Do you think God is a perfectly loving God? Why or why not?
4. If you think, as most people do, that the uncle’s behavior is reprehensible, then why do you approve when God behaves the same way?
Please be brave and answer the questions, Mung.
Though I am not Mung…I will take a shot at responding.
1.He is not a loving uncle. He should intercede if possible.
2. If the uncle could possibly intercede, then I think God would want him to do so. (Though I don’t think God would coerce him…which is another question…do you believe God should coerce the uncle to do the “right” thing? Would that be better than allowing human freedom? And if so, should we coerce people to do the things that we happen to think are the right things when we can as a society? Is there any danger in that?)
3. I am not presently sure what is always the most loving thing to do. So I am not sure I feel qualified to assess whether or not God is “perfectly loving.” However, in faith I accept that he is loving…or at least I try to.
4. If the uncle could possibly intervene then I think he should…as you suggest. As to accepting why God doesn’t intervene when we think he should…I don’t always accept that either. I wrestle with it…and usually end up trying to accept in faith that he, being God, is in the end, God, and knows ultimately what he is doing.
At one level not very satisfying…since Job we have wrestled with this. It doesn’t really threaten the validity of theism, though it may cause some to reject God because they think he should have set up the world differently.
Jackson Knepp:
Hi Jackson,
I appreciate your willingness to do that. Perhaps Mung will follow your example, but more likely he won’t. I don’t think he has it in him.
I think most theists are with you so far. I would have agreed back when I was a Christian.
Those are all good questions. I’ll address them in a separate comment.
Keep in mind that God himself can intervene without the uncle’s cooperation. He needn’t coerce the uncle into doing the right thing.
Like the uncle, God sees a bad thing happening (and being omniscient, he sees it before it even begins). Like the uncle, he can intervene. Unlike the uncle, he can do so at absolutely no risk to himself, and with far less effort.
Why condemn the uncle but give God a pass?
God certainly knows what he’s doing, but that doesn’t mean that what he is doing is right by his purported moral standards, nor by ours. Neither you nor I would allow 220,000 people to die horrible deaths in a tsunami if we could help it.
Or question his existence altogether.
Both responses are far more rational than insisting that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
The omniGod hypothesis is a poor one that doesn’t fit the evidence.
Jackson,
God doesn’t need to coerce the uncle, for two reasons. First, God himself can intervene to stop the dog from eating the baby’s head. He doesn’t need the uncle’s help. Second, even if that weren’t the case, God could prevent the uncle from doing evil without denying the uncle’s free will.
I’ve explained this elsewhere, and perhaps I’ll track down and post a link later, but briefly, God could use his omniscience to avoid creating an uncle who would not freely choose to intervene on the baby’s behalf. It’s entirely under God’s control, and he needn’t thwart anyone’s free will in order to protect the baby.
(This all assumes the existence of libertarian free will, which I think is an incoherent concept. I’m assuming it for the sake of argument since many if not most Christians believe in it.)
We already do that. Laws (and the penalties for violating them) are coercive.