Thanks a lot for this podcast. Just a quick thought that you could potentially pick up in Part 2:
I find that many theodicies are somewhat sketchy when describing the concept of divine action that underlies the respective theodicy. This is essential for practical and pastoral reasons, though.
In Dr. Johnston's theodicy, for example, I would wonder whether God has any practical relevance for us in this world, and whether it would not make more sense to seek a connection with and pray to the demiurge, i.e. the Archon(s), instead -- which would be a reductio ad absurdum...
The issue of "evil" is a red herring. Sorry, Augustine and Aquinas. At least natural evil. This will be about natural evil which is the objection used to discredit a good God.
I listened to about half of the above podcast and the most interesting thing was the definition of evil as pain and suffering. This is what most mean by "evil." If one wants to analyze pain/suffering, the logical outcomes are several but two are
1) Pain and suffering run a gamut from triviality, such as bumping into a counter edge, to constant intense pain from a tumor to pre-mature death. Where does pain become evil on this spectrum? In other words, what is called evil is relative and will vary from person to person. It is what is unwanted by each individual.
It also means that if certain forms of suffering were eliminated, such as cancer tumors, something else would replace it as unwanted. Suppose modern science eliminated all forms of pain and suffering. In that case, humans would consider something else as undesirable and this would just be a different form of suffering. But probably of less intensity than that eliminated.
So, no matter what was eliminated, there would always be new unwanted experiences to eradicate. Humans are built this way. (Maybe for a reason.)
Let me give an example using a thought experiment. If medicine eliminated all pain and suffering now experienced, one obvious unwanted experience that would be considered evil is death. We live in this world for about .000000007 of its existence. Why not more?
Surely, God could give us more of this world! But is that the goal?
2) This world is not the ultimate objective. Just considering the last fact, that we are here for about .000000007 of the world's existence is an empty gesture by its creator. So we are left with probably the biggest question: There must be more to life than this. But what is it?
This is an essential part of the issue of evil or pain and suffering. What is this life about? The answer to this last question is what should be our focus. And how does temporary pain or suffering or injustice play a role?
My short answer is that - this life is a test. That is what my Catholic education taught me. And for it to be a test, we must have free will. And to have free will, we must doubt that there is something else. We must be able to choose between what is desired and what is not.
So what pain/suffering does is create doubt, but this doubt is easily answered with logic. Unfortunately, we fail to use logic for most of our life for much of what matters. We certainly use evidence for basic things to keep temporary alive but for matters that are not imminent, emotions rule, not logic.
Another consideration is that if God is all good and all powerful, then this life must be the "Best of All Possible Worlds" because how could an all powerful and all good God do anything less? Maybe for this to happen, God has created a world of trade-offs between good elements and what seems to be bad. But these trade offs are necessary to achieve the basic goal.
Thanks a lot for this podcast. Just a quick thought that you could potentially pick up in Part 2:
I find that many theodicies are somewhat sketchy when describing the concept of divine action that underlies the respective theodicy. This is essential for practical and pastoral reasons, though.
In Dr. Johnston's theodicy, for example, I would wonder whether God has any practical relevance for us in this world, and whether it would not make more sense to seek a connection with and pray to the demiurge, i.e. the Archon(s), instead -- which would be a reductio ad absurdum...
The issue of "evil" is a red herring. Sorry, Augustine and Aquinas. At least natural evil. This will be about natural evil which is the objection used to discredit a good God.
I listened to about half of the above podcast and the most interesting thing was the definition of evil as pain and suffering. This is what most mean by "evil." If one wants to analyze pain/suffering, the logical outcomes are several but two are
1) Pain and suffering run a gamut from triviality, such as bumping into a counter edge, to constant intense pain from a tumor to pre-mature death. Where does pain become evil on this spectrum? In other words, what is called evil is relative and will vary from person to person. It is what is unwanted by each individual.
It also means that if certain forms of suffering were eliminated, such as cancer tumors, something else would replace it as unwanted. Suppose modern science eliminated all forms of pain and suffering. In that case, humans would consider something else as undesirable and this would just be a different form of suffering. But probably of less intensity than that eliminated.
So, no matter what was eliminated, there would always be new unwanted experiences to eradicate. Humans are built this way. (Maybe for a reason.)
Let me give an example using a thought experiment. If medicine eliminated all pain and suffering now experienced, one obvious unwanted experience that would be considered evil is death. We live in this world for about .000000007 of its existence. Why not more?
Surely, God could give us more of this world! But is that the goal?
2) This world is not the ultimate objective. Just considering the last fact, that we are here for about .000000007 of the world's existence is an empty gesture by its creator. So we are left with probably the biggest question: There must be more to life than this. But what is it?
This is an essential part of the issue of evil or pain and suffering. What is this life about? The answer to this last question is what should be our focus. And how does temporary pain or suffering or injustice play a role?
My short answer is that - this life is a test. That is what my Catholic education taught me. And for it to be a test, we must have free will. And to have free will, we must doubt that there is something else. We must be able to choose between what is desired and what is not.
So what pain/suffering does is create doubt, but this doubt is easily answered with logic. Unfortunately, we fail to use logic for most of our life for much of what matters. We certainly use evidence for basic things to keep temporary alive but for matters that are not imminent, emotions rule, not logic.
Another consideration is that if God is all good and all powerful, then this life must be the "Best of All Possible Worlds" because how could an all powerful and all good God do anything less? Maybe for this to happen, God has created a world of trade-offs between good elements and what seems to be bad. But these trade offs are necessary to achieve the basic goal.