Victor Reppert has been debating the problem of evil. He makes a number of useful points along the way. But a few comments caught my eye:
“I'm not even assuming the doctrine of everlasting punishment here. That's not entailed by theism.”
i) One doesn’t have to get drawn into a debate over eternal punishment to debate the problem of evil, and this can be a diversionary tactic, so, to that extent, I agree with him.
ii) It’s also true that eternal punishment is not entailed by theism. It’s a contingent truth, related to other contingent truths. In a sinless world, there would be no need for hell.
But by the same token, one could also say that theism doesn’t entail a divine incarnation, piacular sacrifice, or resurrection of the Messiah. These are also contingent truths.
But even though *theism* does not entail these events, *Christian* theism most certainly does. So I’m unclear on how far Reppert takes his taking his disclaimer. Where does he draw the line, and why?
“I can imagine all sorts of things that would refute theism. If it were discovered that someone were in hell forever simply because of a divine fiat when that person could have been just as easily saved would do it for me.”
i) That’s an odd statement. How would this example refute theism? Doesn’t his example assume theism?
If God didn’t exist, then there would be no hell—and even if there were a hell, one wouldn’t find someone in by divine fiat. Conversely, if someone is there due to a divine fiat, then God must exist.
So what this amounts to, at most is that Reppert would fear rather than revere such a God—and not that such a God would be nonexistent.
ii) How would the fact that God could save Attila the Hun, but damns him instead, refute theism? Why is God under some obligation to forgive Attila the Hun? Do the victims of Attila the Hun share Reppert’s moral intuitions?
"How would the fact that God could save Attila the Hun, but damns him instead, refute theism?"
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, some atheists have proposed that, for all we know, a God like this exists. However, such a God would not be worthy or worship. So while it might not be an argument for theism, it might be an argument against placing one's faith in the Holy Trinity.
AAAAARGHHHH!!! I'm so grateful God decreed my sin beforehand so I could glorify His divine attributes by suffering eternal torment. GHAAAAH!!!! I'm so honored I don't blame God at all. AAAAAHHHH! Hey, Laz, I'm getting a bit parched down here... do you think you could ... AARRGHHH!! Oh, never mind.
ReplyDelete"In my experience, some atheists have proposed that, for all we know, a God like this exists. However, such a God would not be worthy or worship."
ReplyDeleteOf course, this argument is personal, subjective, and emotive.
It also confirms Genesis 3:5 and Romans 1. The very essence of original sin is autonomy, the desire to have complete sovereignty over oneself, to be your own god. So, of course an unregenerate man would never worship the God of Scripture. Instead, it is his nature to hate the Sovereign God.
“I can imagine all sorts of things that would refute theism. If it were discovered that someone were in hell forever simply because of a divine fiat when that person could have been just as easily saved would do it for me.”
I believe that Reppert is taking his argument from C.S. Lewis' Argument Against the Cosmic Sadist. Of course, the God of Scripture decrees reprobation simply by allowing men to damn themselves. This is a secondary means, not a primary one. So, he's creating a false dichotomy between the chance-god of Evanjellyfishism and the god of hyper-Calvinism.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you offer the conditions necessary for a God to be "worthy of worship." What would that kind of God look like?
Attila the hun,
Are you saying that Attila didn't chose to do what he did? That he wasn't responsible for his actions? Attila, are you an atheist? Do you believe in naturalism and physicalism? Do you believe that all events have antecedent causes which determine which outcomes take place? If so, then do you believe that *no one* is responsible for their actions? That we should "let the prisoners free?" Or, if not, that we only put them in jail for our safety, but not that they are responsible for their actions? That we can't blame them? In other words, Attila, do you find any inconsistencies between your views and your "argument" against theism offered here?
(This is the anonymous from 11:46 AM)
ReplyDeleteNow, I don't myself support the belief that the God of the Bible is unworthy of worship. (Quite the opposite.)
I have come across atheists who hold the belief. I suspect the reasoning (which I would take issue with) goes like this:
(1) A being B is worthy of worship only if B is maximally just and loving.
The argument would then go:
(2) What follows is an unjust and/or unloving act: God could save Attila the Hun, but damns him instead.
I agree with Saint and Sinner that (2) is largely subjective and emotive. (But not without any motivation: we think that if we see a drowning person, could save them and refuse to, what we're unjust. I don't myself think this is analogous to God's situation, but I suspect this sort of intuition drives belief in (2).)
My position is simply that this is the sort of argument that you'd often run into when talking to an atheist or non-Christian about hell, and that the Christian would do well to articulate a robust account of justice with respect to God.
WEll, as an evangelical medical missionary, I can tell ya I have seen "hell" or at least its type and shadow archetype here on earth. fwiw, but also I am aware of the many theodicies concerning hell, including annihilationism(and i know i didnt likely spell it right). I also know that in hebrew, "holocaust" means to purify by fire. I also know from textual exegesis that it says the lake of fire is eternal and that suffering therein is eternal, but there is a "safety valve"! It simply doesnt seem to say that every soul must ab initio until then end (finutum) of eternity remain in the lake of fire. So, perhaps this is God's strategic and tactical ambiguity of scaring the "hell" out of us, while still making sure the punishment fits the crime and that there is not infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing. And of course, a God which carefully mateched the punishment (including degree and duration) with the wrongdoing, would be worthy of worship.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that Attila didn't chose to do what he did? That he wasn't responsible for his actions? Attila, are you an atheist? Do you believe in naturalism and physicalism? Do you believe that all events have antecedent causes which determine which outcomes take place? If so, then do you believe that *no one* is responsible for their actions?
ReplyDeleteI'm an atheist. I'd say the most important conscious cause involved is responsible. I can live with people responsible under materialism, or people being responsible if they have libertarian will since God is not involved in a direct causal way (deism). But God decreeing the event is intolerable, and this isn't because I'm so rebellious I want to be autonomous or because I want to narcissistically take credit for my own good deeds. If you can't see that it is wrong all I can say is that you must see this axiomatic, on some level.
dear attila, I respectfully direct you to study theology deeply and avoid the "little learning is a dangerous thing" trap...there is a very big difference between the aspirational foreknowing and the aspirational foretelling of prophetic/historical events.
ReplyDelete"I'd say the most important conscious cause involved is responsible."
ReplyDeleteI don't even understand that. Any, why? If you hold to physicalism, then what does it matter if a conscious person was involved? He couldn't do otherwise. His actions were set in stone by the past. If he is responsible, then so can Attila be even if God decreed it.
"or people being responsible if they have libertarian will since God is not involved in a direct causal way (deism)."
It's not part of Calvinism---the person you respond to in Steve---that God is the *direct* cause of the sins. So, since this is the case, then you must say that your original argument against Steve, minus all the "AAAARGHHHH'S", doesn't hit its intended target. That God decreed that X doesn't imply that God "directly" caused X.
So, I'd say you offered yourself your own defeater.
"But God decreeing the event is intolerable, and this isn't because I'm so rebellious I want to be autonomous or because I want to narcissistically take credit for my own good deeds."
That's a *conclusion* and not an *argument.*