Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Whatever is, is right?

dmitry chernikov said...

“So, when you see X number of murders committed per 100,000 people, you say to yourself, ‘I guess God wanted a world with (exactly) so many murders!’ Is it possible that God would prefer fewer murders/denominations and that it is precisely our job to minimize the number of them (to the extent compatible with other goals)?”

Hi Dmitry,

There is no yes or no answer to your question. We need to break it down.

1.Does God will evil? Depends on what you mean. There is evil in the world. But unless you believe the world was necessitated, then God willed the existence of the world. And this means he willed the existence of a world with evil. So, in a sense, he willed the existence of evil. In a sense, he wills evil.

If he hadn’t willed this state of affairs, he could have prevented this state of affairs by never making the world in the first place.

2. Is evil inevitable? I don’t know of any theological tradition that goes quite that far. Usually, a theological tradition will say that evil is conditionally necessary. According to freewill theism, it isn’t necessary that human beings exist, but if they exist, it’s necessary that they exercise libertarian freedom. Or, according to supralapsarian Calvinism, the fall isn’t intrinsically necessary, but it is a necessary means of attaining certain second-order goods.

So, on either account, there is still a sense in which God wills evil. He could prevent evil by preventing an evil state of affairs. By not creating libertarian agents in the first place. Or by preventing the fall.

3.Plantinga floated the thesis of transworld depravity. On this thesis, every possible world is infected with evil. But even if you accept his thesis, this doesn’t mean that evil is inevitable. For God was a liberty to refrain from instantiating any possible world. There could be nothing rather than something. So even on transworld depravity, there’s a sense in which God wills evil.

Mind you, I don’t think that transworld depravity is plausible. I only introduce this for the sake of argument, for the sake of completeness, to run through every alternative, so that we can see how, on any construction, there’s a sense in which God wills evil.

If we define libertarian freedom as the freedom to do otherwise, then I find it implausible to say it’s inevitable that a free agent will commit evil. Inevitability implies determinism.

Chances are, I might have a winning streak at Vegas, but if every roll of the dice comes up sixes, casino security is going to deposit me in the trunk of an unmarked car, drive me to a pond in a remote location, and give me free swimming lessons.

4.To use your example, it lay within God’s power to create a world without murder. So there’s a sense in which God wills murder. That conclusion is unavoidable.

5. In what sense does God will murder? He doesn’t will murder for murder’s sake. Rather, he wills murder as a means to an end. Murder serves a purpose in his overarching plan.

God also has a very different purpose for ordaining murder than the murderer. The murder’s intent is generally evil. I say “generally” since there are some cases of justified homicide.

There are also times when good can come of evil. There is a possible world in which the expectant mother of Stalin is murdered. It’s evil to murder her. Yet her murder would have spared millions of innocent lives.

6.Is it God’s will that we minimize the number of homicides? Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.

In terms of the decree, our specific knowledge of God’s decretive will is retrospective rather than prospective.

(We also enjoy a generic knowledge of the decree by divine revelation.)

We don’t know in advance what God has decreed. If I successfully prevent a murder, then God decreed that I prevent that murder from occurring. If I try, but fail to prevent a murder, then God decreed that I fail to prevent that particular murder.

My abstract knowledge that God has predestined every event doesn’t keep me from trying to prevent various evils, because I don’t know what God has predestined to take place.

That’s why we regulate our lives, not by God’s decretive will, but by his preceptive will.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I did know that God had foreordained the murder of some contemporary. In that event, it would not be my duty to warn the murder victim.

Mind you, this raises questions of coherence. One of the key differences between fatalism and predestination is that, in predestination, God doesn’t tip his hand, so the victim isn’t trying to escape his fate. There’s an implicit incoherence in fatalism, for once you’ve seen the grand plan, you can choose to stay in bed that day. If the oracle of doom is too detailed, it thereby invites evasive maneuvers.

7.Finally, I was targeting Armstrong’s facile argument that you can single out some consequence that you deem to be unacceptable, then reason back from that “unacceptable” consequence to infer God’s will. In this case, that God couldn’t possibly will “20,000 denominations,” therefore: Roman Catholicism must be true.

But there’s a sense in which God clearly did will “20,000 denominations.” Therefore, Armstrong will need to use a far more discriminating argument to make his case.

9 comments:

  1. "One of the key differences between fatalism and predestination is that, in predestination, God doesn’t tip his hand, so the victim isn’t trying to escape his fate."

    What about the prophecy about Cyrus in Isaiah? Granted, Cyrus was oblivious to the reference made to him, but it seems to be a case where God let the cat out of the bag in such a way that the object of the decree could've become aware of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But that's not an oracle of doom. That's not the sort of fate which the ill-fated individual would try to escape. Rather, Cyrus was empowered by God to a position of status and influence—what many men live for.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a beautiful post.

    Yes, God could have created a universe where everyone was happy and good, but what would be the point, right? Since men have "no ability" to be either wicked or good, then God could have created everyone with just the ability for good, but again, how boring!!

    All the genocides and earthquakes, the tsunamis, rapes, beheadings and tortures all serve as good entertainment for the saints.

    Oops, I forgot to mention the endless torture God has planned for the unlucky reprobates that He created solely to serve as firewood in an oven the size of Texas!

    Sheesh.

    In case I ever need a description of "total depravity", I'll just point right to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, James, God could have made a wonderful world that didn't include unbelievers like you. Are you sorry you exist? You don't seem to suffer from a death wish? You haven't killed yourself. So what are you bitching about?

    Yes, God made a world full of evil people like yourself. Unless you plan to commit suicide, I can't see that you would have it any other way. Before you shake your fist at your Maker, try looking in the mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, wait ... I'M evil because I don't get pleasure out of the idea of other people being set on fire for all eternity and because I find human suffering difficult to grasp?

    You have an interesting definition of evil, Steve.

    I shudder to think of what your definition of "good" is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "My abstract knowledge that God has predestined every event doesn’t keep me from trying to prevent various evils, because I don’t know what God has predestined to take place."

    Amen.

    As King David knew God was merciful, and prayed for the baby Uriah's wife bore, which God had decreed to die. And it took 7 days for the child to die, from whence the Lord struck the child.

    David says, "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who can tell the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?"

    David also wrote: "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
    And in Your book they all were written,
    The days fashioned for me,
    When as yet there were none of them." Psalm 139:16

    ReplyDelete
  7. James, sometimes we can glean the greater good that comes out of the evil permitted by God. In this case, it's Steve's pleasure in condemning you for being "evil" and having the truth of Calvinism promoted in this manner. (You see, God loves us so much, that He can't hurt us. He has demons, those He already hates, to do the dirty work for Him, that is, to torture the wicked in hell. Steve is one of them or will be.)

    Am I right, Steve, or are you an equal opportunity condemner, because everyone is evil (but especially, of course, those who disagree with you, the regenerated one) due to men's total depravity?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dmitry, no the "greater good" is that God gets to show off his spiffy "justice" attribute against the reprobate, and allow the elect to experience the thrills of regeneration and glorification, which apparently gives one way more of a buzz than simply existing as unfallen for eternity. These two "goods" provide a moral justification for creating reprobates. We wouldn't want to interfere with the elect's fun now, would we?

    As Robert M Price explains it, "God had this nifty plan of salvation in his pocket. It would be a shame for it to go to waste."

    ReplyDelete
  9. JAMES SAID:

    “So, wait ... I'M evil because I don't get pleasure out of the idea of other people being set on fire for all eternity and because I find human suffering difficult to grasp?__You have an interesting definition of evil, Steve.”

    No, you’re evil because (among other things) you blaspheme God. Blasphemy is an aggravated sin.

    You also operate with a B-movie version of hell.

    “I shudder to think of what your definition of ‘good’ is.”

    God is the exemplary definition of goodness. But I agree that someone in your spiritual condition has reason to shudder. There’s a solution for that: repent of your sin and trust in Christ for salvation.

    ReplyDelete