Does theodicy devalue human life?

Posted 2 November 2010 by Matt Young

Gert Korthof, on his blog today, takes on either Richard Weikart or God, I am not sure which. Professor Weikart, whom we have met before, thinks that something he calls "Darwinism" undermines the sanctity of human life and led directly to the Holocaust (and no doubt retroactively to such atrocities as the Crusades and the Inquisition as well). Professor Korthof points out that current Christian theology assigns blame to God, not "Darwinism." Specifically, he points to the free-will defense, a theodicy in which God is said to allow evil in order to grant us free will. He quotes the theologians John Hick and Richard Swinburne, and argues that their theodicy intrinsically devalues human life. The free will defense does not work very well for natural evil or misfortune, but Professor Korthof quotes Michael Behe to the effect that malaria must have been designed. Professor Behe even calls Darwin "squeamish" for his famous remark that a beneficent God would not allow wasp larvae to eat a caterpillar alive. If Professor Behe is right, then God surely has killed many more people than Hitler ever dreamed of. And not by natural selection but by design. Thus, says Professor Korthof, Christian theodicy (if not God) devalues human life and discounts human suffering. He concludes that what Professor Weikart considers shocking is unhesitatingly and "maybe even enthusiastically, ascribed to God by modern philosophers of religion such as John Hick and Richard Swinburne." Who, then, brutalizes the population, those who think that humans are the result of natural selection or those who think that God tacitly approves of evil? In short, does "Darwinism" truly lead to devaluing human life, or is it religion?

99 Comments

Olorin · 2 November 2010

They say that evil is necessary in order to allow free will. Why could God not have granted us free will, but only to do good? He did, for example, not grant us free will to disobey physics.

We say we have free will, yet we do not have free will with respect to gravitation.

Oh well. it was worth a try.

Glen Davidson · 2 November 2010

Yes, but it could have been aliens. Very God-like aliens, of course, but inscrutable and practically omniscient and omnipotent aliens indeed.

Distinction without a difference in science, yes. They (I mean IDiots, not theists) don't do science, however.

Glen Davidson

John Harshman · 2 November 2010

Best rejoinder to that sort of theodicy (except for Korthof's) is to ask whether there's free will in heaven, and then, if the answer is yes, to ask whether there's also evil in heaven. And if the answer to that one is no, then it's apparently possible to have free will without evil. I suppose it's always possible that somebody would answer no the the first question or yes to the second, but I haven't encountered such a thing. Usually the response is silence.

The MadPanda, FCD · 2 November 2010

Ahhhh, theodicy! Such a fun little exercise...

One could argue that any given religion (indeed, any ideology) has moments where it devalues human life, either in general or for specific cases, and the justifications for these lapses are often amusingly convoluted.

The argument that really gets me grinding my teeth is the one about 'the greater good might not make sense from a human perspective' because what often follows is an apology for a particularly nasty event. I rank that one right down there with 'suffering brings glory to (deity of choice)'. The intent may be to comfort the afflicted, but in practice it raises more ugly questions.

The MadPanda, FCD

DavidK · 2 November 2010

Olorin said: They say that evil is necessary in order to allow free will. Why could God not have granted us free will, but only to do good? He did, for example, not grant us free will to disobey physics. We say we have free will, yet we do not have free will with respect to gravitation. Oh well. it was worth a try.

Ah, to hell with Newton's laws. Go ahead, exercise your free will and drive into a wall at 60 mph without your seat belt on. At least that'll earn you a Darwin Award for sure.

John_S · 2 November 2010

If God exists and acts in a way that is unpredictable and uninfluenced by our behavior, then His existence or non-existence is really irrelevant to us. His actions become merely another random force of nature over which we have no knowledge or control, like lottery numbers. We must go about our lives and simply endure whatever this random God chooses to do to us.

Of course, religious people don't really believe that. At bottom, they believe not only that God exists, but that they have some influence over His actions. They think that by speaking the right words, abstaining from the wrong foods and actions, or even from wearing the wrong clothes, they can influence God to treat us more favorably, if not in this life but in some supposed afterlife. Otherwise, why would people knock their heads on the floor five times a day while facing Mecca or use separate forks to eat chicken and cheesecake or kneel while a priest puts wafers on their tongues?

Almost all theodicy responses involve some tacit assumption that evil is our own fault because we did or didn't perform some action that was needed to induce God to save us: the volcano erupted because we didn't sacrifice a virgin to Mthulu Gombe. Katrina hit New Orleans because we let the homosexuals have a parade.

harold · 2 November 2010

I don't like to pick on theology unless it is impacting on me somehow, since I don't care much about it and many of the people I admire have been religious (e.g. Dr Martin Luther King, St Francis of Assisi, Jimmy Carter, etc).

But some arguments are just stupid, and the "free will as entrapment" one is extremely so. Especially when it comes from people whose denominations have historically been grounded in pre-determinism, I might add.

"God gave you free will. Then he created evil so that you might choose evil, so that you can go to Hell. But he doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. Why would you choose evil? Because God created you wrong? No, God created everything perfectly, and he doesn't want anyone to go to Hell, but he gave you free will, and then he created evil, and because and therefore you might (will) go to Hell..."

Fortunately, we can translate the above type of garbage into plain English.

"I am an authoritarian sadist. I like it when other people have misfortune and get hurt. I like to perceive it as 'their own fault'. I like to boast about my lack of concern for the misfortune of other people. I think it makes me look 'tough' to chuckle and sneer when other people have misfortune. If you were desperate enough to fight in one of the wars I support and got hurt that way I might restrain my glee a little, but I'll certainly support denying you any help. However, if I have even the smallest unfavorable occurrence in my life, and if it is clearly my own fault, I will whine and squeal. Misfortune is deserved and enjoyable when other people have it, but a violation of my perfect entitlement and a horrible tragedy when I bring it on myself. I project my hateful narcissism onto a god of my own invention, who bears very little resemblance to anything in the Bible, and I call doing this 'Christianity'."

John Harshman · 2 November 2010

harold said: "I project my hateful narcissism onto a god of my own invention, who bears very little resemblance to anything in the Bible..."

Try reading the bible again. No projection is necessary. Or if there is, it's on the part of the authors.

Henry J · 2 November 2010

They say that evil is necessary in order to allow free will. Why could God not have granted us free will, but only to do good? He did, for example, not grant us free will to disobey physics. We say we have free will, yet we do not have free will with respect to gravitation. Oh well. it was worth a try.

Oh, the way to do that is throw yourself at the ground - and miss.

Mike Elzinga · 2 November 2010

Can God make a universe so perfect that he can't destroy any of it?

Hrafn · 2 November 2010

How does the Christian concept of 'The Fall'/'Original Sin' fit into this God-is-Good-But-Allows-Humans-Free-Will-To-Do-Evil theodicy?

Doesn't this concept mean that, because of the (purported) actions of God's direct creations (Adam and Eve) in an environment that God directly created and controlled (the Garden of Eden), and interacting with some of God's other direct creations (the Serpent and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), humans are (purportedly) inclined to evil.

How is this either an act of omnibenevolence or promoting Free Will? It forces humanity to accept the consequences for a decision that they had no part in making.

SEF · 3 November 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Can God make a universe so perfect that he can't destroy any of it?

The god of the bible is suffering really badly from Dunning-Kruger syndrome when he keeps declaring his work to be good. He severely overestimates his competence (in performance and judgment). And so do his supporters, despite seeing (reading about) some of the consequences.

Argon · 3 November 2010

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html

...sez enough about the problem of theodicy.

eric · 3 November 2010

Huh. I think I read the second-hand descriptions of Weikart in a much simpler and less deep way than the rest of you. IMO Weikart is not saying anything about metaphysics. He's not saying descent with modification or natural selection is the root cause of evil. He's saying the idea of it leads people to do evil things. This is just the "gangsta rap lyrics leads to murder" argument.

I suppose one could bring theodicy into it by asking why God allows rappers to come up with lyrics that promote bad behavior. But that's a stretch. A much more common-sense interpretation of Weikart is to say he's not discussing the problem of the existence of evil at all. He's talking merely about the influence "Darwin's dangerous idea" has had on culture. He's talking about the meme of evolution, not the occurrence of it.

Frank J · 3 November 2010

...something he calls “Darwinism”...
— Matt Young

Yes!!! If only we could stop using that obnoxious word as a serious synonym for "Darwinian evolution" we would take away the scam artists' 2nd favorite rhetorical trick (the 1st is "Darwinist(s)"). Think about it. We could answer their nonsense with: "You're absolutely right. Your 'Darwinism' is indeed the root of all evil. And evolutionary biology is not. Thanks for playing."

Stanton · 3 November 2010

Argon said: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html ...sez enough about the problem of theodicy.

So the site's authors say that, even though those children were indeed innocent, their parents and societies were so evil, so the children deserved to die, regardless of innocence. And that murder, and genocide are wrong, unless God tells you to do so. Utterly sickening.

Mike Elzinga · 3 November 2010

Stanton said:
Argon said: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html ...sez enough about the problem of theodicy.
So the site's authors say that, even though those children were indeed innocent, their parents and societies were so evil, so the children deserved to die, regardless of innocence. And that murder, and genocide are wrong, unless God tells you to do so. Utterly sickening.

And we know someone who has admitted right here in front of us that he hoped, if he got the call to do just that, that he would obey.

Matt Young · 3 November 2010

IMO Weikart is not saying anything about metaphysics.

I don't think that Professor Korthof is accusing him of saying that. It is Korthof, not Weikart, who claims that religion (and especially theodicy), not "Darwinism," may have a brutalizing effect on the population. The link that Mr. Argon supplied makes that point in spades - if God says so, then kill all the children. Hugh Ross says that the people were "reprobates" and likens their genocidal extermination to excising a cancerous growth. And people have the nerve to blame "Darwinism" for the brutality of the twentieth century!

RBH · 3 November 2010

Stanton said:
Argon said: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html ...sez enough about the problem of theodicy.
So the site's authors say that, even though those children were indeed innocent, their parents and societies were so evil, so the children deserved to die, regardless of innocence. And that murder, and genocide are wrong, unless God tells you to do so. Utterly sickening.

See Jeffrey Shallit's account of a modern fundagelical making that claim in public:

But the most repulsive part of Durston's talk was when someone from the audience asked why Durston's condemnation of genocide would not apply equally well to the god of the Old Testament, who indulged in genocide himself, in particular the genocide of the Canaanites. Suddenly Durston's tune changed. Instead of condemning this genocide, Durston sought to justify it. Genocide was OK, he claimed, if his god ordained it. Indeed, he said that the only thing that prevented him from going and out murdering people for his advantage was his religious belief. If God ordained genocide in our modern day, Durston said, he would obey. However, he said he would have to be very convinced that this call was correct. God would have to appear to all Canadians in an unmistakable way. If that happened, we would have to obey and kill those we were instructed to.

eric · 3 November 2010

Matt Young said: It is Korthof, not Weikart, who claims that religion (and especially theodicy), not "Darwinism," may have a brutalizing effect on the population.

Isn't that a bit of a nonsequitur then? If I say "rock and roll has lead to people disrespecting their elders" and you respond "oh yeah? God allows babies to die of smallpox" it sounds like you are simply using my statement as an excuse to vent your own pet issue. You really aren't responding to me at all. My claim may be a stupid one, but you aren't showing why its stupid by taking the conversation on that tangent. Korthof may have a good argument about theodicy, but if Weikart isn't making a theological point about evil in the first place, then K. is simply using W.'s comment as an excuse to get his own pet issue into the fray. A better response to W. would be the standard one: to show that he's utterly and laughably wrong to think major political events of 19th and 20th century like the rise of Nazism or the Soviet Union had anything to do with the public's acceptance of descent with modification.

Matt Young · 3 November 2010

Isn't that a bit of a nonsequitur then?

Yes, now I see what you are getting at. I do not think it is a non sequitur; Professor Korthof opens his article with

In his 'From Darwin to Hitler' Richard Weikart makes the link between Darwin and Hitler. Weikart contrasts the 'Judeo-Christian conception of the sanctity of human life' with Darwinism: "Darwinism undermined traditional morality and the value of human life" (p.3 'From Darwin to Hitler', or: FDTH). Weikart is not merely describing Darwinist conceptions in a neutral way. He uses emotional and moral words: "brutalizing tendencies of Darwinism" (p.2 FDTH) and "This alone is a shocking demonstration of the devaluing of human life [by] naturalistic Darwinists" (p. 181 FDTH). [My italics]

Thank you for clarifying that point -- I should have made it more clear in my synopsis.

Mike Elzinga · 3 November 2010

RBH said: See Jeffrey Shallit's account of a modern fundagelical making that claim in public:
But the most repulsive part of Durston's talk was when someone from the audience asked why Durston's condemnation of genocide would not apply equally well to the god of the Old Testament, who indulged in genocide himself, in particular the genocide of the Canaanites. Suddenly Durston's tune changed. Instead of condemning this genocide, Durston sought to justify it. Genocide was OK, he claimed, if his god ordained it. Indeed, he said that the only thing that prevented him from going and out murdering people for his advantage was his religious belief. If God ordained genocide in our modern day, Durston said, he would obey. However, he said he would have to be very convinced that this call was correct. God would have to appear to all Canadians in an unmistakable way. If that happened, we would have to obey and kill those we were instructed to.

I have occasional have been told that the reason for proselytizing is, in effect, to give infidels a chance to reject the gospel so that Jesus can return sooner. This apparently means that all infidels will now be “guilty,” and can be slaughtered justifiably by whatever agents God commands to do so.

eric · 3 November 2010

Matt Young said: I do not think it is a non sequitur; Professor Korthof opens his article with
In his 'From Darwin to Hitler' Richard Weikart makes the link between Darwin and Hitler. Weikart contrasts the 'Judeo-Christian conception of the sanctity of human life' with Darwinism... (p. 181 FDTH). [My italics]

Okay, phrased this way it makes more sense to me. Korthof wants to show that Weikart's 'Judeo-Christian conception' of sanctity is imaginary, and the evidence Korthof is citing to make this point is the common Christian theodicy arguments that directly refute this sanctity. Sorry to be obtuse. Just trying to point out that Weikart is using the old "grand theft auto leads to cats and dogs sleeping together" argument, which really has nothing to do with theodicy per se.

Screwtape · 3 November 2010

To us a human is primarily food; our aim is the absorption of its will into ours, the increase of our own area of selfhood at its expense. But the obedience which the Enemy demands of men is quite a different thing. One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself-- creatures whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because he has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in,, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.

You must have often wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve. He is prepared to do a little overriding at the beginning. He will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs-- to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such trough periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best. We can drag our patients along by continual tempting, because we design them only for the table, and the more their will is interfered with the better. He cannot 'tempt' to virtue as we do to vice. He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

raven · 3 November 2010

Professor Weikart, whom we have met before, thinks that something he calls “Darwinism” undermines the sanctity of human life

Think it is the other way around. The fundie xian mythology. God created humans in his image. They promptly screw up and get kicked out of the Garden. They become too smart and powerful so god creates all new languages at the Tower of Babel. They keep screwing up. God kills all but 8 people in the Big Boat incident. They screw up some more. God sends himself down to be killed by his creations. They keep screwing up. Being murdered on a cross didn't really change anything obvious except create a new group of bloodthirsty religious fanatics. The latest plan is for god/jesus to show up 2,000 years late and murder everyone again and destroy the earth. The fundie god is an incompetent idiot whose solution to anything is mass murder which never works anyway. He can't even keep a universe going for 6,000 years or leave a simple instruction manual behind. Science says we live in a 13.7 billion year old universe which is just getting started. We are survivors of 3.8 billion years of evolution and the only and dominant species of intelligent tool users on the planet. As far as we can tell, we may be the only intelligent species in the Galaxy. If we can keep things together we could spread out and own the whole thing, a trillion star systems and spawn any number of successor species. So much for Weickart's fundie sanctity of life view. Besides which, the truth claims of science aren't contingent on whether anyone likes them or not but rather on how well they describe objective reality.

raven · 3 November 2010

And we know someone who has admitted right here in front of us that he hoped, if he got the call to do just that (murder and genocide), that he would obey.

Not going to bother asking which troll. Who knew Osama bin Laden reads Pandasthumb? That is a problem. It is one we see everyday, quite literally. But we know how to deal with it. In the US, that is what the police, laws, courts, DA's, and prisons are for and that is where our xian terrorist assassins go. The loonier ones, like Andrea Yates go to lockups for the criminally insane. Outside the USA, that is what metal detectors in airports and the US armed forces are for. The "god told me to kill people" crowds have been around as long as god and we have the right and duty to defend ourselves. And every once in a while one "god told me to kill" crowd collides with another one and we have an Iraq or Northern Ireland to clean up after.

Ichthyic · 3 November 2010

And people have the nerve to blame “Darwinism” for the brutality of the twentieth century!

maintaining religious ideology in the face of reality requires both denial and projection as defense mechanisms.

it's a simple explanation, but surely you have seen the pattern enough times by now to realize how well it fits.

I've been reading Gert off and on since he wrote his review of Francis Collins' book.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm

scroll down to his discussion of the many problems with Collins' Moral Law argument.

Ichthyic · 3 November 2010

Not going to bother asking which troll.

of course, but I also recall seeing Vox Day (Theodore Beale) say the exact same thing.

Ichthyic · 3 November 2010

meta:

Yo, Raven, you need to clean up the mess Antagonizer left of your comments back on the "Turtle" thread on Pharyngula.

harold · 3 November 2010

srewtape -

It's really, really better to make citations clear. (In case anyone didn't recognize it, that post is a passage from C. S. Lewis.) Why not put quotes around it and openly attribute it to C. S. Lewis? Is it really that hard?

I assume you are offering up C. S. Lewis as an alternative to the theological positions and false statements about the theory of evolution that are being discussed here, although the passage you quote is only peripherally related.

After all, Lewis was an Anglican. The Anglican Church doesn't officially deny evolution or promote creationism.

In the passage you quote, Lewis does not argue that evil was created in order that beings with free will could be "tested".

(He seems to be saying "Humans have free will because God wants it that way for some inscrutable reason".)

John Vreeland · 3 November 2010

Olorin said:They say that evil is necessary in order to allow free will.

This argument kept me going for a while, but it is not in the Bible and is not an argument made by any of the major religions. In any event, most theists believe in some kind of Heaven in which we will all have Free Will and yet there will be no evil, so clearly God can make them compatible if God so wishes. Of course, Free Will is also incompatible with Providence. If God has a Plan for us then we can hardly have a plan for ourselves.

faith4flipper · 3 November 2010

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

urban dictionary · 3 November 2010

harold said: srewtape - It's really, really better to make citations clear. (In case anyone didn't recognize it, that post is a passage from C. S. Lewis.) Why not put quotes around it and openly attribute it to C. S. Lewis? Is it really that hard? I assume you are offering up C. S. Lewis as an alternative to the theological positions and false statements about the theory of evolution that are being discussed here, although the passage you quote is only peripherally related. After all, Lewis was an Anglican. The Anglican Church doesn't officially deny evolution or promote creationism. In the passage you quote, Lewis does not argue that evil was created in order that beings with free will could be "tested". (He seems to be saying "Humans have free will because God wants it that way for some inscrutable reason".)

gimmick poster: A member of a forum or news group who takes on some personality in the form of something familiar or comical. A gimmick poster typically will not reveal personal details about their selves or opinions unless it matches the persona they have created or are borrowing from. Francis: a guy who really needs to lighten up.

The MadPanda, FCD · 3 November 2010

John Vreeland said: Of course, Free Will is also incompatible with Providence. If God has a Plan for us then we can hardly have a plan for ourselves.

This is also the problem with prayer, imprecatory or otherwise. Who are we mere mortals to question the gods' decisions? And if it needs doing, they're already on it (or should be)... The MadPanda, FCD

Dave Luckett · 3 November 2010

harold said: (He (C S Lewis) seems to be saying "Humans have free will because God wants it that way for some inscrutable reason".)

"We (devils) want cattle who can finally become food; He (God) wants servants who can finally become sons." That reason for free will, as given by Lewis in that passage, appears to me to not be in the least inscrutible. It may not be right, and it may be going far out on a breezy theological limb, but that's a different issue. As with all causation, it can be followed by asking for its own cause: "But why would God want 'servants who can finally become sons'?". You could also add "What, no daughters?", which constitutes a more serious charge against Lewis's worldview, I think. But the reason, as a reason, appears to me to be perfectly rational, given the assumptions that preceded it: that there is a God, that there is such a thing as free will (neither of which is evident).

Gabriel Hanna · 3 November 2010

Dave Luckett said:
harold said: (He (C S Lewis) seems to be saying "Humans have free will because God wants it that way for some inscrutable reason".)
You could also add "What, no daughters?", which constitutes a more serious charge against Lewis's worldview, I think.

Traditionally in English the impersonal form is represented with male forms; as Winston Churchill said "In this context, Mr. Speaker, the understanding is that Man EMBRACES Woman." Germans use "sie" to mean "you", "they" and "she". I've never heard it called sexist language, but I'm not a German and I don't know what sort of PC things go on there. Likewise cats and the sun, for example, are always "she"; dogs and trees, for example, are always "he". I think that calling this "sexist language" is somewhat like calling "niggardly" racist. I would give Lewis the benefit of the doubt over what was in his day the accepted figure of speech.

Gabriel Hanna · 3 November 2010

John Vreeland said: Of course, Free Will is also incompatible with Providence. If God has a Plan for us then we can hardly have a plan for ourselves.

Depends on what you mean by Providence. If everything that happens is God's will then of course you don't have free will. But suppose instead that you have free will--but God already knows in advance what your choices will be and has adjusted his actions accordingly, possibly at the beginning of the universe. Probably even most people who have not seen Casablanca know already how it ends. Does such a person determine the ending when he gets around to watching it? Does his knowledge of the ending tell you whether the people who made the movie had free will or not? Anyway, not every religion believes in free will, not even every flavor of Christianity. And different faiths mean different things by "Providence". For example, Thomas Jefferson was a deist, right? Consider this quote: "can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." He clearly seems to think it probable that God intends to intervene supernaturally in human history. (So in what sense is he a deist? His own sense, I guess.) But God could have arranged the consequences Jefferson feared at the beginning--he would know what choices people would make, and set up the universe to allow for those choices and their consequences. (Of course I'm far from persuaded that any finite intelligence could do such a thing even in principle; I have no idea what infinite intelligence would be.) I don't see that Providence and free will necessarily must conflict.

harold · 3 November 2010

urban dictionary -

Putting up large blocks of some other guy's work without attribution is a dick move - and also a move that can get you served, although Screwtape Letters may well be in the public domain. I was actually pretty nice about it.

The guy may well be an admirer of C. S. Lewis (I like him as an artist myself, even though I don't agree with his religious philosophizing), but I just don't see a reason not to attribute.

harold · 3 November 2010

Posting under multiple identities is disallowed by the moderators of this private forum, I believe. Just in case anyone is doing that.

Dale Husband · 4 November 2010

For a moment, I read the title as "Does idiocy devalue human life?"

I'm still not sure of that's a typo above. Can someone explain the concept of theodicy?

gert korthof · 4 November 2010

I am not claiming that Weikart wrote about a theodicy, but reasonded that is inevitable for somebody who believes in a moral God, to have a some elementary kind of theodicy (that is an answer to the question why a moral God allows evil). According to Swinburne most theists need an explanation of why God allows evil (a theodicy).
Weikart could respond: I don't have a theodicy. If he disagrees with Swinburne or Hick, Weikart still must accept that God did not prevent Hitler, and must decide whether that is a moral act of God.
In the conclusion I said two times "Weikart did not realize" and by that I expressed the idea that a basic theodicee is inevitable for anybody who believes in a moral God.

Paul Burnett · 4 November 2010

Dale Husband said: Can someone explain the concept of theodicy?

Making excuses (apologies - see "Apologetics") for God allowing evil and cruelty to exist. It's the same twisted behavior as an abused wife who makes excuses about "what a good husband (apologies, Dale) he is" - even though he beats her regularly. Similarly, theodicy explains how God's genocidal behavior (whether it's the Big Boat Incident or intelligently designing malaria) demonstrates his love for humanity.

Dave Luckett · 4 November 2010

Theodicy, as I understand it, is the attempt to reconcile the fact of natural evil - that is, naturally occurring events, held to be evils, and not attributable to any human will or cause - with the belief that God is good. This is usually referred to as "the problem of evil".

There does seem to be a satisfactory response to a question like "Why did God not prevent Adolf Hitler?" viz, Hitler, and the people who followed him, were indulging their free will, granted by God, which, if it is to be free, must include the freedom to do evil.

So-called "natural evil" is the real problem. "Why does God allow malaria, or tuberculosis, or multiple sclerosis, or rheumatoid arthritis?"

I know of no answer. There are various methods of tackling the problem, and all of them are, to my mind, unsatisfactory. The ultimate attempts all involve invoking faith.

Invoke away. I can't manage it.

Tulse · 4 November 2010

Probably even most people who have not seen Casablanca know already how it ends. Does such a person determine the ending when he gets around to watching it?

But the Christian god isn't just the audience, it is supposed to also be the movie maker -- in fact, it's not just the director and scriptwriter, but producer and studio head as well. So yeah, an omnipotent, omniscient being knowing an outcome is precisely the same as that being determining the outcome.

eric · 4 November 2010

Dave Luckett said: Theodicy, as I understand it, is the attempt to reconcile the fact of natural evil - that is, naturally occurring events...

As a subject, theodicy includes both explanations for natural evil and human evil.

There does seem to be a satisfactory response to a question like "Why did God not prevent Adolf Hitler?" viz, Hitler, and the people who followed him, were indulging their free will, granted by God, which, if it is to be free, must include the freedom to do evil.

I don't think its as cut and dried as that. The free will answer has problems. John Harshman, Hrafn, Jon Vreeland, and Mad Panda have all mentioned some of them. And Prof. Korhout argues that the free will argument devalues human life. Its probably a more accurate conclusion to say that the free will explanation for human evil is satisfactory to many, but not all. And as you point out, that still leaves a whopping lot of other badness to explain.

Henry J · 4 November 2010

What about simply dropping the presupposition that God has direct control over the details? Wouldn't that alleviate the problem? :p

John Harshman · 4 November 2010

The commonest solution is this: "Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent: pick two." God might have the power to intervene but not the knowledge, or the knowledge but not the power, or both knowledge and power but not the inclination. Religions, unfortunately, tend to want to preserve all three, which causes the problem.

Dale Husband · 4 November 2010

John Harshman said: The commonest solution is this: "Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent: pick two." God might have the power to intervene but not the knowledge, or the knowledge but not the power, or both knowledge and power but not the inclination. Religions, unfortunately, tend to want to preserve all three, which causes the problem.

Why not pick NONE? Only idiots need their God to be perfect. He can be limited in power and knowledge and still be vastly superior to humans and thus worthy of worship.

raven · 4 November 2010

wikipedia: Marcionism, similar to Gnosticism, depicted the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as a tyrant or demiurge (see also God as the Devil). Marcion was labeled as gnostic by Eusebius.[2].

Theodicy is a bit like the Star Trekkies. A huge number of words about a being that is unprovable and might not even exist and none of which are testable in the real world. A prominent early xian form came up with a solution. The Gnostics claim that the OT god, Yahweh is responsible for evil. There are really two gods, a greater god and the xian creator god who is rather incompetent. The two god model was suppressed as heresy but falls out naturally by comparing the god of the OT with the NT one. So obvious that it is often revived and exists today in some xian sects. Of course, the No Religions have an even simpler answer. The universe looks a lot like god doesn't exist, isn't paying attention, or is hiding behind the Big Bang as an unnamed god referred to as Deos.

eric · 4 November 2010

Dale Husband said: He can be limited in power and knowledge and still be vastly superior to humans and thus worthy of worship.

Non sequitur? The bit after the "and thus" does not follow from the bit before.

Leszek · 4 November 2010

eric said:
Dale Husband said: He can be limited in power and knowledge and still be vastly superior to humans and thus worthy of worship.
Non sequitur? The bit after the "and thus" does not follow from the bit before.

How about potentially worthy of worship? Depending on how you define worship. Back more to the thrust of the article, this could be all spun as evolutionists concede we devalue life. A natural outcome of the thrust "religion also devalues life." I don't think this is the point to the thread but it could be spun that way. I think this is because there hardly isn't actually any talk on what evolution or "Darwinists" actually do think the theory implies for human life. I think strictly speaking the answer is nothing either way. Its indifferent. But what are your thoughts?

Tulse · 4 November 2010

How about potentially worthy of worship?

Donald Trump is more powerful than me -- should I worship him?

Leszek · 4 November 2010

Tulse said:
How about potentially worthy of worship?
Donald Trump is more powerful than me -- should I worship him?

And some people worship Donald Trump. That is why I added, depending on how you define worship. :) Because if you mean in the "He worshiped her" droped in the middle of some gossip sense as good enough...

eric · 4 November 2010

Leszek said: How about potentially worthy of worship?

Why does power have anything to do with worthiness to worship? Indeed, why doesn't it work the other way? Why don't we worship beings with less power and knowledge that nevertheless accomplish great feats? What's more worthy of your respect and admiration: Brett Favre throwing a 90-yard pass to hit a bull's eye, or a 6-year-old doing it? The 'ant that moves a rubber tree plant' is a motivational song precisely because its about an ant. Replace the ant with 10 guys and a backhoe and its not so motivational any more, is it? Of course they could move a rubber tree plant, there's nothing special about that at all. So what's more worthy of your respect and admiration - an omnipotent, omniscent being creating designer organisms, or humans doing it?

Back more to the thrust of the article, this could be all spun as evolutionists concede we devalue life. A natural outcome of the thrust "religion also devalues life."

Perhaps that's a good subject for Korthof's next article. The list of evangelical arguments he hasn't yet refuted is probably long, but that doesn't reduce the value of this one. :)

Tulse · 4 November 2010

what’s more worthy of your respect and admiration - an omnipotent, omniscent being creating designer organisms, or humans doing it?

Please don't say that too loud -- Craig Venter already thinks he's god.

raven · 4 November 2010

I think strictly speaking the answer is nothing either way. Its indifferent. But what are your thoughts?

Really, evolution is a descriptive theory of biology that has nothing to do with religion, ethics, morality or the stock market. Any more than any other scientific theory such as the Law of Gravity, Germ Theory of Disease, or Theory of Internal Combustion Engines. That doesn't mean the fact and theory of evolution can't inform philosophy or religion but that isn't science or science's problem and there is nothing that says it has to inform any other field of thought.

TomS · 4 November 2010

If humans were purposefully designed to be most similar to chimps and other apes, among the living species, and if we should follow the purposes of the designer, then we should be telling our kids that they should act like apes.

If humans have those similarities because of natural causes, then no obligation follows from that.

Is the bacterial flagellum due to a designer's purpose for making bacteria more virulent? Did the designer give predators efficient eyes to make them better predators? Or are those simply due to natural causes?

ISTM that the problem of theodicy is a consequence of the design argument.

Leszek · 4 November 2010

[blockquote] Indeed, why doesn’t it work the other way? Why don’t we worship beings with less power and knowledge that nevertheless accomplish great feats? What’s more worthy of your respect and admiration: Brett Favre throwing a 90-yard pass to hit a bull’s eye, or a 6-year-old doing it? The ‘ant that moves a rubber tree plant’ is a motivational song precisely because its about an ant. Replace the ant with 10 guys and a backhoe and its not so motivational any more, is it? Of course they could move a rubber tree plant, there’s nothing special about that at all. So what’s more worthy of your respect and admiration - an omnipotent, omniscent being creating designer organisms, or humans doing it?
[/blockquote]

Makes sense to me. I wasn't talking about omi-anything to begin with but I agree with your point completly. My point was that in regards to Dale Husband's suggestion that someone need not be omni-anything to be worth or worship. Which I think you also agree with, unless I read you totally wrong. But it seems that the religious like their Gods to be Omni-everything.

MememicBottleneck · 4 November 2010

John Vreeland said:
Olorin said:They say that evil is necessary in order to allow free will.
This argument kept me going for a while, but it is not in the Bible and is not an argument made by any of the major religions. In any event, most theists believe in some kind of Heaven in which we will all have Free Will and yet there will be no evil, so clearly God can make them compatible if God so wishes. Of course, Free Will is also incompatible with Providence. If God has a Plan for us then we can hardly have a plan for ourselves.

Your post reminded me of this comic. http://whorechurch.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/foxtrotgodeep.jpg

Mary H · 4 November 2010

"god" is most certainly the author of evil and it is clearly in the bible.

God made Lucifer the "morning star" as the greatest of angels. If god were omniscient he would have known that lucifer was going to go bad. All he had to do to stop it was to give lucifer enough sense to know that even with a third of the angels behind him, he couldn't have beaten an infinite being. The best he could have done would be to reach a draw. If a mere mortal like myself can figure that out I would have thought an omniscient deity could have too, but apparently he didn't or didn't care.

Where does that leave us? With a "god" who could have prevented the birth of evil and not only did not but further failed to give his new creation the slightest weapon against the evil. Remember Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If god had given her that knowledge freely maybe she could have recognized a lie the first time she heard one. Again he failed to do even that and blames humans for the evil he both created and allowed.

I further question the existence of an omni-benevolent being who could "defeat" evil but chooses not to, or at least not yet.

What this amounts to is those dancing angels on pin heads. If a god is required to be omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent and cannot be all three at the same time because they contradict one another then either the god cannot be all three and therefore is not god or is all three and is a contradiction to himself and therefore cannot exist.

There I solved the theodicy problem. No god, no problem!

John Harshman · 4 November 2010

Dale Husband said: Why not pick NONE? Only idiots need their God to be perfect. He can be limited in power and knowledge and still be vastly superior to humans and thus worthy of worship.

Well, I do pick none. I don't think God is any of those things. I don't think he exists. But that's beside the point, which is what you have to do to reconcile God's hypothetical existence with the non-hypothetical existence of evil. Sure, you can throw out all three. But you only have to throw out one. And I suspect most religionists would prefer to throw out none, which is why they have to make up all these lame theodicies. As for being worthy of worship, I've never been able to figure out what that means. Even if there were a god, why would you want to worship him, and why would he want you to worship him?

Tulse · 4 November 2010

Even if there were a god [...] why would he want you to worship him?

What, you don't demand that all your intestinal flora worship you? You don't require all the ants you come across to bow in obeisance?

Leszek · 4 November 2010

Even if there were a god, why would you want to worship him, and why would he want you to worship him?

I think that is one of the stronger arguments for Atheism myself. I mean after the basic lack of evidence, internal contradictions and so on. I also count things like why do we need priests/shamans/etc or even books to tell us about God? We could be born knowing. Or if God wants us to interpret stuff, why not just come to us in a vision and tell us? Why does he let people like Pat Robinson talk for him? (Or pretend to talk for him?) There would be 1 religion. No apostates. No need for burning heretics. No crusades. Why is the creator of the vast universe, the unmoved mover so damn incompetent? I am going to stop there, this not being an atheist board and all.

Henry J · 4 November 2010

Tulse said: You don't require all the ants you come across to bow in obeisance?

What, you don't want your ants to cry uncle?

W. H. Heydt · 4 November 2010

Henry J said:
Tulse said: You don't require all the ants you come across to bow in obeisance?
What, you don't want your ants to cry uncle?

I want them to cry, "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Just Bob · 4 November 2010

Many ancient versions of gods NEEDED worship and actual FEEDING by people. The Greek gods didn't just like people to honor them, they needed sacrifices of oxen, sheep, etc. The Old Testament Yahweh seems to be of the same stripe. He seems to have NEEDED burnt sacrifices, blood, etc. to send up a "sweet savour." Why would he demand that unless he somehow needed it for sustenance?

How do you feed a supernatural being? Destroy the food, so that it leaves the physical world and enters the spiritual.

Since God demands worshipers, he must need them for some reason. Could be an infantile ego that needs constant stroking by his groupies, or some kind of physical nature that requires "feeding" by worship, just as it used to require feeding by smelling burnt animals.

Mike Elzinga · 4 November 2010

Just Bob said: Since God demands worshipers, he must need them for some reason. Could be an infantile ego that needs constant stroking by his groupies, or some kind of physical nature that requires "feeding" by worship, just as it used to require feeding by smelling burnt animals.

It’s how they are prepared. Non-worshipers taste bitter; worshipers taste sweet.

raven · 4 November 2010

The Greek gods didn’t just like people to honor them, they needed sacrifices of oxen, sheep, etc. The Old Testament Yahweh seems to be of the same stripe. He seems to have NEEDED burnt sacrifices, blood, etc. to send up a “sweet savour.” Why would he demand that unless he somehow needed it for sustenance?

Sounds like extortion or socialism to me. Why don't those gods go out and get real jobs like everyone else?

David Fickett-Wilbar · 5 November 2010

Dale Husband said:
John Harshman said: The commonest solution is this: "Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent: pick two." God might have the power to intervene but not the knowledge, or the knowledge but not the power, or both knowledge and power but not the inclination. Religions, unfortunately, tend to want to preserve all three, which causes the problem.
Why not pick NONE? Only idiots need their God to be perfect. He can be limited in power and knowledge and still be vastly superior to humans and thus worthy of worship.

That's the Pagan response.

David Fickett-Wilbar · 5 November 2010

raven said:
The Greek gods didn’t just like people to honor them, they needed sacrifices of oxen, sheep, etc. The Old Testament Yahweh seems to be of the same stripe. He seems to have NEEDED burnt sacrifices, blood, etc. to send up a “sweet savour.” Why would he demand that unless he somehow needed it for sustenance?
Sounds like extortion or socialism to me. Why don't those gods go out and get real jobs like everyone else?

No, it's almost a form of capitalism. We do favors for the gods, they do favors for us. The form of sacrifice among many peoples wasn't the kind you might be used to among the Hebrews. It wasn't about giving up, it was about sharing with. Indo-European sacrifices, for instance, were rarely burnt completely. Some was given to the gods, and the rest was eaten by the people. It was a shared meal, and just as in human society inviting someone to a meal obliges the guest to return hospitality, so do doing it with the gods. Pagan worship outside of the Near East is not about "look how insignificant I am." It's about "hey, you're more powerful than I am; since I've done you a favor, how about helping me out?"

eric · 5 November 2010

Prof. Korthof,

If you're interested (you may not be), the creationists over at Uncommon Descent are discussing your post.

Nothing particularly new. First the poster argues 'who said the ID designer is God?' [Response: well, you guys do. Often.] He then goes on to cite the 'the Fall caused it' argument (but with trickery - the author doesn't claim the fall caused it, he just quotes several other people who do, including Dembski). The fall caused it? Nope, no religion here!

You know in the next few years maybe we'll see a replay of McLean vs. Arkansas. It'll be "we think there was a world-wide flood, but that has nothing to do with the bible" all over again, only this time instead of a flood they'll have some scientific sounding bafflegab that amounts to 'the fall.' I can see it now. We propose that a form of hyper entropy was brought on by a unique orbital conjunction 6,000 years ago! Any resemblance between our theory and the bible is purely coincidental! ;)

Dale Husband · 5 November 2010

eric said: Prof. Korthof, If you're interested (you may not be), the creationists over at Uncommon Descent are discussing your post. Nothing particularly new. First the poster argues 'who said the ID designer is God?' [Response: well, you guys do. Often.] He then goes on to cite the 'the Fall caused it' argument (but with trickery - the author doesn't claim the fall caused it, he just quotes several other people who do, including Dembski). The fall caused it? Nope, no religion here! You know in the next few years maybe we'll see a replay of McLean vs. Arkansas. It'll be "we think there was a world-wide flood, but that has nothing to do with the bible" all over again, only this time instead of a flood they'll have some scientific sounding bafflegab that amounts to 'the fall.' I can see it now. We propose that a form of hyper entropy was brought on by a unique orbital conjunction 6,000 years ago! Any resemblance between our theory and the bible is purely coincidental! ;)

You forgot the link to that: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-intelligent-design-proponents-worship-two-gods/ If you want to see stupid arguments, see the comments:

EvilSnack 11/04/2010 5:47 pm Korthof has done nothing more than demonstrate that he is a poor theologian. In this particular case, he never does get away from the unstated premise that the life we know is all that there is, and that therefore everything about God may be judged solely on the basis of things we observe in this life. Once that premise is seen as the unproven (and unprovable) assertion that it is, his whole argument collapses.

Calling criticism of something unproven and unprovable (the existence of God) itself unproven and unprovable is just hilarious!

CannuckianYankee 11/04/2010 11:05 pm The real problem here is what might be called: “The problem with finding a problem with what does not exist.” If the atheist chooses to remain consistent, there is no evil, so there is no problem of evil. Evil only becomes meaningful if God exists.

Atheists can see lying as evil, as molesting children as evil, and bigotry as evil. You don't need a God to recognize evil, just logic and a sense of compassion and honor.

eric · 5 November 2010

Dale Husband said: You forgot the link to that:

I didn't forget. :) And yes, you're right about that first comment especially. In the comments you see the old excuse "we can't know if its really evil because we can't know the mind of God" crop up over and over again. To which the proper response is: 1. Its amazing how well you claim to know his mind sometimes but how poorly you claim to know it at other times. Isn't your whole religion is founded on the premise that everything important we need to know about God is easily accessible? 2. I thought you said the designer wasn't God.

Henry J · 5 November 2010

raven said: Sounds like extortion or socialism to me. Why don't those gods go out and get real jobs like everyone else?

Who'd hire them? ;)

Henry J · 5 November 2010

(They'd be overqualified for a lot of jobs!)

Mike Elzinga · 5 November 2010

Henry J said: (They'd be overqualified for a lot of jobs!)

Just try to get a copy of their résumés.

raven · 6 November 2010

One more problem for theodicy. The fundie creator god is all powerful and created everything. Including satan, the devil. If god gave us free will/agency so we could do evil, then why did he create a powerful supernatural being to help us do evil? One would have to assume, he wanted most of us to fail. To make it worse, satan has an unknown but large number of helpers, the demons*. Who also steer us in the wrong direction and get blamed for a huge number of human ills and failings. One interpretation of theodicy is that god created evil and supernatural creatures to help us find and do it. Nice guy. This is the paradox of the fundie god. They claim it is all powerful. And then act like it is sick, dead, or doesn't care. Or imaginary. An all powerful god wouldn't have to let fallen angels he created in the first place run around loose. Of course, for a monotheistic religion, xianity does seem to have a full pantheon under other names. God, jesus, the holy ghost, satan, devils, angels. Monotheism, my foot.

Just try to get a copy of their résumés.

Those are called the bible, koran, Greek mythology, and other holy books. The bible god seems to be good at mass killing. If I ever have a cockroach or mouse problem, he would be my first supernatural choice to solve it. *My natal sect didn't believe in demons or at least never mentioned them once. But most xian sects do.

raven · 6 November 2010

One more explanation for theodicy.

The Calvinists claim we are predestined before we are born to heaven or hell and nothing we can do will change that.

The conclusion is that god creates beings that will subsequently be tortured forever. The Calvinists claim that since it is god, if he wants to create humans and torture them forever, that is his right as god.

Such a being is a monster, not worth worshipping, and why worship it anyway if we are all predestined?

FWIW, my natal sect was supposedly Calvinist. I never heard a word about Calvin and predestination. My impression was that the theologians and ministers all thought it was stupid nonsense and fervently hoped no one brought it up.

Just Bob · 6 November 2010

My favorite question for evangelicals: Why doesn't God just kill Satan? Since he could, but doesn't, then he clearly approves of the job Satan is doing. Ergo, Satan works for God.

My favorite proposition for evangelicals: Let's pray for Satan. If he saw the Light and got Saved, what a wonderful world this would be! (For some reason they never want to do that. It almost seems that they want Satan to remain evil.)

Mike Elzinga · 6 November 2010

raven said: The conclusion is that god creates beings that will subsequently be tortured forever. The Calvinists claim that since it is god, if he wants to create humans and torture them forever, that is his right as god. Such a being is a monster, not worth worshipping, and why worship it anyway if we are all predestined? FWIW, my natal sect was supposedly Calvinist. I never heard a word about Calvin and predestination. My impression was that the theologians and ministers all thought it was stupid nonsense and fervently hoped no one brought it up.

It seems quite likely - especially when we look at specific examples of the people who vie for positions of power within these kinds of churches – that organized religion is simply about people attempting to subdue and control other people. Fear is one of the primary tools they use; and it always lurks just beneath the surface of sectarian dogma within such churches. The demonizing coming from those pulpits that constantly abuses and accuses secular persons and other sects, the projections of evilness and sneaky intentions of subversion onto others, the scolding, the demands for fidelity and unquestioning acceptance of dogma (else you are damned); all this is technique honed over centuries for keeping people cowed and coming back for more abuse. It is also the reason politicians pander to these types of religions. And when you have a large crop of such politicians all trying to outdo each other in giving assurances that they are religious and support “family values”, your society is messed up primarily because of organized religion.

Dave Luckett · 6 November 2010

Just Bob said: Ergo, Satan works for God.

Quote so. In the Book of Job, Satan (the Hebrew is "Sathanas", which means "Opposer") acts as a servant, an intelligence officer, and somewhat as an advisor. He certainly has God's ear, and can make suggestions. When he brings a series of calamities on Job, he is acting strictly as God's authorised agent. When tempting Jesus, again he seems to be acting as a tester, and again there is an implication that this is authorised by God the Father. This more thoroughly compounds the difficulty that Jesus was, according to Christian dogma, actually God Himself. So, God was authorising Satan to tempt him... In any case, Satan certainly is tolerated by God, and seems to act as God's agent. What is really happening here is Judaism's semi-digestion of Persan ideas. Mithraism ducked the problem of theodicy by positing two Gods of equal power, light and dark, good and evil, permanently at odds, who had created the Universe between them. Judaism was profoundly influenced by Persian thought and religion, during the exile and then the return. The whole business of Satan can be understood as a historical, not a trancendental event. Ah, well. Then again, I'm a historian, after a fashion. If you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Just Bob · 6 November 2010

Not to mention that in Christian tradition Satan manages Hell for God. God wants there to be a Hell, apparently, and Satan, assisted by assorted demons, manages the joint and applies the punishments God expects. And of course Satan's day job (also approved and assigned by God) is tempting us poor humans, apparently to keep heaven from becoming overcrowded.

Oh, and he carves and plants fake fossils. That must be part of his divine job description also.

Matt Young · 6 November 2010

In the Book of Job, Satan (the Hebrew is "Sathanas", which means "Opposer")

That sounds like a Grecianized (if there is such a word) name. The Hebrew is ha-Satan, or the Satan. The Jewish Publication Society Bible translates it as the Opposer; others use Adversary. Caps notwithstanding, it is not really a proper name. The essence of the Book of Job, for me, is not that Job suffers for no reason; he suffers for a bad reason: because Satan tempted God. The God of Job is unfair and unjust, and no theodicy can change that fact.

raven · 6 November 2010

The essence of the Book of Job, for me, is not that Job suffers for no reason; he suffers for a bad reason:

Not only that but Ha-satan is god's good buddy and works for him. The Opposer has certainly changed through time. It looks a lot like he is...Evolving. Who would have thought evolution could be found in the bible.

wikipedia satan: Job's Satan In the Book of Job, ha-Satan is a member of the divine council, “the sons of God” who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan in this capacity is many times translated as “the prosecutor,” and is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against God’s decrees. At the beginning of the book, Job is a good person

Satan is looking quite well, tenuous these days. A current theory is that the gods disappear when people stop believing in them. Satan should be looking for a new line of work. Maybe he can get in on the UFO circuit.

Mike Elzinga · 6 November 2010

raven said:
The essence of the Book of Job, for me, is not that Job suffers for no reason; he suffers for a bad reason:
Not only that but Ha-satan is god's good buddy and works for him. The Opposer has certainly changed through time. It looks a lot like he is...Evolving. Who would have thought evolution could be found in the bible.
wikipedia satan: Job's Satan In the Book of Job, ha-Satan is a member of the divine council, “the sons of God” who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan in this capacity is many times translated as “the prosecutor,” and is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against God’s decrees. At the beginning of the book, Job is a good person
Satan is looking quite well, tenuous these days. A current theory is that the gods disappear when people stop believing in them. Satan should be looking for a new line of work. Maybe he can get in on the UFO circuit.

He has job security at ICR, AiG, and the DI writing screeds and “model legislation.”

Henry J · 6 November 2010

Those are called the bible, koran, Greek mythology, and other holy books. The bible god seems to be good at mass killing. If I ever have a cockroach or mouse problem, he would be my first supernatural choice to solve it.

You kidding? If it took the job, the attempt would be likely to wash away your house (and maybe some of your neighbors as well). ;)

Henry J · 6 November 2010

Oh, and he [Satan] carves and plants fake fossils. That must be part of his divine job description also.

No bones about it!

W. H. Heydt · 6 November 2010

Matt Young said: That sounds like a Grecianized (if there is such a word) name.

"Hellenized" is, I think, what you're looking for, or something close to it. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

John Kwok · 6 November 2010

Hellenized is the correct term, since it is derived from Hellas and Hellenes, the ancient names for Greece and the Greeks in the Classical Greek tongue:

W. H. Heydt said:
Matt Young said: That sounds like a Grecianized (if there is such a word) name.
"Hellenized" is, I think, what you're looking for, or something close to it. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Matt Young · 6 November 2010

Sorry, but Grecianize (or [to my surprise] Grecize, not necessarily capitalized) is a perfectly good word, roughly equivalent to Hellenize. It feels funny to use Hellenize for the language -- to Hellenize a word -- but I guess it may be OK too.

didymos · 7 November 2010

Matt Young said: Sorry, but Grecianize (or [to my surprise] Grecize, not necessarily capitalized) is a perfectly good word, roughly equivalent to Hellenize. It feels funny to use Hellenize for the language -- to Hellenize a word -- but I guess it may be OK too.

More than OK: it's perfectly correct. Quoth the OED:

2. trans. To make Greek or Hellenistic in form or character.

"Grecianize" may be legit, but it sounds wretched. Grecize is even worse. No euphony at all, and they even look clumsy. Both are also commonly defined simply as "hellenize". Besides, the word for "Greek" in Greek is "Ελληνικά". Basically, "Hellenic"

gert korthof · 7 November 2010

eric said: Prof. Korthof, If you're interested (you may not be), the creationists over at Uncommon Descent are discussing your post.

Eric, thanks for the link to Uncommon Descent.

John Kwok · 7 November 2010

Hellenize is still the more accepted term and the one which should be used IMHO for the very reasons I have given (It is also the term which substantially more readers would understand.). And here's an example of its appropriateness: The Hellenistic empires established by Alexander the Great and his generals had, as one of their goals, the desire to Hellenize their conquered territories, ranging from Bactria to Egypt:

didymos said:
Matt Young said: Sorry, but Grecianize (or [to my surprise] Grecize, not necessarily capitalized) is a perfectly good word, roughly equivalent to Hellenize. It feels funny to use Hellenize for the language -- to Hellenize a word -- but I guess it may be OK too.
More than OK: it's perfectly correct. Quoth the OED:
2. trans. To make Greek or Hellenistic in form or character.
"Grecianize" may be legit, but it sounds wretched. Grecize is even worse. No euphony at all, and they even look clumsy. Both are also commonly defined simply as "hellenize". Besides, the word for "Greek" in Greek is "Ελληνικά". Basically, "Hellenic"

Matt Young · 7 November 2010

"Grecianize" may be legit, but it sounds wretched. Grecize is even worse. No euphony at all,...

Grecize ought to mean to turn someone into a Greek, but Grecianize is no worse, I think, than Americanize; it is only unfamiliar.

Mike Elzinga · 7 November 2010

Matt Young said:
"Grecianize" may be legit, but it sounds wretched. Grecize is even worse. No euphony at all,...
Grecize ought to mean to turn someone into a Greek, but Grecianize is no worse, I think, than Americanize; it is only unfamiliar.

How about bowdlerize? ;-)

John Kwok · 7 November 2010

This is starting to sound like an advertisement for some bad hair dyeing formula:

Mike Elzinga said:
Matt Young said:
"Grecianize" may be legit, but it sounds wretched. Grecize is even worse. No euphony at all,...
Grecize ought to mean to turn someone into a Greek, but Grecianize is no worse, I think, than Americanize; it is only unfamiliar.
How about bowdlerize? ;-)

As for the OED, while I respect it, it is after all meant for English spoken in the ancestral mother country. Have to see what Webster's Dictionary might say, but I should also note that having participated in events at the Onassis Cultural Center (near Rockefeller Center) for years now, the staff of the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation (USA) - which operates the center (Its twin - and "parent" - foundation is based in Athens.) - have preferred the terms Hellenic and Hellenize over Grecian, etc.

didymos · 7 November 2010

John Kwok said: As for the OED, while I respect it, it is after all meant for English spoken in the ancestral mother country.

Er, no. It's function is to be "the definitive record of the English language", period. Exactly what it says on the tin. It is not oriented towards British usage.

SEF · 8 November 2010

Matt Young said: ... but Grecianize is no worse, I think, than Americanize; it is only unfamiliar.

I'd say it was worse because it is familiar! It sounds like someone has had their greying hair dyed. Whereas, Hellenic etc is fine.

John Kwok · 8 November 2010

Am well aware of that didymos, I am merely asserting my American literary bias here:

didymos said:
John Kwok said: As for the OED, while I respect it, it is after all meant for English spoken in the ancestral mother country.
Er, no. It's function is to be "the definitive record of the English language", period. Exactly what it says on the tin. It is not oriented towards British usage.