Re: Dembski theodicy

evangelical Christianity is a
sociological category describing a group of people who hold (in
varying degrees) an incoherent set of abstractions, severed from the
abstractions' roots.

Lovely. Nothing like opening the morning email to be lumped mindlessly into
a "sociological category" by a physicist. Is it really necessary to call
people names simply out of reaction to the fact that Bill Dembski is
involved?

I read Dembski's paper a couple weeks ago and personally I found it quite
interesting. It seems to me that Dembski at heart is making a pretty
traditional move in appealing to God's foreknowledge to address the problem
of evil. Doesn't any theodicy ultimately have to appeal to God's
foreknowledge?

If you hold to a TE position, you either have to deny that human pain and
suffering are a type of natural evil, or you have to say that God made us
(through evolution) to experience pain and suffering at least in part
because He knew that we would sin and further knew that our pain and
suffering would help lead us to the cross. I can't see how the first option
(denying that human pain and suffering are a type of natural evil) is in any
way attractive or related to Christian theology or to the Biblical
eschatological hope of redemption.

The second option is more consistent, IMHO, with Christian theology, and
further dovetails nicely with the concept that Christ participated in our
pain and suffering by becoming flesh and dying on the cross. This also
reflects the depth of the atonement, by which Christ not only took our place
in receiving God's judgment, but also provided an example of virtuous
suffering, and secured ultimate victory over sin and death. George Murhpy
-- I confess I haven't gotten through your Cosmos in Light of the Cross book
yet, but isn't your approach to TE and theodicy something along these lines?

Whether Dembski is right to say that the YEC concept of a possible creation
untouched by natural evil has any validity is a different matter. But if we
allow that the present creation is not necessary but rather is contingent on
God's will, it would seem that a different creation untouched by natural
evil is not impossible. Indeed, it seems that the eschatological hope for
the new heaven and new earth bears some hallmarks of a creation in which at
least (redeemed) humans will not suffer as we do now.

On 5/10/06, Joel Cannon <jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu> wrote:
> Few things inspire me to cease lurking these days, but this crossed
> the threshold.
>
> To paraphrase P.G. Wodehouse, my thoughts on coming up after reading
> Dembski's views were various. Holy Shit!! was one of the first. I give
> Dembski credit for laying his cards on the table was another. A third
> was that he has "philosopher's disease" whereby the holder of a
> PhD. in philosophy feels qualified to answer questions in any
> field. This may be the most virulent of its family, exceeding both
> "physicist's disease" and "biologist's disease" (whereby the PhD
> holder believes the PhD is a license to offer the authoritative
> interpretation of ancient Near-Eastern literature).
>
> A dominant feeling after reading this is that Dembski and I inhabit
> different intellectual universes, between which communication is
> difficult and more likely futile. The feeling parallels that of a post
> I made last November noting that in light of how disconnected Dawkins
> idea of god was from Xty it was illusory and to think that we were
> having a meaningful discussion when we discussed science and Christian
> faith with the rest of the world (and perhaps just with ourselves).
>
> Another dominant feeling is that the fact that someone who holds such
> views can be so influential in evangelical circles is evidence
> supporting the proposition that evangelical Christianity is a
> sociological category describing a group of people who hold (in
> varying degrees) an incoherent set of abstractions, severed from the
> abstractions' roots. The mathematician/philosopher Dembski is using
> abstract "axioms" delivered in a particular form by an evangelical
> tradition and tying himself in knots trying to make sense of them.
>
> In light of these thoughts, the two big questions would be:
>
> 1. Is meaningful communication possible? or Is there evidence that
> meaningful communication is possible?
>
> 2. Is evangelical Christianity intellectually coherent? (this
> discussion would be futile on the listserv)
>
> Thoughtfully yours,
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:27:35PM -0500, Keith Miller wrote:
> > I just ran across an article by Dembski on natural evil.� I found it
> > interesting because I am convinced that the problem of natural evil
is one
> > of the primary issues that drives the anti-evolution movement --
whether
> > YEC or ID.�
> > The article is entitled "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and
Modern
> > Science"� and can be found at
>
> <[1]http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.04.christian_theodicy.pdf>.
> > I will just make a couple comments.
> > First Dembski argues from the position that all perceived "natural
evil"
> > including not only animal death but natural processes such as
earthquakes
> > and hurricanes are a consequence of human sin.� He further states
that
> > this is the traditional and orthodox Christian position.� He commends
YECs
> > for holding to what he sees as a fundamental theological position.
> > He states -- "�Except for preserving the face-value interpretation of
> > certain Old
> > Testament passages (like Psalm 93), nothing much seems to have been
> > riding theologically on preserving geocentrism as a proper
interpretation
> > of Scripture. The same cannot be said for a young earth. A young
earth
> > seems to be required to maintain a traditional understanding of the
Fall.
> > And yet a young earth clashes sharply with mainstream science.
Christians
> > therefore seem to be in a position of having to choose their poison.
They
> > can go with a young earth, thereby maintaining theological orthodoxy
but
> > committing scientific heresy; or they can go with an old earth,
thereby
> > committing theological heresy but maintaining scientific orthodoxy."
> > This view of "natural evil" would in effect require a non-fallen
world to
> > be completely static.� Natural processes such as earthquakes and
storms
> > are consequences of a dynamic Earth.� They result from processes as
simple
> > as heat transfer.� These dynamic processes are also necessary for the
> > existence and preservation of life.� Any natural process generates
some
> > potential risk.� If the wind blows, it may fell a tree, and that tree
may
> > fall on someone.
> > He later states -- "This view of God's redemption in Christ is basic
> > Christian theology. I
> > regard it as not only true but also mandatory for sound Christian
faith.
> > Nonetheless, it presupposes that all evil in the world ultimately
traces
> > back
> > to human sin. For this view of redemption to be plausible within our
> > current noetic environment therefore requires an explanation of how
> > natural evil could precede the first human sin and yet result from
it."
> > I would take issue with his claim that his view of natural evil
> > corresponds to the orthodox one.� I will let the more theologically
> > trained among us respond.
> > Dembski's solution -- He argues that God, knowing of the Fall, acted
> > "preemptively" so that the effects of the Fall preceded the
disobedience
> > of Adam and Eve.��
> > "God's immediate response to the Fall is therefore not to create anew
> > but to control the damage. In the Fall, humans rebelled against God
and
> > thereby invited evil into the world. The challenge God faces in
> > controlling
> > the damage resulting from this original sin is how to make humans
realize
> > the full extent of their sin so that, in the fullness of time, they
can
> > fully
> > embrace the redemption in Christ and thus experience full release
from
> > sin. For this reason, God does not merely allow personal evils (the
> > disordering of our souls and the sins we commit as a consequence) to
run
> > their course subsequent to the Fall. In addition, God also brings
about
> > natural evils (e.g., death, predation, parasitism, disease, drought,
> > famines,
> > earthquakes, and hurricanes), letting them run their course prior to
the
> > Fall. Thus, God himself disorders the creation, making it defective
on
> > purpose. God disorders the world not merely as a matter of justice
(to
> > bring judgment against human sin as required by God�s holiness) but
even
> > more significantly as a matter of redemption (to bring humanity to
its
> > senses by making us realize the gravity of sin)."
> > He latter argues that the Garden was formed to isolate Adam and Eve�
from
> > this fallen world until they disobeyed.
> > Dembski then states how he thinks this affects human origins.� �
> > "A final question now remains: How did the first humans gain entry to
> > the Garden? There are two basic options: progressive creation and
> > evolving creation.��In the first, God creates the first humans in the
> > Garden. In the second, the first humans evolve from primate ancestors
> > outside the Garden and then are brought into the Garden. Both views
> > require direct divine action. In the former, God specially creates
the
> > first
> > humans from scratch. In the latter, God introduces existing
human-like
> > beings from outside the Garden but then transforms their
consciousness so
> > that they become rational moral agents made in God's image. With an
> > evolving creation, this transformation of consciousness by God on
entry
> > into the Garden is essential to the kairological reading of Genesis.
For
> > if
> > the first humans bore the full image and likeness of God outside the
> > Garden prior to the Fall, they would have been exposed to the evils
> > present
> > there -- evils for which they were not yet responsible. This would be
> > problematic since humanity's responsibility and culpability in the
Fall
> > depends on the Fall occurring without undue temptations or pressures.
> > These temptations and pressures are absent in the Garden but not
outside."
> > So it seems that the problem of natural evil is a significant factor
in
> > how Demski understands creative history.
> > Keith
> > �
> >
> > Keith B. Miller
> > Research Assistant Professor
> > Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
> > Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
> > 785-532-2250
> > [2]http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
> >
> > References
> >
> > Visible links
> > 1.
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.04.christian_theodicy.pdf
> > 2. http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>
> --
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
> Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
> Washington and Jefferson College |
> Washington, PA 15301 |
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 10 09:36:20 2006