Re: Dembski theodicy

Perhaps a more productive way consider things like hurricanes and
earthquakes is to separate the happening of such events from their effects
on human beings. We could conceive of a world in which such events would
happen in the ordinary course of nature, but human beings would not suffer
because of their happening. Partly this could result from perfect justice,
communication and cooperation among humans. For example, hurricane Katrina
would not have wiped out the impoverished and de facto racially segregated
neighborhoods in New Orleans because poverty and segregation would not
exist, there would be no corruption relating to hurricane-safe building
codes, government officials would respond effectively with evacuation plans,
and so on. Partly this also could result from perfect fellowship and
communication between humans and God, such that God could communicate
directly with a fully responsive community about how to prepare for such
events. In other words, sin didn't change ordinary natural processes so
much as it destroyed the perfect community and fellowship among humans, and
between humans and God, that would have precluded any human suffering
resulting from those events. For anyone more deeply read on theodicy, is
there any strand of theodicy that proceeds along similar lines?

On 5/11/06, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
> > --
> >
>
> Is the Great Red Spot on Jupiter a consequence of human sin? It's a
> hurricane-like storm a few times the size of earth. Likewise, it's hard to
> find much that's evil about all the earthquakes that require a seismometer
> for anyone to know that they happened. I don't deny that "natural evil" is
> a difficult issue that needs addressed, but the categorical assigning of
> such natural processes to evil is dubious.
>
> I also see a significant problem in the claim that it is _the_ traditional
> and orthodox Christian position instead of _a_ traditional and orthodox
> position. Of course, Dembski may have been more nuanced than Keith's
> summary, but as the Bible doesn't especially discuss natural evil in a
> manner suited to provide precise Western philosophical answers, claiming
> that one specific position is the Christian view seems ill-founded.
>
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> > 425 Scientific Collections
> > University of Alabama
> > "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
> >
>
Received on Thu May 11 14:28:02 2006