Re: Dembski theodicy

David Opderbeck wrote:

> 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?

Yes, this is precisely my position. The Fall was a disruption of the
relationships between God and humans, among humans, and between humans
and the creation. Hurricanes and earthquakes are not evil or a
consequence of evil, but the human estrangement from God turns them
into human disasters.

Keith
Received on Thu May 11 14:51:06 2006