RE: Dembski theodicy

There is a conundrum for those who believe in a Creator, whose creation
was good and He continuously sustains it, and attempts to reconcile what
humans consider evil, whether natural or humanly or ghostly brought
about. It seems that all will be idle talk unless we have the history
of the universe displaced right in front of us much like a world line in
a Minkowski diagram. Is not all speculation, otherwise? What the initial
conditions were, what dynamics control the system, how does the Creator
interact with His creation, etc. would have to be spelled out otherwise
there is much confusion on statements that differing people make. Unless
one restricts the subject matter, maybe to the purely physical, the
problem is super complicated and beyond human reach.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:49 PM
To: pleuronaia@gmail.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Dembski theodicy

David,

I think you're ignoring the implicit definition of "natural evil." It's
anything that "I" don't like. But the Great Red Spot and the newer one
developing on Jupiter doesn't affect me either positively or negatively.
So it can't be either an evil or a good.

Keith mentioned that without sickness and death we would have to have a
static universe. If I recall the information, someone calculated that,
if all the descendants of one pair of flies lived and reproduced,
beginning in early spring and continuing to the fall freeze, the entire
surface of the earth would be 8 feet deep in flies.

Sometimes these natural evils put us in a double bind. The death of a
child is a tragedy, so there is a concerted effort to prevent the death
of the young in Africa from AIDS, malaria and other endemic problems. If
my memory serves, the number of deaths annually is 500,000. However,
there are also famines in various parts of Africa already, and the
reports indicate that global warming will consistently reduce rainfall
in many areas, exacerbating the lack of food production. Coupling
reduced food production with a larger population because of fewer
childhood deaths produces a greater problem. I don't think many have
considered this interaction, for which there is no acceptable quick fix.

Dave

On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:03:08 -0500 "David Campbell"
<pleuronaia@gmail.com> writes:

                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 15:22:15 2006