Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

Was it the will of God that a child be crushed by that boulder? Does God
will anything evil? There's a serious theodicy question here in the context
of these reflections about natural/human caused events, as you imply.

I answer no to both questions.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Freeman, Louise Margaret"
<lfreeman@mbc.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

>I think the important question to answer here is was it the Will of God
>that the boulder rolled down the hill or not?
>
> If the parents of the child are believers, I am sure they are comforting
> themselves with the claim that this was God's will, (or perhaps they are
> angry with God).
>
> If it is just an unlikely event, made more likely by human choices (not
> securing the boulder, the choice of where the house was built, etc.), but
> something that otherwise happened for no apparent reason, and was
> ultimately a result of natural causes, then where was God in all of this?
>
> If God is in all things, then there really is no such thing as random, and
> everything thing that happens, even seemingly random things, is the Will
> of God.
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:22:22 -0500
> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Louise, this is an easy one -- the law deals with cases like this all the
>> time. The family will sue the mining company for negligence. Experts
>> concerning mining procedures will testify about the standard of care for
>> handling boulders resting near a grade, and the probability (usually
>> expressed in general, not mathematical terms) of a boulder coming loose
>> and
>> rolling down the grade if the boulder is not properly secured or
>> pulverized. A jury will examine the evidence concerning how the mining
>> company handled this particular boulder and compare it to the standard of
>> care.
>>
>> If the mining company's work fell below the standard of care for securing
>> or
>> removing the boulder, the jury will assess causation. First, the jury
>> will
>> ask, but for the breach of the standard of care, would the boulder have
>> come
>> loose and struck the house? If the answer to that question is "no," the
>> mining company will be legally at fault. If the answer to that question
>> is
>> "yes," the jury will then ask, even so, was the mining company's breach
>> of
>> the standard of care a "substantial factor" in the boulder coming loose
>> and
>> striking the house. If the answer to that question is "yes," the mining
>> company will be liable. If the answer is "no," the injury will be deemed
>> not to have been caused by the agency of the mining company (i.e., it was
>> a
>> "natural" accident that would have happend without the mining company's
>> agency).
>>
>> Every day, in every critical area of society -- law, business, medicine,
>> government, etc. -- human beings assess questions of agency and
>> causation,
>> using practical reason, without a requirement of absolute rigorous proof.
>> If it were otherwise, society would grind to a halt.
>>
>>
>> On 11/17/06, Freeman, Louise Margaret <lfreeman@mbc.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So, don't make it a rock thrown out of a window. Make it a boulder,
>>> loosened by strip
>>> mining, rolling down a mountain and smashing through a house and killing
>>> a sleeping
>>> child (this happened in Virginia last year:
>>> http://www.ohvec.org/links/news/archive/2005/fair_use/01_06.html
>>> Although in this case the boulder had some help from some careless strip
>>> miners,
>>> boulders can and do roll down hills without intelligent intervention
>>>
>>> I can see two "extremes" of explanations:
>>> "Pure" intelligent design, where a genius evil mastermind with extensive
>>> knowledge of the
>>> terrain, the laws of physics and the layout of the unfortunate boy's
>>> house intentionally sets
>>> the boulder rolling with the express purpose of killing the child.
>>>
>>> "Random and unguided" Boulder, loosened by natural and
>>> non-human-related events
>>> (soil erosion, etc) rolls down hill and kills child.
>>>
>>> I don't see how Dembski's process is especially useful in distinguishing
>>> those two
>>> explantions (which clearly are both incorrect) or in leading to what is
>>> considered the
>>> correct explanation: intelligent human activity (strip mining) increased
>>> the liklihood a
>>> boulder would roll down the mountain: once the boulder was moving, the
>>> child's death was
>>> a random and unplanned consequence.
>>>
>>> If you try to consider all the probabilities: from the mountain being
>>> formed where it was,
>>> that exact size and shape of boulder being deposited there, the child's
>>> parents meeting,
>>> conceiving him, moving into the house and placing his bed on that
>>> particular wall, this can
>>> only be considered an extremely improbable event. In the grand scheme of
>>> things , the
>>> actions of the strip miners in starting the boulder rolling probably
>>> increases the probabilty
>>> only very slightly. Yet they mining company is (rightly) blamed for the
>>> child's death.
>>>
>>> So, was this child's death "designed" or "chance"?
>>>
>>> __
>>> Louise M. Freeman, PhD
>>> Psychology Dept
>>> Mary Baldwin College
>>> Staunton, VA 24401
>>> 540-887-7326
>>> FAX 540-887-7121
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>>> To: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
>>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:18:57 -0500
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
>>>
>>> > Sure you would. Check its angle, velocity, etc. It
>>>likely would be
>>> > pretty
>>> > clear that it was thrown out the window.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David W. Opderbeck
>> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
>> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
>> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 17 09:30:24 2006