Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

It's interesting how the discussion of this analogy has shifted. First, we
debated the question of whether any agency at all was discernible in a rock
flying out a window; then we debated whether agency could be discerned in a
boulder tumbling out of a quarry. In both cases, it seems, it is not
terribly difficult to determine on a practical level, at least to a degree
of confidence that people use to make everyday decisions, whether any agency
was involved. But then the discussion moved into the the theodicy problem.
This mirrors almost exactly how many debates about design in nature go. The
goalposts shift significantly and the proponent of design now must show not
only that agency is a reasonable inference, but also that the theodicy
problem can be solved.

But of course, theodicy wasn't the original issue, and the problem can't
really be solved. I'd approach it more from a broader view of providence
and grace. Did God desire that the mining company would act negligently and
that as a result a little boy would die? No. Did God in His providence and
grace allow the mining company employees to make free choices that could
negatively impact others, and are even those free choices and their negative
consequences for the little boy within the ambit of God's providence and
gracious care for the boy and His family? Yes. Here it's also important to
remember that this life is like grass that grows briefly and quickly
withers, and that God's plans extend through eternity where the pain and
separation of death will be remedied. I don't think this is a trite way of
dealing with such awful tragedies; I think it's the heart of our faith.

On 11/17/06, Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

-- 
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.