[asa] Speaking of theodicy

Speaking of theodicy, and literal treatment of scripture and such, what
are the options in treating the little-heard passage, Is 45:7?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the LORD do all these things."
This would seem to suggest that the sustainer of Creation is also the
author (and sustainer then?) of evil.
JimA

Robert Schneider 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.
>
>

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 11:11:26 2006