Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

From: Freeman, Louise Margaret <lfreeman@mbc.edu>
Date: Fri Nov 17 2006 - 11:37:17 EST

-----Original Message-----
From: "Freeman, Louise Margaret" <lfreeman@mbc.edu>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:35:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

I had no intention of moving a goalpost or bringing up theodicy... and as a
believer I have little to no intellectual disagreement with your explanation
in the second paragraph (though God will have to forgive me for my less
appropriate and angry emotional reaction when a tragedy like that touches my
life)
My intent was to introduce a more realistic example to the throwing a rock
out a window analogy. Rocks may not fly out of windows "on their own" but
boulders do roll down hills "on their own." But the point is the same, you
can't tell if the rock was intentionally thrown if all the information you
have is the bump on the woman's head; nor can you tell simply from examining
the smashed house if the ultimate cause of the boy's death is a brilliant or
very lucky rock-tumbling murderer, negligent coal company or
non-human-induced mountain erosion. You need, at the very least, other
information concerning the path that particular boulder took, factors that
cause rocks on mountains to start moving, strip-mining practices and the
frequencies of tumbling rocks with and without miners on the mountain.
 
It seems to me that to attempt this type of forensic analysis to infer an
"Intelligent Designer" for the flagellum or a "Fine-Tuner" of the universe
when the necessary body of knowledge is not known (and, if I understand Big
Bang cosmology correctly, may not even be knowable) is a fairly futile
exercise.
 
So, why does theodicy inevitably rear its head? It's a logical progression:
the ID theorist makes a case that there is purely scientific or mathematical
evidence for a Designer or Fine Tuner. The Christian finds it
incomprehensible that this Designer/Fine Tuner could be anyone but the
omniscient and ominipotent God of the Bible. Any imperfection or Bad Thing
in that design, from the backwards-wired human retina to the death of a
small child by boulder leads to the obvious question of couldn't our
Omnipotent Designer have fixed things so that Bad Thing didn't happen? A
question that is hard enough for believers, let alone non-believers.

-----Original Message-----
From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:56:37 -0500
Subject: 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.

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 11:34:56 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 17 2006 - 11:34:57 EST