Theodicies

I like the last phrase, "if God needs us to help him fix something or other". It also invited me to rearrange the words slightly, "if we need God to help us fix something or other". Though I'm not just playing with words, I like both versions and maybe they are inseparable, indistinguishable.

Thanks! I mean I don't think we can start to understand the wider reality while holding on to bits of Christian (or other) religious frameworks. Playing with infinite concepts is just another example of the deep problems with traditional religion - which in turn is why we are here.

Thanks for your response, @nbtruthman.

My response to you in turn tries to reconcile (trade off against each another) (1) the competing concerns of brevity and addressing all of your points and (2) the competing concerns of a timely response against a carefully considered response. Here that response is:

Firstly, omnipotence need not be conceived of as entailing the power to do the illogical or self-contradictory, and, in my view, despite your apparent claim to the contrary, the scenarios I suggested (the Christian heaven and the realm of Seth) don't entail any logical contradiction anyway.

Too, a plausible (in my view) answer to the conundrum of an omnipotent God creating a stone too heavy for Him/Her to lift is simply this: "Sure, God could create a stone too heavy for Him/Her to lift, but, from that point on, so long as the stone existed, (S)He would no longer be omnipotent - at least, not without this exception being carved out from His/Her omnipotence."

You object to the two criteria I propose for a theodicy. They are not, however, arbitrary, and your objections to them do not convince me that they are inapplicable.

In respect to the second criterion, you assert that your theodicy "doesn't address the ultimate issue of whether it would have been better (from the human standpoint) for humans and their physical reality never to have existed." It should though, otherwise it is incomplete. You go on to assert: "This latter is certainly arguable". Thereby, you significantly weaken your theodicy.

You seem, to a meaningful extent, to base your theodicy on the idea that humans and (their) souls are two separately conscious entities. This idea of yours has never made any sense to me, and thus I do not accept the fundamental premise of your theodicy. In particular, I reject the premise that a tri-omni creator God would endorse a so-called "soul's" condemning to suffering of a so-called (separate) person (a "human") for the selfish benefit of the so-called "soul". This by no reasonable understanding of the word can be considered to be "good", let alone "ultimately" good.

You object to my suggestion that a tri-omni creator God's ultimate aim would be a reality of pure goodness and creativity, but you do not explain why it would not. Surely, a being's intent is conditioned by its nature, and thus, surely, a Being whose nature is "ultimate goodness" would want to manifest perfect goodness. If not, why not?

Regarding human free will, you make a distinction between freely willed actions and freely willed choices (as a sort of mental freedom), and claim that the latter should be unrestricted. This is very debatable, but, in any case, my argument pertained most particularly to the former, since those are the ones that cause suffering and permit evil. Choose whatever you like in your own mind, but when your actions would commit me to suffering, then they should be restricted, and would be by a genuine tri-omni creator God.

Firstly, omnipotence need not be conceived of as entailing the power to do the illogical or self-contradictory, and, in my view, despite your apparent claim to the contrary, the scenarios I suggested (the Christian heaven and the realm of Seth) don't entail any logical contradiction anyway.

Cambridge English Dictionary definition of "omnipotent": "unlimited power and the ability to do anything". Definition of "anything": "referring to a thing, no matter what". [b]"Anything" clearly includes the illogical and self-contradictory.[/b]

Presumably the realms of the Christian Heaven and of Seth are at least conceived of and designed to be perfect places where human spirits can choose to dwell forever in a condition of unending love and light and fulfillment. Yet sentient intelligent beings with free will dwelling in these places, because of their fundamental inner nature, presumably would soon crave other experiences, of imperfection, of challenge, of relief from boredom. Imperfection and challenge and achievement leading necessarily to suffering as part of the cost. Demonstrating that a perfect spiritual environment logically can't in reality be both a place of perfect good, and at the same time be a place of the complete fulfillment of sentient intelligent human spirits (assuming human suffering is not good). If these heavenly places have such a goal, they evidently in principle due to simple logic inevitably must fail - it is simply impossible or contrary to the laws of logic to accomodate such opposite goals or requirements in one, necessitating compromises or tradeoffs.   

Too, a plausible (in my view) answer to the conundrum of an omnipotent God creating a stone too heavy for Him/Her to lift is simply this: "Sure, God could create a stone too heavy for Him/Her to lift, but, from that point on, so long as the stone existed, (S)He would no longer be omnipotent - at least, not without this exception being carved out from His/Her omnipotence."

The underlying assumption or premise of the problem is that for the omnipotent God to create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, the conditions of (1) God's omnipotence (being infinitely powerful) and of (2) the supposedly infinitely heavy and totally unliftable stone, have to exist at the same time, a logical contradiction. Meaning that in an overall Reality adhering to the laws of logic, such a condition cannot exist. If the answer is that the laws of logic don't apply, then all bets are off, and there is no point to any conversation or discussion at all.   

You object to the two criteria I propose for a theodicy. They are not, however, arbitrary, and your objections to them do not convince me that they are inapplicable.

An argument from simple assertion.

In respect to the second criterion, you assert that your theodicy "doesn't address the ultimate issue of whether it would have been better (from the human standpoint) for humans and their physical reality never to have existed." It should though, otherwise it is incomplete. You go on to assert: "This latter is certainly arguable". Thereby, you significantly weaken your theodicy.

I never claimed my theodicy was absolutely complete.

You seem, to a meaningful extent, to base your theodicy on the idea that humans and (their) souls are two separately conscious entities. This idea of yours has never made any sense to me, and thus I do not accept the fundamental premise of your theodicy.

It would be interesting to expand on this beyond an argument by assertion.

In particular, I reject the premise that a tri-omni creator God would endorse a so-called "soul's" condemning to suffering of a so-called (separate) person (a "human") for the selfish benefit of the so-called "soul". This by no reasonable understanding of the word can be considered to be "good", let alone "ultimately" good.

You object to my suggestion that a tri-omni creator God's ultimate aim would be a reality of pure goodness and creativity, but you do not explain why it would not. Surely, a being's intent is conditioned by its nature, and thus, surely, a Being whose nature is "ultimate goodness" would want to manifest perfect goodness. If not, why not?

I have explained why I find the notion that God is absolutely omnipotent to be greatly problematical. God could well be ultimately goodness and have the desire to promulgate it without limit, but not have the power to force such a condition because that would violate the laws of logic.

Regarding human free will, you make a distinction between freely willed actions and freely willed choices (as a sort of mental freedom), and claim that the latter should be unrestricted. This is very debatable, but, in any case, my argument pertained most particularly to the former, since those are the ones that cause suffering and permit evil. Choose whatever you like in your own mind, but when your actions would commit me to suffering, then they should be restricted, and would be by a genuine tri-omni creator God.

Very debatable, how? Again, I reject the notion of God being truly infinitely powerful (absolutely omnipotent) as an attribute of being a genuine tri-omni creator God, because this would violate the laws of logic.

Overall comment: And so what if my theodicy ultimately fails to cover all the innocent suffering of mankind? It still goes a long way toward doing so, which is a good thing. That was the attitude that informed my compounding and writing of this system in the first place - I knew it couldn't be complete especially because of the fundamental human/soul motivation disparity issue, and because of the problematical nature of the notion of God as omnipotent. Such an incomplete set of rationalizations still establishes an overall rationale through which much of mankind's travail can be understood in the context of allowing and facilitating the (sadly partial and incomplete) goodness of human existence. In my view this is useful in itself. Maybe the best that a very imperfect Reality and cosmos can do. Even Granville Sewell (the author of the original theodicy article) alludes to the conundrum near the end of his piece.

There is no law from on high that says that such an incomplete theodicy has to be completely invalid and rejected merely because it is ultimately incomplete. Einstein's General Relativity is still considered a breakthrough system of physics and valid for certain realms of nature despite it being incomplete due to not being compatible with quantum mechanics. An approximation of the truth that covers much of reality is better than no approximation at all.

Finally, have you found anything else that is better or more comprehensive?

Honestly, Isn't t better to try to build a framework built on the concept of a God with limitations, rather than struggle with the flawed idea that an all powerful God makes any sense at all. I don't think it does.

I mean my original reason for leaving the church was that one particular group of Chrsitians that I used to knock around with at university were very keen that God couldn't forgive someone, he had to transfer the sins that person's sins to someone else, so he forgave people by transferring their sins since to Christ, who then had to die for his sins!

You can't argue with stuff like that, it is just daft!

This is a very interesting discussion, but there is no need for theodicy if one doesn't believe in God. My view of the intelligence behind creation is much more natural. This cosmic intelligence is not the anthropomorphic God of monotheistic religions. Instead it is more like the universe as a whole in this quotation by Rupert Sheldrake:

The possibility that the sun is conscious expands the scope of our thinking. We can move beyond familiar debates about the ‘hard problem’, whose primary concern is to explain the emergence of human minds from smaller and less complex systems, and place this discussion within a literally panpsychist context, where ‘pan’ means ‘all’, and ‘all’ includes stars, solar systems, galaxies, the cosmic web and, ultimately, the universe as a whole.

Is the Sun Conscious? by Rupert Sheldrake
https://www.sheldrake.org/

This is a very interesting discussion, but there is no need for theodicy if one doesn't believe in God. My view of the intelligence behind creation is much more natural. This cosmic intelligence is not the anthropomorphic God of monotheistic religions. Instead it is more like the universe as a whole in this quotation by Rupert Sheldrake:

The possibility that the sun is conscious expands the scope of our thinking. We can move beyond familiar debates about the ‘hard problem’, whose primary concern is to explain the emergence of human minds from smaller and less complex systems, and place this discussion within a literally panpsychist context, where ‘pan’ means ‘all’, and ‘all’ includes stars, solar systems, galaxies, the cosmic web and, ultimately, the universe as a whole.

Is the Sun Conscious? by Rupert Sheldrake
https://www.sheldrake.org/

The problem with this is the problem of how and why is there something rather than nothing. Especially a something constituted of the incredible amounts of ordered functional specified complex information embodied in the physical reality we live in. This huge amount of FSCI exists in many forms, in particular the laws of physics which are fine tuned for the existence of life, life itself, the existence of human beings, and most basic, the existence of mathematics and logic themselves. 

All of this cannot have simply come from nothing. Nothing can come from absolutely nothing. In our entire experience the only way massive amounts of FSCI can come into being (in countless forms such as for instance machines, computers, books such as the plays of Shakespeare, etc. etc.) is through the creative efforts of intelligences or an intelligence.

[Laird]

Thanks again for your response, @nbtruthman. As I mentioned to you privately, I regret that my last response was overly critical and contentious. I sense that you did not receive it all that well, and understandably so. Given that, I reaffirm at the start of this response that there is much to appreciate in your theodicy, and your ideas around it, and I'd rather discuss it amicably than do battle.

That said, I'll briefly make some (re)affirmations and responses which might be rather combative anyhow, given where we're at:

The entailments of omnipotence really are contested, and there really is a legitimate view that it entails only the power to do anything that is logically possible (i.e., that which is without logical contradiction). It is not the only view, but it is a valid one. I suggest that it is one which can and should be accepted in the context of a theodicy (such as yours) rather than dropping the idea of omnipotence totally.

Re the two conditions you place on the "stone too heavy to lift" idea: they result in a logical contradiction, in which case this idea is incompatible with the view that omnipotence entails only the power to do that which is logically possible - otherwise, my analysis remains sound.

Re perfection becoming boring, necessitating forays into a world of suffering: I am not convinced that this is necessarily true. You critiqued me for making arguments by assertion, which I assume will be your reaction to this comment, but, as I indicated in my last response, one of the trade-offs I have been making (but no longer seem able to make) is brevity over explication.

I do recognise that here in this material realm, often, if we abstain from a pleasurable act for a time, we experience heightened pleasure when we return to it. Need this be the case everywhere though? To reiterate: I am not convinced. Our material realm has limitations - finitudes - that might not apply in a realm of infinitude or at least vastly expanded possibility.

You inquire into the argument behind my affirmation that your objections to my two criteria for a theodicy do not convince me. Very well then. Let's delve deeper:

I suggest that, in general, for it to succeed, a theodicy needs at a minimum to meet these two criteria:
(1) A reality with a meaningfully better balance between good and evil, and without sacrificing anything crucial, cannot be coherently conceived, at least not without our actual reality also existing (in parallel or as a lower plane, or "school", or "boot camp", or what-have-you),

Concerning this first of two "criteria": this is a statement of claim and doesn't seem to me to be a criterion, which is a condition the belief system or theory needs to meet in order for it to be valid.

Oh, but I didn't suggest it arbitrarily, so I don't think it is a mere claim. The point of a theodicy is to justify (especially a tri-omni Creator) God's providence in the face of evil and suffering. Clearly, if it was possible to create a reality which didn't entail nearly as much evil and suffering as this one, and, for no good reason, (S)He didn't create it instead, then God's providence cannot be justified, because then (S)He ought to have (would have) brought that one into being, rather than this one.

My suggestion is that in the context of your theodicy, you can (ought to) accept this criterion, after which you can then go on to argue that given the (your) idea that perfection is boring, a perfect realm cannot be conceived of without our actual reality also existing in parallel as a diversion from perfection which provides relieving stimulation.

Again, I am not convinced of this idea, but it saves you from having to reject a perfectly reasonable criterion.

(2) The absolute balance between good and evil in this reality in any case justifies its creation versus the alternative of it not having been created at all.

The theodicity of my post sticks to the limited objective of trying as much as possible to rationalize in the context of a spiritual belief system involving an ultimate good, the existing human physical reality with all its suffering. It doesn't address the ultimate issue of whether it would have been better (from the human standpoint) for humans and their physical reality never to have existed. This latter is certainly arguable, and there even is a nihilist philosophical movement based on the notion - antinatalism. The brute fact is that our physical reality exists whether or not it, along with human existence, would be preferred not to have ever existed. That this reality simply exists is a premise of the theodicity.

[Emphasis added to the above]

First off, I don't see any argument here as to the deficiency of my second criterion, so I'm not sure why you think I need to present a counter-argument or justification. All you really say (especially in the emphasised text) is that your theodicy doesn't address this criterion. You don't offer any reason as to why it doesn't or even why it shouldn't. I think it should. In any case, given that in your latest reply you challenged me on this, I will offer a sufficient reason as to why:

A fundamentally good (omnibenevolent) God is concerned with goodness. (S)He must, necessarily, then, given His/Her nature, desire a reality in which goodness predominates, and well-being dominates over suffering. (S)He would not, then, be satisfied with a reality in which evil and suffering predominated, and thus would not create a reality in which the absolute balance tended towards evil and suffering, preferring not to create that reality at all.

Next, you ask me to elaborate on why I see no sense in your idea of a separately conscious human and soul: we have been over this before, but, to reiterate, it is in large part very simply a matter of definition. By the definition I recognise, a soul is an intimate inner, core identity of a being (whether human, animal, plant, or any other life form), and thus not separable from that being, let alone separately conscious.

Moreover, you have this "soul" as a despicable tyrant, who forces a separate being into a life of suffering for its own benefit. This in no way justifies God's providence in the face of evil and suffering, which is the whole point of a theodicy. How can a God who sets up such a system of tyranny be considered to be the "ultimate good"?

You also ask me how it could be very debatable that freely willed choices as a type of mental freedom should be unrestricted. The answer is simple: choices and mental freedom often lead to action, such that restricting a being from using its mental freedom to choose evil is a shortcut to restricting it from evil acts - and this is one basis on which somebody who wished to debate you on your claim might reasonably proceed.

Re your overall comment: yes, I understand that your theodicy is incomplete, and that's fine, but the question is whether it can be completed given your premises, especially that of a tyrannical master-slave relationship between "soul" and human.

Finally, you ask whether I have an alternative. As I mentioned in my response to David, and which I've mentioned plenty of times in the past, my alternative is dualism, in which God is not omnipotent and is opposed by inimical forces.

This is a very interesting discussion, but there is no need for theodicy if one doesn't believe in God. My view of the intelligence behind creation is much more natural. This cosmic intelligence is not the anthropomorphic God of monotheistic religions. Instead it is more like the universe as a whole in this quotation by Rupert Sheldrake:

The possibility that the sun is conscious expands the scope of our thinking. We can move beyond familiar debates about the ‘hard problem’, whose primary concern is to explain the emergence of human minds from smaller and less complex systems, and place this discussion within a literally panpsychist context, where ‘pan’ means ‘all’, and ‘all’ includes stars, solar systems, galaxies, the cosmic web and, ultimately, the universe as a whole.

Is the Sun Conscious? by Rupert Sheldrake
https://www.sheldrake.org/

The problem with this is the problem of how and why is there something rather than nothing. Especially a something constituted of the incredible amounts of ordered functional specified complex information embodied in the physical reality we live in. This huge amount of FSCI exists in many forms, in particular the laws of physics which are fine tuned for the existence of life, life itself, the existence of human beings, and most basic, the existence of mathematics and logic themselves. 

All of this cannot have simply come from nothing. Nothing can come from absolutely nothing. In our entire experience the only way massive amounts of FSCI can come into being (in countless forms such as for instance machines, computers, books such as the plays of Shakespeare, etc. etc.) is through the creative efforts of intelligences or an intelligence.

Perhaps my post was a bit unclear. I used that quotation by Sheldrake as an analogy. I agree with your reply, but I still think that the intelligence or intelligences behind creation don't necessarily have to be good in human terms. Another analogy that I like to use is nature. It is neither good or evil. Man-made concepts don't apply in this case.

........................................
........................................

Finally, you ask whether I have an alternative. As I mentioned in my response to David, and which I've mentioned plenty of times in the past, my alternative is dualism, in which God is not omnipotent and is opposed by inimical forces.

Interestingly, there appear to be some parallels between your conception of a sort of cosmic dualism between good and evil forces, and Zoroastrianism, one of the world's oldest organized faiths (6th century BC).

(From Wiki):
 

Zoroastrianism is based on the teachings of the Iranian-speaking prophet Zoroaster.[2]  It has a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology and predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good.

Its founder Zoroaster stated that the source of all goodness was the Ahura, worthy of the highest worship. He further stated that Ahura Mazda created spirits known as yazatas to aid him. Zoroaster proclaimed that some Iranian gods were daevas who deserved no worship. These "bad" deities were created by Angra Mainyu, the destructive spirit. Angra Mainyu was the source of all sin and misery in the universe. Zoroaster claimed that Ahura Mazda used the aid of humans in the cosmic struggle against Angra Mainyu. Nonetheless, Ahura Mazda is Angra Mainyu's superior, not his equal. Angra Mainyu and his daevas, which attempt to attract humans away from the Path of Asha, would eventually be defeated."

Some trains of thought in Zoroastrianism presuppose that both the good sentient force and the evil one are ultimately original and uncreated. It is evident that neither the good sentient force of Ahura nor the evil force can be omnipotent in their battle.

I might point out that in this cosmos involving a non-omnipotent Ahura as the beneficent cosmic sentient force, there could well be the unfolding of the complex system of tradeoffs in the rules and laws of nature which appear to be inevitable as explained by Sewell, and also elements of a spiritual system involving an afterlife and reincarnation, both ideas which appear to have a lot of evidence for them. Maybe Zoroaster was onto something here.

[Laird]

Interestingly, there appear to be some parallels between your conception of a sort of cosmic dualism between good and evil forces, and Zoroastrianism, one of the world's oldest organized faiths (6th century BC).

Yep. I'd been aware of Zoroastrianism as a dualistic religion for a while, but hadn't looked into it much. Your post inspired me to look it up on Wikipedia and read selectively from its article. It does seem very compatible with my view: that our reality was created as a paradise by the powerful-but-not-omnipotent Good, and then invaded by the contrary Wicked.

I had looked a little more into Manichaeism in the past, which is also a dualistic religion, and which the Wikipedia article on Zoroastrianism describes as having a relationship with Zoroastrianism similar to that of Christianity with Judaism. Manichaeism seems to see our reality not so much as being created outright by the Good and then invaded, as being a consequence of the battle between the Good and the Wicked; a reality in which Wickedness swallows the light of the Good.

(From Wiki):
 

Zoroastrianism is based on the teachings of the Iranian-speaking prophet Zoroaster.[2]  It has a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology and predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good.

Its founder Zoroaster stated that the source of all goodness was the Ahura, worthy of the highest worship. He further stated that Ahura Mazda created spirits known as yazatas to aid him. Zoroaster proclaimed that some Iranian gods were daevas who deserved no worship. These "bad" deities were created by Angra Mainyu, the destructive spirit. Angra Mainyu was the source of all sin and misery in the universe. Zoroaster claimed that Ahura Mazda used the aid of humans in the cosmic struggle against Angra Mainyu. Nonetheless, Ahura Mazda is Angra Mainyu's superior, not his equal. Angra Mainyu and his daevas, which attempt to attract humans away from the Path of Asha, would eventually be defeated."

Some trains of thought in Zoroastrianism presuppose that both the good sentient force and the evil one are ultimately original and uncreated. It is evident that neither the good sentient force of Ahura nor the evil force can be omnipotent in their battle.

Interesting. It seems, according to the Wikipedia article, that although neither force is omnipotent, it is somehow foreknown that the Good wins in the end. That's a nice thought. I sure hope it's true.

I might point out that in this cosmos involving a non-omnipotent Ahura as the beneficent cosmic sentient force, there could well be the unfolding of the complex system of tradeoffs in the rules and laws of nature which appear to be inevitable as explained by Sewell, and also elements of a spiritual system involving an afterlife and reincarnation, both ideas which appear to have a lot of evidence for them. Maybe Zoroaster was onto something here.

It does seem possible. I think I'd integrate the two ideas like this: originally, there was no need for trade-offs, because our reality was created as a paradise. The invasion introduced limitations which the Good worked (works) with as best (S)He can (via various trade-offs), while fighting the invaders off - a fight which involves all of us.

Interesting. It seems, according to the Wikipedia article, that although neither force is omnipotent, it is somehow foreknown that the Good wins in the end. That's a nice thought. I sure hope it's true.

If I understand you correctly - based on these posts and our past convos - the idea here is that there is a God of Good and a God of Evil, which means Good and Evil are elemental forces of some sort?

I guess to me this feels a bit odd, as I see Evil as a result of varied issues ranging from personal weakness to societal conditioning to outright mental illness stemming from certain unfortunate abnormalities of the body. Why I assume, given the accounts of hostile spirits, that such problems - or other issues perhaps - manifest even beyond this life. But at least Good would be, if not the natural default state, the end goal of a reality whose agents are on a progressive journey toward self-understanding. I think this goes back to Plato's assertion that the most peaceful and joyful life is actually one in which a person lives in accordance with virtue. (Of course Plato was an imperfect man of his time, but I think he was onto something).

While I am skeptical of afterlife claims where suddenly all suffering makes sense as is justified for IMO dubious reasons, there does at least seem to be a seed of genuine love that is present in a variety of accounts whether it is an all encompassing love of the NDE, dead children telling their living parents not to wallow in grief because they are now safe, or the soul reincarnating to stay close to their loved ones in this world.

Admittedly I am probably a bit off metaphysically speaking, since I believe in objective morality while rejecting Good/Evil as primordial forces but I see this objective morality more as an impetus toward a state of wholeness of the individual soul realizing - across a long, long journey perhaps, that there is "no strength in cruelty" along with "freedom is a gift to the giver by the one who receives", "love thy neighbor as thyself", etc.

Though I would admit there does seem to be some differentiation between feelings of Love and feelings of Justice.