Re: Coercion

From: Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 10:43:56 EDT

Howard Van Till wrote:

"OK, but the problem of theodicy is present in full force as soon as you
posit that God is able and willing on occasion to "do such choosing (or
perform a miracle) if and whenever he wants to." The hard question is, "Why
does God choose to use this form of power on some occasions but not others?"
One solution that you here propose is to say something like, "since the
question is impossible for us to answer, let's just posit that God does have
an answer and it's a good one." Some people obviously are satisfied with
that; others are not. Some might see it as a clever way to give the
appearance of dodging the issue, but it is nonetheless vacuous."

I don't see how this kind of arguing is so vacuous, especially if one can imagine a really compelling reason why God might want his creation to operate quite independently of himself, as I can. This is especially true if one additionally cannot believe the world is capable of creating itself, no matter how well-gifted its components may be--as I can't. (That is, I can believe it up to a point, where only very simple systems are involved, but not to completion, where unimaginably complex systems are involved.)

The alternative, to expect that God should intervene in every case where someone seems to be "suffering unfairly" would ultimately lead to expectations that God should intervene in every case where any "harm" comes to anyone, which would inevitably lead to expectations that everyone should live forever in perfect health, lavish wealth and total comfort--otherwise God would be evil!

We all have genetic defects. Some just show up earlier and/or more obviously than others, and some cause more suffering than others. We all die. This to me obviously means that defects, illnesses, disasters, catastrophes are all part of the plan--for this life. But Christians believe there's something better beyond all that.

So why shouldn't God intervene when it would advance his cause but not intervene when it would damage his cause? And why should it be so hard to believe that God has a cause in this world other than having everyone live forever in perfect health, lavish wealth and total comfort?

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Howard J. Van Till<mailto:hvantill@sbcglobal.net>
  To: pruest@mysunrise.ch<mailto:pruest@mysunrise.ch>
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:49 AM
  Subject: Re: Coercion

  Peter,

  Thanks for your reply. I'll make a few comments in response.

  On 4/15/04 12:48 AM, "Peter Ruest" <pruest@mail-ms.sunrise.ch<mailto:pruest@mail-ms.sunrise.ch>> wrote:

> Although, obviously, this situation is a serious problem for me on the
> personal side, it is none of the theoretical problem you seem to suspect
> behind it. I never claimed God is choosing the outcome of all or even an
> appreciable fraction of quantum events, just that he may do such
> choosing if and whenever he wants to, and that this might be involved in
> some, many or all of those of his actions the bible labels as "creating"
> during the normal course of his providential sustaining of the creation.

  Yes, I understand that this is your proposal. It is similar to something
  that Bob Russell at CTNS has posited as well. One of its interesting
  features is that, on a technical level, it does not entail God coercing
  quantum systems to do things contrary to their natural capabilities. It
  simply entails God's choosing that they do one particular thing among many
  options. But, as you know, I've never felt comfortable with this sort of
  "semi-coercion by over-riding choice" proposal.

> Although this idea cannot guide our scientific research, it does
> liberate us from any fixed idea that life and all of evolution _must_,
> in principle, be explainable by means of processes having reasonable
> natural probabilities.

  Yes, your proposal does indeed provide such a liberation. I do think,
  however, that we must acknowledge that we lack, BY A HUGE DEGREE, the
  requisite knowledge to compute a relevant probability. Consequently your
  proposal will have to be evaluated on the basis of criteria outside of
  science. That's not necessarily a bad situation, but it needs to be
  acknowledged openly. (That's one place where the typical ID rhetoric fails.)

  One of those other criteria will, I think, involve an exploration of the
  theological consequences of positing that God is both able and willing, on
  occasion, to "do such choosing if and whenever he wants to." That makes your
  next comments very relevant.
   
> You also seem to be hinting at the question of theodicy: how can God
> permit that my friend has ALS? Of course, God would be able to prevent
> it. He is also able to heal him in a moment - or by some lenghty
> process,

  IF, that is, God's actual character/nature is as you posit. Statements of
  this sort are not self-evidently true; they are theological propositions
  that you hold to be true. As such, they stand alongside of differing
  theological portraits of God posited by other persons.

> ... although in this case I would be very hard pressed to imagine a
> series of quantum events that would have to be guided, and I would
> prefer to just call it a miracle (and we have been praying for such a
> miracle). But I think the problem of theodicy can only be dealt with in
> a personal, existential way of submission to God in faith and trust.
> Surely, we are not in a position to tell him what is good and right in a
> given situation.

  OK, but the problem of theodicy is present in full force as soon as you
  posit that God is able and willing on occasion to "do such choosing (or
  perform a miracle) if and whenever he wants to." The hard question is, "Why
  does God choose to use this form of power on some occasions but not others?"

  One solution that you here propose is to say something like, "since the
  question is impossible for us to answer, let's just posit that God does have
  an answer and it's a good one." Some people obviously are satisfied with
  that; others are not. Some might see it as a clever way to give the
  appearance of dodging the issue, but it is nonetheless vacuous.

> To again move to the theoretical side for a moment, a creation in which
> God would direct every quantum event in a predetermined way would not
> allow for a freedom of decision by humans. It would therefore contradict
> the biblical revelation of human freedom to love, have faith, bear
> responsibility, show creativity, etc. Such a creation, which I certainly
> don't believe to correspond to reality, would really fall under your
> epithet of "coercion".

  Agreed. This is why I find it impossible to make any sense out of Terry's
  both/and hypothesis -- God controls all, AND creatures act freely. In his
  words, "God always gets His way, i.e. He is fully in control, but
  creaturely-actions are authentic, according to their created
  natures/properties."

  Howard Van Till
Received on Thu Apr 15 10:42:29 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 15 2004 - 10:42:30 EDT