quote:

---

Here are some reflections that are based on premises I think we all agree with (though all may not agree with the implications I draw from them).

---

Hmmm...quite right. Ok. What I'm going to be doing here is just to give my impressions of your implications. We both understand that the ambiguity f which I was speaking IS there, regardless of the type of "greater good" that one tries to have. So that's cool...and NOT what's being disputed. I'm just disputing some of your thoughts here.


***************************************

Doc(emphasis mine):

quote:

---

NO evil in the world is God’s ideal will. If he is "involved" in an evil event at all, other than to prevent it and minimize it, it is only because he is "sacrificing a rook to save the queen". Yet even this is really God working to minimize the evil of the event (viz. the taking of the queen.) So, it seems, the implication of what we agree on seems to be that God is at all times in all places seeking to minimize evil (prevent greater evils).

---

I would, of course, agree that, ultimately, no evil in the world is God's ideal. It's like Brett's analogy about the war general who wishes that the war were not existing. Moreover, I would agree with the bolded section...but with a very clear qualification. God minimizes evil WITHIN the creational factors (which INCLUDE God's known [read: revealed] AND UNKNOWN plans for Creation) that prescribe the God/world relation in general, and the context of a SPECIFIC event, in particular.



***************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

All evil is gratuitous, not in the sense that God can’t USE it to bring some good about, but in the sense that it didn’t need to exist, God didn’t want it to exist, and God would have prevented it if it were possible to do so, GIVEN the total situation of the world.

---

Agreed, because we are talking about ALL creational factors. VERY
important.


***************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

If God in any sense "orchestrates" an evil event, it is in the sense of using his influence to steer evil-doers away from a greater evil toward a lesser evil ("lesser" judged by the overall state of the world). If he could have steered the evil-doer away from any evil, he would have done so, but given irrevocable free will, this is the best he could do.

---

Again, I would agree...IF we are sure to note that this is WITHIN the context of ALL RELEVANT creational factors that I've spoken of above.


***************************************



Doc:

quote:

---

Given this, it seems more accurate, and more helpful, to say that God WAS CERTAINLY involved in Zosia’s torture in the sense of experiencing its pain and working to minimize the evil involved in it, than it is to say, God steered the Nazi guards toward this evil. The latter statement introduces an ambiguity it seems (at least right now) all want to avoid – namely, that God could have just as easily steered the Nazi guards away from evil altogether.

---

If this is how you want to frame it, cool. If it makes it easier for you, cool. Just as long as this is the bottom line: You cannot preclude the idea that God compatibilistically orchestrated the Zosia episode for reasons that WE cannot see or understand. We just "know" BY FAITH that it was for the "greater good", ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.


***************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

So too, it seems better to say God was using his influence to work against the terrorist and steer their evil intentions to minimize the evil they would do than to say that God was using their compatibilistic freedom for a greater good.

---

I'm assuming that, here, you are talking about 9/11. Hey, if this is how you want it, it's on you.


***************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

It seems all agree that our default setting is to consider that evil ultimately derives from wills other than God and should be resisted – recognizing that there are exceptional occasions where God might tell us to "back off" (as in 2 Cor 12: 7-9). A good deal of discussion seemed to revolve around whether there is a limit to the conceivable situations where this might apply. Semeia and Iconoclast have argued that there is a limit to this conceivability, whereas Meph has argued that we can’t stipulate an a priori limit.

Now for a bit longer reflection: With Icon and Semeia, I think it important to stipulate the boundaries of the conceivability categories. A big question that TGB raised was whether we are talking about "greater good" or "lesser of two evils" strategy. Meph seemed to equate them, but I agree with TGB that they are distinct.

I CAN conceive of how God allowed Zosia to be tortured because a) of the rules of the game he created (e.g. irrevocable free will) and b) to minimize the evil of the irrevocable freedom of the guards. I CANNOT conceive of this being allowed because of a positive GREATER GOOD it supposedly brought about – as though this torture makes the cosmos a better place. (As in, "thank God Zosia got tortured. A world without her screams would be much less wonderful than the one with her screams).

I think it important, as Iconoclast has argued, that the person who wants to defend this thesis be able to stipulate some conceive greater good that would warrant this torture. If none can be conceived, then it is questionable whether the hypothetical suggestion is even meaningful. Of even more concern for me, however, is that the entertaining of this hypothetical could have the logical implication of undermining our most basic intutions of good and evil.

---

Ok. I'm really having a problem with this. This is what I'm hearing:

Unless we are able to CONCEIVE of how it's possible that the Zosia episode was for a LEGITMATE "greater good" that would warrant such torture, then the thesis shouldn't be accepted that God may have a "greater good" that we cannot see.

This is why I think this is fundamentally screwed. First of all, the goodness of God is DOGMA. Non-negotiable, right? As is God's omniscience. Now, if we sensibly put these together, it is very reasonable to say that God, being infinitely intelligent and omniscient, knows a WHOLE BUNCH more about reality than we do. He especially knows any covenants about reality that he has made with Himself that WE don't know about...which would be part of the creational factors that God has to work with.

Given all this...and honest acknowledgement of OUR finiteness...it makes ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD to believe that their are possibilities and realities BEYOND our ability to conceive. These includes things that would work for the "greater good" of the God/world relation.

So it seems like slight arrogance to say that just because we can't conceive of these possible "greater good" ideas that they DO NOT or CANNOT exist. See, I am a quite imaginative person. I can think of a NUMBER of ways that Zosia's death could have facilitated some "greater good" ends that God MAY have found acceptable. But I would be formulating these ideas from my EXTREMELY limited knowledge of reality. So what ends up happening is that YOU would basically evaluate my scenarios from YOUR knowledge of love, and good and evil...to see whether it fits or not. And the problem is obvious: you would be evaluating the speculations of a finite being by YOUR finite perspective to place limitations on an INFINITE being whose sphere of influence (and evaluation of factors) is MUCH, MUCH larger than ours. Can we say crazy?

THAT God is good is dogma. That's what you said, Doc. So, this is where the RADICAL FAITH that Electra was talking about comes into play. It seems that you don't want to work with that. Hmmm...

But enough about this...

Bottom line: Just because YOU can't conceive of how something could be for a "greater good" doesn't mean it doesn't exist...especially in the mind of an omniscient, infinitely intelligent God who has SO many factors with which to deal. And given our dogmatic presuppositions about God, our particular conceptions for God's justification are NOT NECESSARY, strictly speaking.


***************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

A big question that TGB raised was whether we are talking about "greater good" or "lesser of two evils" strategy. Meph seemed to equate them, but I agree with TGB that they are distinct.

---

and...

quote:

---

But this world of difference collapses if we indulge in the boundariless inconceivable hypothetical that horrors at the extremity of life may be for "the greater good" – that God was "involved in them" not just to minimize the harm, but positively, to make the world a better place.

---

Ok. Let's deal with this...because this may really be a very interesting point. It seems like Doc was wants to say that any "greater good" idea that does NOT deal explicitly with minimizing harm for Creation is problematic.

I think this is oversimplistic. Can it not be like this:

The "greater good" is God minimizing the evil WITHIN the creational factors (which INCLUDE God's known AND UNKNOWN plans for Creation) that prescribe the God/world relation .

This incorporates both ideas in the most comprehensive way. And if you remember, THIS is what we discussed about the "glorification idea"

See, I think that I've noticed a crucial difference between our ideas of "greater good"...and it has to do with the outer context. I'll show you what I mean. You are basically saying this:

God is always involved to minimize evil and harm within the METAPHYSICAL "rules" that God convenanted and set up to allow for free-will to exist.

whereas I am saying this:

God is always involved to minimize evil and harm within TWO LEVELS:
1) METAPHYSICAL "rules" that God convenanted and set up to allow for free-will to exist.
2) PARTICULAR directions for Creation that God may want to occur, both known and UNknown

Hopefully, it's clear what the separation is. Hey, I have an example!

Let's say that someone asks you to make them a good bowl of soup. The only real "rule" they give you is that it has to be soup that generally tastes good. It can any type of ingredients or whatever. Tomato, mushroom, etc. It's up to you.

Now, let's say that another person were to ask you to make them a bowl of soup...but they have one stipulation: Your main ingredient HAS to be cabbage. It can't be tomato, beef, or whatever.

In both situations, you going to work as best as you can to make the best tasting soup that you can, given the various parameters. It's clear to see that you have MUCH more leeway with the first person than with the second...as far as your constraints. But WITHIN those constaints, the goal is still the same: make some good soup. Now, is it possible that the BEST cabbage soup is not equally "good" as a possible soup made from some OTHER ingredient? Heck, yeah. But again, because of the constraint, only SO MUCH optimization could be expected.

Let's bring this back to our discussion here. I would say that "creational factors" can be more like the second person (at times) than the first person. God ALWAYS minimizes evil and harm (ala tries to make good soup), but some situations may be more "constrained" than others NOT by metaphysical conditions...but by divine INTENTIONS for things (ala the constraint of cabbage)

Here's another, more speculative example: It is possible that God could have chosen ANY faithful human being to try to convenant Godself with. It didn't HAVE to be someone in Ur. It may have been someone from the Asia area. In this case, the "level 1" condition would be a HUMAN BEING that can respond faithfully to God. But what if God thought: "I'm not just looking for the most apt person in ALL THE EARTH to do this with. I'm going to look for someone trustworthy in the land of Ur...and then use THEM, whoever they may be." Bang. He finds Abe. The "level 2" condition would be the land of Ur. Do you see the logic?

Basically, I'd like to say that this is possible in looking at the "greater good" thing. This is what I advocated, more or less, with the "glorification idea" as a whole. I don't see anything wrong with it. So, this is why I think we need to be very clear on the "creational factors" VERY important. Because it makes a big difference. Why? Because the "level 2" conditions can INDEED be less than optimal, if we are talking about the range of possibilities found in the larger-scoped "level 1". Both both levels have to be taken in consideration.

Hopefully, I don't have to spell out all the ramifications of this line of thought.


More later,

quote:

---

Given all this...and honest acknowledgement of OUR finiteness...it makes ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD to believe that their are possibilities and realities BEYOND our ability to conceive. These includes things that would work for the "greater good" of the God/world relation.

So it seems like slight arrogance to say that just because we can't conceive of these possible "greater good" ideas that they DO NOT or CANNOT exist

---

quote:

---

My MAIN point about the ambiguity of evil situations seemed to be CLEARLY made and at least tenatively ACCEPTED by the opposing viewpoint...and...I figure that the "ambiguity" issue seems to be pretty much accepted by all parties. And the thing that's left is the different ideas about the "greater good"...

---

quote:

---

See, depending on what your higher good is, what we cannot see or understand may be the details behind events, the varying probabilities and influences God perfectly knows, etc.. That's where the ambiguity lies, not in GOD.

---

There's no disagreement here. The ambiguity is NOT in God's character. So what's the problem? I don't get it.


***************************************
Tom:

quote:

---

Tom: Several things. First, what are God’s revealed plans for creation? Maybe we don’t even agree on these. Secondly, assuming we agree on the revealed part, how do you KNOW God has plans for creation that he has NOT revealed to us? Did God tell you? If God didn’t tell you, and they’re not revealed, on what basis are you assuming they even exist? Thirdly, if we assume such unrevealed plans DO exist, must we assume also (as you seem to be doing) that they are (or may be) contrary to or conflict with God’s revealed plans for creation? Seems to me that you’re assuming such unrevealed plans exist and that they allow for a divine orchestration of evil which is either not covered by or may be actually contrary to God’s revealed plans for creation. If not, then why posit such unrevealed plans?

---

The numbers correspond to the questions.

1. We probably WILL differ somewhat, but the point is that if each of us looks at Scripture, we will have reason to believe that God may have revealed something about creation in there, right?

2. Fine. What I'm meaning to say is that it is reasonable to think that MAYBE God hasn't revealed EVERY SINGLE THING that he thinks to us...including things about he does with ALL PARTS of creation. God doesn't tell us ALL the particular plans he may have for EACH human being, now does he? I sure didn't think so.

3. Who ever said that they would be CONTRARY to God's revealed plans? I never said that, nor would I.

4. Why posit such unrevealed plans? Not for the reasons you claim. Look, all I'm trying to say is that God is an INFINITELY INTELLIGENT, OMNISCIENT, PURPOSEFUL Creator who continually relates to his Creation...and given this, it is POSSIBLE (and reasonable to believe, I think) that God has detailed plans for certain existents that MAYBE we don't know about. This is not saying that anything is "contrary" to anything. My post above, I thought, gives hints about this.


Keepin it movin,

quote:

---

Wow, Tom.

I'm not understanding what the problem is, now. I REALLY don't understand. From your last post on the other thread, I thought that you were willing to grant the "cold" logical possibility that SOME heinous events could actually been "lesser of two evils" situations. This produces the ambiguity that you recognize IN THIS thread.

---

Then we're back on track! Your "unrevealed purposes" thing threw me off.

quote:

---

4. Why posit such unrevealed plans? Not for the reasons you claim. Look, all I'm trying to say is that God is an INFINITELY INTELLIGENT, OMNISCIENT, PURPOSEFUL Creator who continually relates to his Creation...and given this, it is POSSIBLE (and reasonable to believe, I think) that God has detailed plans for certain existents that MAYBE we don't know about.

---

Absolutely agree. I would NOT include Zosia as a "plan" of God; as the lesser of two evils, perhaps. But like Doc said, at some point the ambiguity (logically speaking) spills over to Hitler and Mother Teresa. I can think of 9/11 being the unavoidable fallout of a necessary divine-evil struggle in which God attempted to stop a much greater evil. I have difficulty imagining Zosia being the result of a divine struggle to stop a greater evil. I think it more likely to BE THAT GREATER EVIL which God fought unsucessfully to prevent. How do we avoid being ambiguous about Hitler's evil or Mom T's goodness if the ambiguity invades ALL our judgments about good and evil (which is where I think, more tentatively now!, you're going)?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Edited by - TGB on 09/16/2002 08:32:50 AM

quote:

---

Your analogy is fatally flawed. Cabbage soup can’t possibly taste good.

---

HA! Shows what you know! You need to watch the Food Network...with "The Iron Chef" and "The Best of Emeril" Cabbage soup CAN taste good! I've tried it!



*************************


Doc:

quote:

---

Much hangs on what you mean when you say God was "compatibilistically involved" in this event. I think "radical faith" in God’s goodness should lead us to say only that he was involved in working to minimize the evil he couldn’t prevent. If you insist that its MORE than this : e.g. that God COULD have prevented this as well as greater evils, but instead WANTED the guards to torture this girl "for a greater good" – then I have to simply confess that a) I can’t conceive of it; b) I don’t know what purpose admitting this macabre possibility would have in the life of faith; c) I can’t see how this supposition explains anything, or "protects" the sovereignty of God; d) With Iconoclast and Semeia, I can’t see how love would ever do evil like this "for a greater good." It seems evil.

---

Let me show you where we are the same. You said:

quote:

---

I think "radical faith" in God’s goodness should lead us to say only that he was involved in working to minimize the evil he couldn’t prevent.

---

YES, YES, YES, YES!!!! I agree with this! Please see that. What we tend to disagree on is what factors MAKE IT SUCH THAT God couldn't prevent it. You do see this, don't you, Doc?

Ueade,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/16/2002 09:18:29 AM

quote:

---

Cabbage soup CAN taste good! I've tried it!

---

Are WHAT, pray tell, does personal experience have to do with truth?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

quote:

---

If you insist that its MORE than this – e.g. that God COULD have prevented this as well as greater evils, but instead WANTED the guards to torture this girl "for a greater good" – then I have to simply confess that a) I can’t conceive of it; b) I don’t know what purpose admitting this macabre possibility would have in the life of faith; c) I can’t see how this supposition explains anything, or "protects" the sovereignty of God; d) With Iconoclast and Semeia, I can’t see how love would ever do evil like this "for a greater good." It seems evil.

---

Doc! You're KILLIN' me! What happened to the Normandy analogy that you have used so often? You know, that little hut that we live in that only allows us to see “snapshots” of the overall war? That little hut that we live in that only allows us to see glimpses of pain and tragedy, but doesn’t allow us to see the “big picture”, the “battleplan” if you will. You seem to accept our limitations in that analogy, but now you refuse to apply them to specific instances of “bad stuff” like Zosia, Sept. 11, etc. What am I missing, kemosabe?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

quote:

---

Doc said:

quote:

---

If you insist that its MORE than this – e.g. that God COULD have prevented this as well as greater evils, but instead WANTED the guards to torture this girl "for a greater good" – then I have to simply confess that a) I can’t conceive of it; b) I don’t know what purpose admitting this macabre possibility would have in the life of faith; c) I can’t see how this supposition explains anything, or "protects" the sovereignty of God; d) With Iconoclast and Semeia, I can’t see how love would ever do evil like this "for a greater good." It seems evil.

---

Doc! You're KILLIN' me! What happened to the Normandy analogy that you have used so often? You know, that little hut that we live in that only allows us to see “snapshots” of the overall war? That little hut that we live in that only allows us to see glimpses of pain and tragedy, but doesn’t allow us to see the “big picture”, the “battleplan” if you will. You seem to accept our limitations in that analogy, but now you refuse to apply them to specific instances of “bad stuff” like Zosia, Sept. 11, etc. What am I missing, kemosabe?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

---

Exaaaactly. Greg, can you not even concieve of God "doing the lesser of two evils?" OK. You say, "God doing evil for a greater good." OK. Language matters. Same diff.

I'm really beginning to think that part of our problem is thinking of our theology through our ethics. Or is this just me? I think it's just me. Yeah, it's me.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Edited by - BBBCanada on 09/17/2002 7:33:06 PM