 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > In-Depth Discussion on OMNIBENEVOLENCE | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 12/21/2001 4:36 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hmmm...this may help some. We are going to do a little analysis of what philosophical omnibenevolence entails. Let's start with a summarizing statement that Doc borrows from someone in "Satan and the Problem of Evil"
God always does the MOST that God can do!
Ok. If you can burn this phase into your head, then this thing is halfway done. The rest is pretty much trying to fill this out.
David Ray Griffin, a process theologian, has an interesting view of the Trinity, in one area in particular. He has a section in a book called Trinity in Process: A Relational Theology of God, where he has the section "A Naturalistic Trinity" In his theological formation, he separates the some more economic views of the Trinity from what he believes to be a "threefoldness" in the inner nature of God. All of the following information comes from that source. This threefoldness is made up of the following:
1) Divine Creativity
2) Divine Creative Love
3) Divine Responsive Love
Divine Creativity. This describes the essence of creativity that lies within God. In process, CREATIVITY is the base of reality...pretty much analogous with "being" The Divine Creativity is the INSTANCE of creativity that lies in God as opposed to the creativity that grounds all NON-divine beings. Because Divine Creativity is what it is, it is conceptualized as being ETERNAL...and it is NECESSARILY characterized by some things, #2 and #3
[Digression: I personally think that Doc essentially does the SAME things Griffin does in making essentially MORAL categories ONTOLOGICALLY defined. Instead of these moral categories being dispositions that may or MAY NOT be actualized (giving God moral freedom), Griffin binds this to God's NATURE, thus making God morally bound. Why Doc refuses to use the concept of dispositions to forgo this, I have NO idea!]
Divine Creative Love. This principle states that God ALWAYS wills and correspondingly influences all contingent reality towards the BEST possibilities...towards MAXIMIZATION of capacities and fulfillment.
Divine Responsive Love. This principle says that God ALWAYS perfectly empathizes with all other beings. This includes positive and negative feelings.
How do these 3 things work together? Essentially, the Divine Creativity is ETERNALLY CONSTRAINED by it's Divine Creative Love and Divine Responsive Love. The Divine Responsive Love insures that EVERY contingent being is taken into consideration at any given point in time...while the Divine Creative Love insures that God, USING THE INFORMATION FROM DIVINE RESPONSIVE LOVE and His omniscience, will always choose to influence things in directions that will given the OPTIMAL result for all the contingent beings.
Now, just being honest, THIS is about the best foundation and description of philosophical omnibenevolence that I've seen to date. Doc kind of dances around it using his Six Theses, but the Six Theses only really serve to describe the CONTRAINTS and LIMITATIONS that he believes are involved. IMO, He doesn't really go into WHAT omnibenevolence really ENTAILS. The Six Theses merely describe what Doc feels the case must be for God to have a situation where contingent beings can experience God's triune love. That's sets the stage, but doesn't describe necessarily how God's moral compunction WORKS within that stage. Griffin takes it to the wall on this one.
Though Griffin and Doc will ultimately disagree on some things, there is ONE ESSENTIAL thing on which they agree: God always empathetically takes ALL contingent beings into consideration when influencing things, and God always influences things towards the highest possible aesthetic state at any given point in time, given all relevant constraints (logic, ontology, etc).
THIS IS CRUCIAL!!! PLEASE GET THIS!!!
Now, we come to the very interesting part. The part that deals with our omnibenevolence discussion. Both Griffin AND Doc agree on the essential point above. But there is an implication there.
Implication: God can NEVER, EVER make a decision that does NOT...
1) take ALL contingent beings into consideration
2) lead to the MOST OPTIMAL "solution" at any given point in time
In other words, God can NEVER make any type of decision "just because He wants to." Every one of his choices MUST be conditioned by the two things above. If they are not, then either God is not acting in a PERFECTLY "creative love" mode or not acting in a PERFECTLY "responsive love" mode...in either which case God is no longer operating according to philosophical OMNIBENEVOLENCE!
Let's bring it down a bit. An analogy. Let's say that I have to make a decision and I have the infomration, knowledge, and desire to make something good happen. Because of the extent of my knowledge, I ascertain the BEST OVERALL decision that will effectively OPTIMIZE the outcome of the decision's situation. After ascertaining this, I decide to go with a LESSER decision that does NOT optimize the situation. And I do this NOT because of any other constraints or restrictions. I do it just because I want to do it this way.
In this analogy, if I were a "omniresource-using" person, I would ALWAYS ascertain and influence towards the OPTIMAL outcome. There would be no need for "willing" on that score. I would merely ascertain the optimizing decision and make it. However, if I act somewhat ARBITRARILY and say things like "Hmmm...let's just try this." THEN I'm no longer acting in a "omniresource-using" mode.
Hopefully the links between the analogy and the omnibenevolence discussion are too apparent to miss. Bottom line: to assert that God can make NON-MAXIMIZING or NON-OPTIMIZING decisions simply because he wants to NECESSARILY NEGATES philosophical omnibenevolence.
This has been my loudest cry, guys. In Satan and the Problem of Evil, Doc has tried his darnedest to hold to just this way of thinking. And do you know HOW it gets pulled off? But pushing all the factors into the realm of mystery! Think about it. If there is NO WAY of getting all of the factors to evaluate God's actions, then there is NO WAY that we could ever see for ourselves whether or not a decision was non-optimizing or not. The assertion of "omnibenevolence" becomes mere DOGMA!!! This is how all the not-so-good things that God seems to do are relegated to the status of "apparently" bad acts. There HAS to be some rational, existentially satisfying justification for some of God's acts. We just don't know what they are...and CANNOT know.
Do you guys see my HUGE beef with this? Not only does it look like a great big COPOUT that does nothing but give psychological certainty to people of faith...but it also effectively binds God to the point that He becomes the ultimate SERVANT of his creation! A functionally finite God. A God who doesn't have the luxury of being FREE. Think about it. Not ONLY can God NOT choose evil...but God cannot even choose LESSER GOODS!! What existentially relevant choices would God have? With his perfect knowledge and infinite intelligence, God knows the optimal "solutions" AT ALL TIMES. HOW would God really have to choose things, EVEN WITHIN THE REALM OF GOODNESS??? He wouldn't. God is then reduced to a PRINCIPLE. God does NOT become more of a person to us. He becomes a FORCE empathizes, comforts, and aids...but essentially little more than that.
Now I ask you...DOES THIS SOUND LIKE THE GOD RESPRESENTED IN THE BIBLE? Do you really think that accounts like :
Miriam being struck with leprosy
Moses almost being killed in the way by God for not circumcizing his son
God killing Ezekiel's wife
God allowing Satan to ransack Job's life
God commanding Hosea to marry a whore AND name his kids those "interesting" names
...are actually VIABLE under the tenets of philosophical omnibenevolence?? Is someone really going to try to argue that in EACH OF THESE CASES, this was the OPTIMAL CHOICE for God??? Sheesh! Someone would have to do a lot of explaining...and then the explanation would be so mechanical and full of "mystery" as to be seen as unviable. See, Doc wants to say that ONE OF THE CONSTRAINING FACTORS is God's willing. For example, because God wanted to use Israel, that formed one of God's self-restraining factors that God had to work under. But isn't it obvious that in the very choice of using Abraham and his progeny to God's own ends, God NO LONGER acted using philosophical omnibenevolence. To keep this in the realm of philosophical omnibenevolence, one would have to show that Abraham was the ABSOLUTE BEST CHOICE for God to make in the area of having a people unto Godself. Otherwise, the decision to use Abraham would be ARBITRARY, thus negating the heart of philosophical omnibenevolence.
See, THIS is one of the FUNDAMENTAL reasons why process theologians and open view theologians have their differences. People like Griffin and Cobb note pretty much the same thing I do and notice the significant problem that arises with the problem of evil. Doc, to his credit, tries to COMBAT this using his 6 theses and his introduction of Satan into the mix. And it works to a pretty good enough. But not good enough. The problem goes to the HEART of what it means for God to be omnibenevolent and Doc can't change that.
To make God a significantly free being morally and existentially NECESSARILY renders God UNABLE to be philosophically omnibenevolent!
If you don't remember anything else, remember the above. I am firmly convinced of this. I've done the math and with dialogue with ANYONE about it. I really think I'm right on this one. But who knows.
What do y'all think? Does this thinking work for you? Doc, I'd LOVE to hear from you on this one!
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2k on 12/21/2001 09:39:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|