 |
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/24/2003 5:51 PM (GMT -6) |   | I have been pondering the concept, I think expressed by Dr. Boyd, that some evil is gratuitous. I would really like to hear some of your thoughts on this topic.
The following is a definition of "gratuitous" from Webster's:
quote:
Gra*tu"i*tous\a. [L. gratuitus, from gratus pleasing. See Grate, a., Gratis.] 1. Given without an equivalent or recompense; conferred without valuable consideration; granted without pay, or without claim or merit; not required by justice.
We mistake the gratuitous blessings of Heaven for the fruits of our own industry. --L'Estrange.
2. Not called for by the circumstances; without reason, cause, or proof; adopted or asserted without any good ground; as, a gratuitous assumption.
Acts of gratuitous self-humiliation. --De Quincye. -- Gra*tu\"i*tous*ly, adv. -- Gra*tu\"i*tous*ness, n.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
My guess is that we are using the word gratuitous in the sense of #2 above; would that be a correct guess on my part? If so, it seems to me that the idea that some evil has no cause is in this case confusing the material with the spiritual.
For example, years ago in my hometown a very young child was left unrestrained in a running car while his mother ran back in the house to get something. Being curious as all children are, the child decided to scoot over to the driver's seat and play like he was driving. Pulling the gear shift into reverse, the child panicked, opened the car door to try to get out, fell under the front wheel and the life was crushed out of him.
Perhaps this is not the best example, but it seems to me in this instance that the fault lies with the negligent parent, and negligence can be quite evil or at least have some very evil effects, it seems.
Another example might be the people who died in the 9/11 attacks. Someone might say much of the evil wrought upon these people was gratuitous. Perhaps I am not quite getting the concept of gratuitous, but it seems to me that those who died and those who lived all can be explained by the simple fact that the human body is not designed to survive in circumstances such as they found themselves in. It's not a spiritual problem they had, it's a physical one.
Am I making any sense?
Thanks,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/25/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I think gratuitous evil means that when evil, tragic things happen there need not be any fore-ordained purpose for why they happen. But, inasmuch, since the future is open, good may come of the evil anyways.
I was born with a hole in my heart, was hit by a car when I was seven, and completely humiliated in front of my school-mates when I was 12 for something that was not my fault. All of these were evil but I wouldn't be who I am today if it were not for them. So, they may not be gratuitous, but there was no guarantee that I would have made the choices I did in how I stewarded my gifts and dealt with my difficulties and so they could have become gratuitous, serving no higher purpose.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/26/2003 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Good question J.E. When I refer to gratuitous evil, I refer to evil that has no ULTIMATE purpose. It has a CAUSE, and not an ULTIMATE reason.
The mother should not have left the car running, but a million other parents have done this without the tragic consequences. Why this child and this parent? There's a cause and a reason. But ULTiMATELY, its gratuitous.
One person shows up at the world trade center earlier than usual, just in time to get killed. Another person quite uncharacteristically goes out for coffee just in time to escape the inferno. Why one person gets killed and another not? There's a cause (the plane) and reasons (the terrorists revenge + one person wanted to get extra work done and another having a caffine craving). But ULTIMATELY, Iis gratuitous.
Six hundred little kids are included in the roundup in a Warsaw ghetto, but Zosia happens to catch the eye of one of the guards who happens to be unusually sadistic. The result: she has her eyes ripped out of her sockets. Why her? Why now? There's a cause and a reason (in the guard). But ULTIMATELY, its gratuitous.
Of course, God can and does work to bring meaning out of gratuitous evil. And in cases where the believer can work with him, this redemptive value is ensured (Rom 8:28). But I don't see that all evil is redeemed in this fashion. It is ULTIMATELY gratuitous.
The view that some evil, at least, is gratuitous contrasts with the blueprint worldview which holds that there is an ULTIMATE divine reason for every single thing that happens, including evil events.
Hope this helps
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/26/2003 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Doc.
So what I hear you saying is that you would place a distinction between "reason" (in the sense of divine purpose) and "cause." (in the sense of cause and effect) Okay. Got it. 'Preciate ya.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/27/2003 2:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Exactly. There may also be REASONS -- as in human reasons -- but no ULTIMATE overarching reason.
Say a guy is mad at his wife and goes out and gets drunk. At closing hours he drives home plastered. Another guy can't sleep and decides to go out to a convenience store to get a magnizine to read. On the way to the store, the drunk smashes into him.
There were causes leading up to the crash, and reasons leading up to the crash. But there is no ultimate reason for the crash. Two lines of causation and reasons intersected in a way no one orchestrated. It's possible one or both were being influenced by evil powers to set up this crash, but even here this isn't an ultimate reason. For there's no overarching reason why a) these powers were evil; b) why they acted on these individuals; c) why the drunk guy had a fight with his wife and decided to get drunk.
If one holds that agents are and the ultimate originators of their free acts, they can't escape the conclusion that the consequences of their actions are, in an ultimate sense, gratuitous.
Greg
Blessings
Greg
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/30/2003 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | this really isn't based off of gratuitous evil so much as just evil in general. Open Theists claim to have a better understanding of evil than the Reformed Theologians, but i guess i fail to see this. isn't the very idea of evil before an all loving, all caring, all compassionate God still a mystery from whichever view point you look at it? In the Calvinist view you have God ordaining evil, well one might ask how is that loving? in the Arminaist view you have a God who forsees the evil, yet, though He very well could, chooses not to infringe on the people solely so He doesn't disrubt their freewill. but couldn't one respond kind of like Ivan in the Brother's Karamazov that they don't want that freedom if it causes so much pain? still God is not viewed as loving. and if you take the open theist approach, you simply have a God who could very well determine everyone's actions, but decides instead to reamin "ignorant" of them so he doesn't dirupt our freedom, well how is that a loving thing to do? once again, one can fall back on what Ivan Karamazov said to his brother Aloysha in response to why he doesn't believe there is a loving God.
so in the end you are simply left with three view points, three differences about evil, and yet it's all still one big mystery. if anyone could shed some light on this i would appreciate it.
grace ane peace,
borg
"Indeed, the whole universe is founded on absurdity, and, perhaps, without absudity there would be nothing at all. There are a few things we do know after all."-- Ivan Karamazov, The Brother's Karamazov
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/1/2003 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Borg,
I agree with your reasoning. Through my research in this area, I've determined that you've got the "unknown purpose" defense that basically states that suffering is allowed by God for a reason unknown to us. That we have to trust that it is a "good" reason, or that greater good may be coming from suffering (evil). So, in this view, at least some evil is not gratuitous. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism here is that under Calvinism- God has ordained this evil. Under Arminianism, God is allowing it b/c of he values human free will, so is not really "ordaining" it- but rather, sitting back and allowing humans to have at it, so to speak.
Along this line of thinking, if there is no such thing as gratuitous evil, then it's not clear why we, as fallible unknowing humans, should intervene to try to prevent any evil. We might be getting in the way of a greater good.
So if there's no gratuitous evil, I should stop attempting to help people. If this much widespread intense apparently gratuitous suffering and premature death is necessary for some greater good, which is quite a lot, perhaps my trying to prevent some will actually prevent a greater good.
This appears problematic.
On the other hand, you may reason that there is gratuitous evil. Now you have to reconcile that with God's existence. The open view attempts to say gratuitous evil occurs and it is outside God's control, b/c he did not know it was going to happen- b/c the future is not knowable. (perhaps an inaccurate summary, but something like that :) ) So God cannot be blameworthy or responsible for suffering.
I don't see that this view is better, or more "comforting", or logical, than the others. The OV God is about as powerful as the rest of us. Many people do not find comfort in the fact that God didn't ordain it, he merely could not control it. I know I don't.
Neither do I think it logically obviates the problem of evil either. For even if God is ignorant of what is about to occur, certainly there are many many times where he could quite easily intervene to prevent evil in the same way in which fallible humans intervene. If I see a child in the street about to get hit by a car, and I clearly have enough time to get her out of the way, I will try my hardest to do so. If I stood idly by and watched the child get hit, I am quite immoral. Surely God has enough power and insight as I do, so if He chose to, he could intervene and prevent the child from being hit- whether or not the OV is true.
And furthermore, God choosing to create this world with all its suffering and evil, whether predicted and ordained by him or not, makes God ultimately responsible. Remember, this isn't akin to a person deciding to build a house that is subject to the elements and other outside forces, and thus falls down. In that case, no , the person probably is not responsible for his creation. But we're talking about God- the omnimax being- who created the universe. He's not fallible - he has ultimate power.
Reconciling the amount of suffering and evil in this world with the existence of an omnimax being - it seems to me that the only way to possibly do this is to appeal to the unknown purpose defense - which is also problematic, but seems more plausible.
Any thoughts?
BTW- I used to post a lot on this board and got carried away and too emotional about it- so I took a break. Thanks!
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/1/2003 9:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Nice to have you back ReasonableDoubt! Glad you decided to stop back in.
It's always good to think through this again. I swear each time it comes up it's like I never heard any of it before. My grey cells are just not working any more.
I think ALL evil is gratuitous. All of it. Even the chess-like "sacrificing the Queen" is, ultimately, gratuitous.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/1/2003 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Reasonable Doubt, very good insight. another perspective i had not really thought of. by the way, i really enjoyed the term omnimax, hadn't heard of that one before.
i guess what i would like to say is that i don't think gratutious evil exists. i don't see how it can. your thought about not preventing evil is very well thought out and threw me for a loop, but the more i thought about it, i guess i statred to see where perhaps you may have been mistaken, though we won't know until "we have faces" but here's my thought on your argument.
you said, "as fallible unknowing humans, should[n't] intervene to try to prevent any evil. We might be getting in the way of a greater good." nice thought, though i do not believe that this is the case. i guess coming from the theological side that i'm coming from and holding to the idea that "God works for the good of those who love Him" and believing that all suffering and pain has a point, if it can be stopped, than perhaps it isn't the greatest good. perhaps it is better to prevent the evil than to allow it to happen. i do not believe that God says pain and suffering is the "greatest" good that one can endure. if that were the case than yes, we shouldn't intervene. but i see pain as a resource used to bring about good in someway or another as ordained by God. but my assumption would be that if that pain can be stopped than by all means do it, because a greater good will probably result in so doing.
does that make sense? i really appreciate your thought!
TGB i guess my question to you is what you think of Job. and i'm glad that you brought up the chess analogy. i have several difficulties with such a view of pain, or how the world is run, according to Boyd's definition of the game. by no means should anyone think that these ideas are my own, i talked to a buddy of mine and this is what he was telling me. if God truly is a "chess player" like God than there need to be several things that should be discussed that Boyd seems to miss. the first being, who created the board, the other player, and the thoughts and moves within the players head. another idea is that God doesn't play by the rules as they are written down. for example, God stopped the sun from setting for three days in the OT. this is like God taking His queen moving her off the board to some non-existant square, and calling "check-mate" to the king though other pieces are obstructing the clear line of attack, and than making sure that the opponent moves their king out of the way. does that make sense? God doesn't play by the rules, he makes the rules. He could lay His king down, forefiting the game, and when the opponent thinks they have won, He can decide to pick the King up again. i don't think the chess board analogy does justice to the way that God works. let me know what your thoughts on this are, i would like some feedback.
g n p
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/2/2003 12:58 AM (GMT -6) | | borg-
I think the evil that befell Job was gratuitous. There’s a very interesting discussion that got started on this some time ago. Iconoclast started it. You can find the thread here: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1506&ARCHIVE=&whichpage=1
In that thread Doc argued that “…the evil that happened to Job is GRATUITOUS in that there was no overarching reason why Satan showed up or issued the challenge. He got caught in a capricious wager!” When I say all evil is gratuitous I mean it’s gratuitous in this ultimate sense. None of God’s purposes for creating the world required the emergence of evil. More specifically, none of God’s purposes in creating humankind required the emergence of human evil.
Given the emergence of human sin, the game plane is modified and in certain circumstances (it seems to me) God may compaibilisticly direct the course a particular evil event takes in order to best suit his purposes. This is still gratuitous evil in my view. To avoid being gratuitous, it would have to be true that some good divine purpose when viewed independently of the givens of a fallen world requires the evil in question. See Brandon’s thread on “Does God have a future?” (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1958&whichpage=1&ARCHIVE=) where he’s talking about this.
This is the sacrificing of a pawn to avoid a greater loss. Given that we’re IN the game, and given the rules OF the game which govern divine and human agency, winning sometimes means God sacrifices a piece (= tolerates or even ‘makes use of’) a particular loss in order to win. Such sacrifices are gratuitous in my view because God’s purpose to win the game never included losing any of his pieces.
Call me naively optimistic, but I still don’t buy into “soul making” theodicies which require the emergence of human moral evil as the anvil upon which God perfects us and without which we could not fulfill God’s purposes for us. I still think the choice to sin is THE most irrational, unreasonable, and unjustifiable thing in all the universe. Views on the purpose for our existence which are inexplicable apart from the emergence of sinful choices give those choices a rationale, a reason, for being. This is unthinkable to me. All sin is ultimately gratuitous.
I have a totally wacko idea on Job I wanna post when I get the courage to do so. Heads up Icon!
Tom 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/2/2003 1:52 AM (GMT -6) | | I love your answer, Tom.
 , Well, everything until I get to the last two paragraphs. From there I'm not against, BUT, I'm not sure either!
quote:
This is the sacrificing of a pawn to avoid a greater loss. Given that we’re IN the game, and given the rules OF the game which govern divine and human agency, winning sometimes means God sacrifices a piece (= tolerates or even ‘makes use of’) a particular loss in order to win. Such sacrifices are gratuitous in my view because God’s purpose to win the game never included losing any of his pieces.
Call me naively optimistic, but I still don’t buy into “soul making” theodicies which require the emergence of human moral evil as the anvil upon which God perfects us and without which we could not fulfill God’s purposes for us. I still think the choice to sin is THE most irrational, unreasonable, and unjustifiable thing in all the universe. Views on the purpose for our existence which are inexplicable apart from the emergence of sinful choices give those choices a rationale, a reason, for being. This is unthinkable to me. All sin is ultimately gratuitous.
This is the sacrificing of a pawn to avoid a greater loss. Given that we’re IN the game, and given the rules OF the game which govern divine and human agency, winning sometimes means God sacrifices ... in order to win.
I KNOW that WE are "in the game." And God works with us -- as you well say (and say well). Evdokimov points out that in working with us one can say (partially, and only in a certain way) that "God limits" Himself. (Can't force us to love Him; due to how according to His WILL we are created, have our nature in His will...)
But while WE change, and life and grow in creaturely ways, God does not change, and is not a creature. (Even Christ's divinity was unchanged by assuming our humanity by making it his own; remaining unchanged and unchanging in His divinity.)
To pursue the use of my rational powers in this matter I reach for the solice that Godel's use of things "outside of" or "beyond" the matter offers.
I'm sure we say together, that "God's ways are not our ways.", and are "higher" in some manner. "Overarching" according to our perceptions.
Just as God's will is what all things are within -- something that we can know; but is beyond our understanding -- we know the artwork but do not fathom the talent of the artist.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/2/2003 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | borg: i'm glad that you brought up the chess analogy. i have several difficulties with such a view of pain, or how the world is run, according to Boyd's definition of the game.
Tom: I tell ya, the more I think and talk about theodicies the more humble and ignorant I become. I don’t think the chess analogy was intended to provide an analogy that exhaustively covers “pain” or “how the world is run.” I always thought of the analogy as very nicely explaining God’s infinite intelligence—how God can be just as prepared for possible moves and he can be for certain moves. And this the chess analogy does very well. But I don’t think open theists use it to explain pain or provide a model for theodicy which has more to do with understanding why God makes this particular move as opposed to that particular move at this particular juncture. This has more to do with knowing God’s character and overall purposes in creation and how the state of the game at this particular juncture fits or doesn’t fit those purposes. So, yeah, the chess analogy doesn’t explain everything. Wasn’t meant to.
borg: if God truly is a "chess player" like God than there need to be several things that should be discussed that Boyd seems to miss. the first being, who created the board…
Tom: God created the board: A universe of true becoming and morally responsible behavior where love is possible.
borg: …the other player
Tom: God created all the players: and gave them libertarian free will.
borg: …and the thoughts and moves within the players head.
Tom: God “knows” the thoughts and all the possible moves. Nothing more than that is needed. Do you want to say God is as directly responsible for creating our thoughts as he is for creating the board (the world)? Thoughts of murder, lust, and rebellion? I hope not. But God does know what we’re thinking and he knows all the possible moves we face.
borg: another idea is that God doesn't play by the rules as they are written down. for example, God stopped the sun from setting for three days in the OT.
Tom: What “rule” did God ever write down in which he promised to refrain from performing miracles?
borg: …this is like God taking His queen moving her off the board to some non-existant square, and calling "check-mate" to the king though other pieces are obstructing the clear line of attack, and then making sure that the opponent moves their king out of the way. does that make sense?
Tom: As you describe it, no it doesn’t. But I think you’re misrepresenting the reality of the game and the rules. I don’t think God’s stopping the sun is a breaking the rules of the game. If God does something in our world related to the fulfillment of his purposes for creating this world and us in it, then there’s a rule to cover it. This is what the whole debate is about: We DON’T understand all the rules governing God’s relationship to us and his providential actions in the world. We understand SOME of the rules. And we can probably deduce from what we do understand what some of the larger picture must look like. The parts we don’t understand account for our inability to form an exhaustively full-proof theodicy AND ought to keep us from assuming that inexplicable to us means breaking the rules for God. Here’s a RULE (no pun intended!) of thumb:The parts we don’t understand have to do with the RULES and not with the character of the RULER! borg: God doesn't play by the rules, he makes the rules.
Tom: Does he play by them after he makes them? If not, then why are we having this discussion? Why seek to understand God’s actions? Why attempt to construct a theodicy at all? If this is God’s character, then we can’t justifiably expect God to act or not act in certain ways on any occasion and can never know whether any particular evil is Satan or God acting. If God can make the rules, tell us the rules govern his relationship to us and the world, and then break these rules, then God can justify those who place their faith in works-righteousness or condemn those who trust in Christ. Why not? Are you going to tell God he can’t do this? If we are to believe that God defines the rules that govern our mutual relationship and then disregards those rules, then let’s close the site up and go home. Now, the alternative is not “WE get to tell God what he will and will not do,” but rather “We get to believe that God has told us what he will and will not do.”
borg: He could lay His king down, forefiting the game, and when the opponent thinks they have won, He can decide to pick the King up again. i don't think the chess board analogy does justice to the way that God works.
Tom: You can only say this if YOU have infallible and exhaustive knowledge of the rules! Since you don’t, you can’t really know that God is breaking a rule of the game.
Here’s where you’re misapplying the chess analogy: With Chess we DO have infallible and exhaustive knowledge of the rules (If God were to agree to play according to OUR knowledge of the rules, then moving his Queen off the board to attack a piece of ours WOULD be, as you say, God breaking the rules and God could no longer be trusted) while in the game of life we do NOT have infallible and exhaustive knowledge of the rules. We understand some of the rules, but life is bigger than chess and the rules may be infinite. We’ll never understand them all.We have enough knowledge of the rules to govern OUR actions responsibly before God but not enough knowledge to stand in judgment of GOD’S actions in the world when they don’t make sense to us. Does that help?
So, when God appears to be breaking the rules (the rules as I understand them), I prefer to assume on the basis of God’s character that there’s a rule governing God’s action of which I am unaware rather than assume that God is disregarding the rules he designed and covenanted to live by in relation to us.
Give God the benefit of the doubt!
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 05/02/2003 08:23:18 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/2/2003 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB, thanks for the sites, i'll have to try and get around to them this weekend.
as far as the chess analogy, i'm still bothered by it. i do appreciate the idea calling me on the way that the chess game wasn' tnecesarily to describe the problem of pain, my bad, i should have re-read the analogy. however, we still do not see eye to eye. this may be a "decent" analogy as far as human analogies go, however i'm still afraid when it comes to the divine, it doesn't seem to fit. my initial question is that if God is higher than us and above us as you said, and only He know exahustivley the "rules" of the game, than why can't you comprehend the idea of compatability within the Reformed thought?
let me see if i can take a new approach at the chess board analogy. in a quick summation, do not think humans, Satan, demons, whatever, play a very good opponet to God. if God is the only one who knows all the rules and to what extent, than what good is it for Him to play an opponent that doesn't know the rules to any extent that God does? does this make sense? cause in my mind it would be really hard for God to play an opponent who doesn't know the rules and in a sense doesn't stand a whoppin' chance. i don't see this with the Open View and the problem of evil. i see Boyd as well as others saying that Satan may sometimes have the upper hand, but God is certian that He will win in the end. How could Satan even be able to play the game? no i'm not saying that God is directly responsible for our thoughts, though He has Satan on a leash, as C.H. Spurgeon says, and so if you view it that way, than God allows Satan to tempt us with such.
i wasn't saying that God has down written laws that He has made that says He won't do miracles. I guess i'm basing it more off of natural laws and the way that we humans know how the world runs. God breaks, with miracles, the natural laws, and to me, this is breaking the rules of the world. you did make a valid point that maybe He wasn't breaking the rules in the infinite knowledge standpoint, but as He has revealed to us Himself and the "rules" i think one can logically conclude that He broke the rules as we know them. whether or not God plays by the rules before or after He makes them, i think, relates back to the age old question, which could be a whole other argument. but are things right because God commands them, or does he command them because they are right. in either way we have some difficulties in explaining either side, so i will leave it at that to see what you have to say in response, assuming this post is somewhat worthy of responding to.
this is all i'll respond to now. let me know what you think, thanks for your input.
g n p
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/2/2003 7:59 PM (GMT -6) | | borg: i'm still afraid when it comes to the divine, it doesn't seem to fit. my initial question is that if God is higher than us and above us as you said, and only He know exahustivley the "rules" of the game, than why can't you comprehend the idea of compatability within the Reformed thought?
Tom: Excccccelent question! Here’s compatibilism: “God unconditionally [this is VERY important] and eternally predetermined all things, every choice we make, yet in such a way as to leave us morally responsible for those choices.” We should have done other than we did and are rightly held responsible for not doing the right. But it is also true that God predetermined us to make the wrong choices we do and that God’s decree is not conditioned on anything outside himself. Just think about that for a while. Let it soak in.
The reason no one (not just me) can comprehend compatibilism is because there is no analogy whatsoever upon which we may find any meaning in it at all. It’s one thing to affirm that God understands ALL the rules and we understand SOME of the rules and that the some we understand covers our living responsibly before God; but it’s an entirely different thing to say God understands it ALL and we understand NOTHING, which is what compatibilism amounts to. There is no analogy that gives meaning to it for us.
When we say “God unconditionally predetermines our choices and we’re morally responsible for those choices” we do not meaningfully affirm anything. We have put nouns, verbs, and other parts of speech together in a SYNTACTICALLY meaningful way. But we haven’t said anything SYMANTICALLY meaningful. The words taken together do not assert anything meaningful for us.
“God unconditionally predetermines our choices and we’re morally responsible for those choices” is equally as meaningless as the same words rearranged into “Predetermines and choices God we’re our morally for unconditionally those and responsible.”
borg: ...if God is the only one who knows all the rules and to what extent, than what good is it for Him to play an opponent that doesn't know the rules to any extent that God does? does this make sense?
Tom: It only wouldn’t make sense if we were also to affirm compatiblism. In my view it’s OK because God’s interaction with us in the game of life includes his holding me accountable for my moves on the basis that I am genuinely free to move in other ways. In as much as the game involves my morally responsible choices and a relationship of intimacy and love, God does play by the rules he’s revealed to ME. In other words, he doesn’t hold me responsible for not knowing more than he’s revealed.
borg: …cause in my mind it would be really hard for God to play an opponent who doesn't know the rules and in a sense doesn't stand a whoppin' chance.
Tom: But here’s the deal: Though God knows more than you, this is no handicap for you when God plays YOU. When God interacts with, speaks to, blesses, guides, and otherwise relates personally to YOU, God plays by the rules he’s revealed to us about how he relates personally to us. The rules you need to know to play your game with the world and with God responsibly, meaningfully, with integrity and satisfaction are yours to know. The MORE God knows of the rules covers the MORE God has to deal with in running the universe as God, something you never have to worry about doing and for which God won’t hold you responsible for anyhow. So it’s cool.
Maybe this’ll help. My 10 year old plays chess. He’s not bad. He knows ALL the rules well. What chance do you think he’ll have at defeating Kasparov? None whatsoever. Is this because Kasparov “knows the rules” better than my son? No. Is it because Kasparov will end up breaking some rule in some way? No. It’s because Kasparov knows all the possible moves, say, 20 moves in advance, and because he knows how to move pieces in combination to attack. His strategies are more developed than my son’s. Kasparov is a master at the game. It’s a certainty that Kasparov will win. He doesn’t need to have definite foreknowledge of all my son’s moves. He can win the game just as easily by having adequate responses prepared for possible moves. Daniel doesn’t stand a “whoppin’ chance” at defeating Kasparov. Kasparov may lose a piece or two along the way, he may sacrifice a lesser piece to avoid loosing something more important. But none of this places ultimate victory in doubt. Kasparov will win.
borg: i see Boyd as well as others saying that Satan may sometimes have the upper hand…
Tom: Satan is a real player with real power. He may win a piece or two along the way.
borg: …but God is certian that He will win in the end. How could Satan even be able to play the game?
Tom: Because God created him to be a player (a good player, not an evil player), a really important player as far as we can tell, and the terms of their agreement included irrevocable free will just like with us. Satan can play the game just like any of us can, because he was designed by God to be a player, not a watcher. And Satan knows far more of the rules than we do. So things are gonna happen that look weird to us, but God can be trusted.
borg: i wasn't saying that God has down written laws that He has made that says He won't do miracles. I guess i'm basing it more off of natural laws and the way that we humans know how the world runs. God breaks, with miracles, the natural laws, and to me, this is breaking the rules of the world.
Tom: OK, it’s breaking the physical laws of our world. But the physical world isn’t the whole game board, and there are rules that govern the interaction between the material and immaterial world.
borg: …but as He has revealed to us Himself and the "rules" i think one can logically conclude that He broke the rules as we know them.
Tom: That’s OK if you’re talking about turning water to wine. But would you want to argue that God is capable of punishing the repentant with hell and granting eternal life to the incorrigibly wicked? What must God be like if we correctly believe he will never do such things, or if we believe he is incapable of doing such things?
borg: …assuming this post is somewhat worthy of responding to.
Tom: Assuming my response are worthy of your reading them you mean! Your questions are great, and your interest deserves somebody who understands this stuff better than I do! Sorry you’re stuck with me.
Lastly, be careful how you view the chess analogy. We are NOT the pieces! We’re not pawns being moved about on the board by God. Rather, we each are our own player and the pieces on our boards are our CHOICES, the MOVES we make in life. And, best of all, we’re not playing against God. God is on your side playing with you! Weeeeeeee!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/3/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | A quick note regarding the Chess analogy as I understand it. I also describe my views in the link on "Is Open Theism more scary".
One can use the Chess-Analogy as self-contained to show that one can have certainty regarding the final outcome without compatibilism. Here, it is not that God knows all the rules and we only know a subset, but rather God's ability to think through each and every possible contingency and devise a strategy that will ensure God cannot lose(This is the Nash Equilibrium). Satan, obviously, failed to think through all the possible outcomes upon seeking the crucifixion of Jesus and as such put himself in a situation whereby the inevitable result in check-mate.
Then, one can try and relate the Chess-Analogy to the conflict actually taking place. This is trickier. For the analogy to work, the rules, possible states of the world must be closed from God's point of view. It also requires a well-defined objective function, meaning it is easy to ensure that the end is secure, but how do we weigh the relatively seriousness of short-run goals? In Chess, there are three possible end outcomes, either side winning or a tie. In a Nash-Equilibrium, it ensures that one cannot lose or that the worse possible outcome is a tie(and of course since the other party is not omniscient this parlays into a win). However, in real life there are many suboutcomes regarding whether or not individuals will be reached with the Gospel or whether or not additional mini-hitlers will arise and do more damage. So there still is the necessity of choice regarding how we allocate our spiritual capital in seeking to establish the Kingdom of God. I shift the focus to us, rather than God, since there is no point to us trying to critique God, if there are failures they lie within the ecclesiastical leadership of the Christian Church(es).
This is part of why I focus on the Problem of Order, since it takes the ambiguity, that is abstracted from in a simple Chess game, seriously.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/3/2003 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/3/2003 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | well i've decided to stop basing this chessboard analogy off of my own thoughts and pondering and try to explain where i'm coming from, not using my own words. recently i read a book, "Beyond the Bounds" and this chessboard analogy comes under high perusal. i think it does a great job at explaining why it doesn't seem plausible.
"From childhood, we learned that the Bible guides us to think of God with PROPER imagery, for it asks, 'To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?' (Isa. 40:18 NRSV). We learned that some imagery intrinsically draws analogies that lead us to wrong concepts of God, if not idolatry. For example, the imagery of God as a chess player intuitively seemed a grotesque caricature of how God relates to his creatures. Its repugnance is gone for open theists who claim, God 'anticipates and ingeniously outmaneuvers his opponents' as a master chess player. They readily characterize God with categories drawn from our modern therapeutic culture that prizes 'self-esteem' and regards 'vulnerability' as virtuous. Gregory Boyd says, 'It takes a truly self-confident, sovereign God to make himself vulnerable.' 'God as risk taker' is a dominate imagery among open theists. Furthermore, under this influence of modern culture, Sanders claims, 'God...has healthy self-esteem,' and later, on the same page, he says, 'God is worried...' As Sally McFague constructs an image of God for an ecological and nuclear age, so open theists have constructed a God for a therapeutic age. Open theists, however, do not employ their descriptive language as anthropoathic (read analogical) portrayals of God, but as descriptive of God as he is in himself, for they transmute figurative portraits of God into glossy pictures. They look at God's created analogies and suppose they reveal God just as he is in himself."- Beyond the Bounds
this may be getting over my head, but i thought it was a fair argument against the idea of a chess playing God.
g n p
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/3/2003 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | well i've decided to stop basing this chessboard analogy off of my own thoughts and pondering and try to explain where i'm coming from, not using my own words. recently i read a book, "Beyond the Bounds" and this chessboard analogy comes under high perusal. i think it does a great job at explaining why it doesn't seem plausible.
"From childhood, we learned that the Bible guides us to think of God with PROPER imagery, for it asks, 'To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?' (Isa. 40:18 NRSV). We learned that some imagery intrinsically draws analogies that lead us to wrong concepts of God, if not idolatry. For example, the imagery of God as a chess player intuitively seemed a grotesque caricature of how God relates to his creatures. Its repugnance is gone for open theists who claim, God 'anticipates and ingeniously outmaneuvers his opponents' as a master chess player. They readily characterize God with categories drawn from our modern therapeutic culture that prizes 'self-esteem' and regards 'vulnerability' as virtuous. Gregory Boyd says, 'It takes a truly self-confident, sovereign God to make himself vulnerable.' 'God as risk taker' is a dominate imagery among open theists. Furthermore, under this influence of modern culture, Sanders claims, 'God...has healthy self-esteem,' and later, on the same page, he says, 'God is worried...' As Sally McFague constructs an image of God for an ecological and nuclear age, so open theists have constructed a God for a therapeutic age. Open theists, however, do not employ their descriptive language as anthrpopoathic (read analogical) portrayals of God, but as descriptive of God as he is in himself, for they transmute figurative portraits of God into glossy pictures. They look at God's created analogies and suppose they reveal God just as he is in himself."- Beyond the Bounds
this may be getting over my head, but i thought it was a fair argument against the idea of a chess playing God.
g n p
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/3/2003 2:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg:quote:
"From childhood, we learned that the Bible guides us to think of God with PROPER imagery, for it asks, 'To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?' (Isa. 40:18 NRSV). We learned that some imagery intrinsically draws analogies that lead us to wrong concepts of God, if not idolatry. For example, the imagery of God as a chess player intuitively seemed a grotesque caricature of how God relates to his creatures. quote:
Analogies are imperfect. The Chess analogy, like the warfare theodicy, emphasizes the reality of conflict, whereby God is in conflict with Satan but that given the above-mentioned characteristics of God, one can be sure that the end is secure.
quote:
Its repugnance is gone for open theists who claim, God 'anticipates and ingeniously outmaneuvers his opponents' as a master chess player. They readily characterize God with categories drawn from our modern therapeutic culture that prizes 'self-esteem' and regards 'vulnerability' as virtuous. Gregory Boyd says, 'It takes a truly self-confident, sovereign God to make himself vulnerable.' 'God as risk taker' is a dominate imagery among open theists.
Yes, God grants Satan some autonomy. Thus, Satan can make some choices apart and against the Will of God. This has nothing to do with our modern therapeutic culture, but stems solely from the onto-theological belief that if there is a fixed amount of governance, decision-making, taking place in the world, then if our choices are free, then they are made with autonomy from the will of God. God can and does intervene in the world to set out boundaries for our choices(I.e., like Satan cannot just kick the Chess-board over because he is going to lose or make some moves that go against the rules. Why? Because God is in Control and will not permit that to happen.)
[quote]
Furthermore, under this influence of modern culture, Sanders claims, 'God...has healthy self-esteem,' and later, on the same page, he says, 'God is worried...' As Sally McFague constructs an image of God for an ecological and nuclear age, so open theists have constructed a God for a therapeutic age. Open theists, however, do not employ their descriptive language as anthropoathic (read analogical) portrayals of God, but as descriptive of God as he is in himself, for they transmute figurative portraits of God into glossy pictures.
Yes, the "realism" fo some OVT deny the analogical nature of their portraits of God as they seek to cast their theologies in the image of Science, but we see but through a glass darkly and that is why analogies are important, though incomplete.
[quote]
They look at God's created analogies and suppose they reveal God just as he is in himself."- Beyond the Bounds
this may be getting over my head, but i thought it was a fair argument against the idea of a chess playing God.
One can, similarly, find many analogical arguments in Calvinistic thinking. Although, yes it is easier to construct a consistent theological system when it is presumed all is determined and orderly, in some way that we may not perceive but which comes from God.
We already agreed with you that Chess-playing image is incomplete, but then we pointed out what its purpose was. In my own experience, people have held to Calvinist/Arminian viewpoints, in part, because of the certainty that they hold regarding the future end-state. It provides what I call in the link "Isn't Open Theism Scarier" a psychic balm. It takes our minds off of future uncertainties we can't perceive and do anything about. However, the clear and simple teaching of Christ is to not worry about such things, since who can add another day to their lives by worrying about the future.... I guess the Chess Analogy is just another metaphysical construction meant to supplement this basic teaching, without appealing to a compatibilist theology.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/4/2003 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | If one presupposes that God is all determinative, then of course the chess board analogy doesn't apply. From my reading of "Beyond the Bounds," this is the gist of the authors 'argument' against the analogy. Its basically a pronoucement: "we reject this."
But if one is wondering how God can be sovereign without being all determinative
and if one wishes to respond to the critique that God isn't "wise" unless he knows or determines the "opponents" next move
and if one is wondering how we can be free while God yet is in control of the "game"
well, then the chess analogy works great.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/4/2003 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | yes and no.
As mentioned before, the Chess game has short-comings analogous to other examples.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/5/2003 10:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Of course an analogy is "like:: not like"... these aren't "shortcomings," simply the limitations of the analogy. For example, God sets up the game he plays while this is not the case for any human chess player. Also, God has infinite intelligence, which is not true of any chess player. The analogy "works" because it highlights how God can be assured of winning even though he doesn't control or foreknow what opponents will do. It "works" because it shows he may have to loose pieces (problem of evil), even though he's assured of final check mate. And it "works" because it highlights how an interactive out-smarting God is WISER than a God who would determine or foreknow every move of his opponents.
But of course, if one presupposes that God is all determinative and/or that our future actions are eternally certain, the analogy is simply WRONG.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/5/2003 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Of course an analogy is "like:: not like"... these aren't "shortcomings," simply the limitations of the analogy. For example, God sets up the game he plays while this is not the case for any human chess player. Also, God has infinite intelligence, which is not true of any chess player. The analogy "works" because it highlights how God can be assured of winning even though he doesn't control or foreknow what opponents will do. It "works" because it shows he may have to loose pieces (problem of evil), even though he's assured of final check mate. And it "works" because it highlights how an interactive out-smarting God is WISER than a God who would determine or foreknow every move of his opponents.
It doesn't work, because it collapses down the problem of evil to whether or not the end is secure and identifies the objective function of God as securing the end. I don't know if God who knows the Nash Equilibrium strategy for Chess is WISER than the God who foreknows every move. We are comparing apples and oranges here. The key thing is that the latter attribute of God isn't needed to pronounce the end with certainty.
But as far as psychic balms go, it still leaves many loose ends for us pawns.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/5/2003 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | okay, maybe I was wrong. Clearly, it is more important to secure the end than it is to prevent anyone from being injured.
A lot of whether it works or not depends on what one is looking to get out of the Chess analogy.
Is Big Blue wiser because it can beat any grand chess-master at Chess? No, it just can do an exhaustive search over every single possible contingency in the game of Chess.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:06 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 |
|
|