tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post115462782927203115..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Exbeliever on Problems of Evil Part IVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1154996559346266412006-08-07T17:22:00.000-07:002006-08-07T17:22:00.000-07:00I have made some editing changes to make sure you ...I have made some editing changes to make sure you don't think I said what exbeliever said. Thanks for pointing this out.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1154907166952997312006-08-06T16:32:00.000-07:002006-08-06T16:32:00.000-07:00Tough to follow who is arguing for what in the ori...Tough to follow who is arguing for what in the original post. Under one reasonable reading, just given the editing, Victor has given an argument against Christianity.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1154783425302511452006-08-05T06:10:00.000-07:002006-08-05T06:10:00.000-07:00Victor, Thanks for the clarification.Victor, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1154756956275363672006-08-04T22:49:00.000-07:002006-08-04T22:49:00.000-07:00First, in response to Steve, Lewis explicitly says...First, in response to Steve, Lewis explicitly says that "It is much more certain that he ought not to murder prisoners or bomb civilians than he can ever be about the justice of a war. It is perhaps here that "conscientious objection" ought to begin. I feel certain that one Christain airman shot for refusing to bomb enemy civiliams woul dbe a more effective martyr...than a hundred Christians in jail for refusing to join the army. (God in the Dock,p. 327). And I believe he condemned the bombing of Dresden, but I haven't found the passage yet. And Lewis's view on the atomic bombing of Japan should be perfectly clear. <BR/><BR/>I can understand the ban on the Amalekites up to a point. I understand the importance of not being polluted by pagan religion. But I have not seen anything that reconciles the Amalekite ban with my moral intuitions. So I accept Lewis's argument that God's goodness is a more fundamental doctrine than the inerrancy of Scripture, a doctrine that I don't so much disbelieve as consider to be profoundly unclear. Either the ban was not of divine origin, or else aspects of the situation that I do not understand justify God's actions.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1154756289956348232006-08-04T22:38:00.000-07:002006-08-04T22:38:00.000-07:00"If God allows evil for reasons unknown to us, the..."If God allows evil for reasons unknown to us, then what grounds do theists have for judging him to be morally good? Making that determination requires at least some understanding of motive and intent. If we have no idea at all why God does what he does, if the reasons for his actions are incomprehensible to us, then to be consistent we would have to say that we do not know whether he is good or evil. Certainly there is no obvious reason why disasters happen as they do, so how could any theist know that the true reason, whatever it is, is for the better and not for the worse? <BR/><BR/>To proclaim God to be good and then assert that he has unknown purposes for allowing evil is an inconsistent position. Most theists do not hesitate to ascribe benevolent motives to God when they believe he has done something that benefits them, such as the miraculous healing of an illness. But when something happens that would tend to cast doubt on God's goodness, such as a destructive tsunami or an epidemic, they draw back and claim that we cannot understand God's motives. This is special pleading in its purest form. We would not hesitate to judge a fellow human being's character by both the good and the bad actions they perform, nor would we go on blithely assuming that they had a sufficient justifying reason no matter how many seemingly evil deeds they commit. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, if God has an important purpose for permitting evil, then why do we try so hard to stop it? How do theists know they are not working in opposition to God's will every time they vaccinate a child or give money to a poor man? A consistent follower of the unknown purpose defense would never try to stop suffering, since any suffering that God does allow must be needed for some greater good; otherwise he would not have allowed it. Of course, almost no one actually behaves this way when confronted with tragedy, which is fortunate. Nevertheless, by their compassionate actions, theists show that they themselves do not believe this."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1154741039819690592006-08-04T18:23:00.000-07:002006-08-04T18:23:00.000-07:00Don Jr. Your defence is simply: God is God. And wh...Don Jr. Your defence is simply: God is God. <BR/><BR/>And why do you suppose God instructed the midianites (I think it was) to save all the virgin female children for themselves? How lucky was that? I don't suppose those horny hebrews would have thought that one up by themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1154701594836945612006-08-04T07:26:00.000-07:002006-08-04T07:26:00.000-07:00In other words, EXB's argument presupposes that a ...<I>In other words, EXB's argument presupposes that a Christian theist is committed in some absolute sense to inerrancy. Now an inerrantist may want to defend the biblical ban on the Amalekites, and we might want to see as far as possible what reasons could be given for God's actions here. But this would not be a requirement for the Christian theist per se, unless you want to argue that C. S. Lewis was not a Christian theist.</I><BR/><BR/>Vic,<BR/><BR/>You are absolutely correct. That's why I said this when I supported the premise:<BR/><BR/>"Christians who are familiar with the Bible <B>and believe in its infallibility</B> will understand that P3 is supported by the Bible itself."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, I should have said "inerrancy" instead of "infallibility," because someone who believes the Bible is merely infallible could maintain that the narrative leads the believer in the right direction of faith without being exactly true. Anyway, my comment was meant to exclude non-inerrantists.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested in what you think about the arguments that Steve and Paul Manata made about this (you linked Steve's).<BR/><BR/>Paul says that the women, children, and infants (and perhaps the donkeys too) were "criminals worthy of death" (In responding to this argument, he wrote, "It is not inconsistent with God's nature to justly put to death criminals worthy of death."). He also wrote, "The Christian God ordered an army to put to death people who justly deserved death."<BR/><BR/>Paul believes that God did give this order but suggests that God is justified in doing so because these women, children, and infants were "criminals worthy of death." Do you agree with this sentiment?<BR/><BR/>Similarly, Steve justifies these actions because he believes that God is not "exacting judgment on the sins of each individual victim," but rather is engaging in an "indiscriminate" holy war. <BR/><BR/>First, this seems odd given the fact that God specifically orders his soldiers to target these non-combatants, so they are not merely "collateral damage."<BR/><BR/>Second, this seems not to provide any answer at all because it simply begs the question, "Well, is it okay to order any indiscriminant war?"<BR/><BR/>I think CS Lewis' answer is the only one that defeats the argument. Only if one denies that God really did order the deaths of infants can God be freed from this immoral act.<BR/><BR/>I wonder, though, if you agree with Paul Manata that these women, children, and infants are "criminals worthy of death," or with Steve who says that God is justified in ordering an army to engage in an "indiscriminate" holy war.<BR/><BR/>Further, do you believe that God actually did give this order to kill women, children, infants, and animals?exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1154634510081446922006-08-03T12:48:00.000-07:002006-08-03T12:48:00.000-07:00Hi Victor.A question for you. I assume that, unlik...Hi Victor.<BR/><BR/>A question for you. I assume that, unlike Elizabeth Anscombe, C. S. Lewis supported England’s counteroffensive in WWII. <BR/><BR/>If so, did he regard the carpet bombing of Germany by the RAF as licit or illicit? I ask because I wonder what moral distinction he would draw between the indiscriminate fatalities from carpet bombing, and the indiscriminate fatalities from OT holy war.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com