Friday, June 30, 2017

Shameless Bragging Update.

Edward Feser is interviewed about "Taking Aquinas Seriously."

He recommends Brian Davies "The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil"

//The first book you’ve selected is Fordham philosopher Brian Davies’s The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil.

This is the best book in print on the problem of evil. It develops two key Thomistic insights: First, you cannot properly understand the problem of evil without understanding the nature of God’s causal relationship to the world. Second, you cannot properly understand the problem of evil if you conceive of God in anthropomorphic terms—as something like a human agent, only bigger and stronger. If the world is like a story, God is not a character in the story alongside other characters; he is like the author of the story. And just as it makes no sense to think of an author as being unjust to his characters, neither does it make sense to think of God as being unjust to his creatures. While God is perfectly good, it is a deep mistake to think that this entails that he is a kind of cosmic Boy Scout, and that the problem of evil is a question about whether he deserves all his merit badges. Davies also shows how, from a Thomistic point of view, the approach to the problem of evil taken by contemporary philosophers of religion like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne is misguided and presupposes too anthropomorphic a conception of God.//

Oh....and look who has the number one review of the Davies' book.

Little old amateur me.



3 comments:

Toby said...

"If the world is like a story, God is not a character in the story alongside other characters; he is like the author of the story."

But as we know, the world is not like a story. In the reality, not the story, that is "the world," hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of young children died in Nazi death camps and under the rain of Axis and Allied bombs that rained down on cities around the world. We are born to suffer as the sparks fly upwards.

"While God is perfectly good, it is a deep mistake to think that this entails that he is a kind of cosmic Boy Scout, and that the problem of evil is a question about whether he deserves all his merit badges."

The implication being that "perfectly good" and "perfectly bad" mean the same thing to God and man. Assuming for the sake of argument that God does exist, how could we possibly have the same conception of good and bad? There is no "problem of evil." Reality has no problems. The world is what it is and if it was created by a god or gods, its exactly the way he or they wanted it to be. A god or gods capable of creating existence would be so far above us that attempting to understand or explain their nature via any means, including Aquinas' logic, is a vain and stupid attempt to be god-like. It can't be done. If you accept God, then you accept the reality of all those innocent children killed in WWII as neither good or bad.

Peter Sean said...

Sorry, Toby, you don't understand the analogy.

You mistakenly seized on the notion that the analogy was about the relationship of the reality of the world to that of a story.

That wasn't the point at all. The analogy was to the relationship of the creator of something to the thing he creates.

Feser could just have easily compared painter to painting or architect to building or chemist to lab experiment and the analogy would still have been apt.

Now, this is pretty obvious, so tell me: are you just stretching in order to find some point to disagree over?

Peter Sean said...

Your second point simply falls into the anthropomorphizing tendencies of modernity, except that you substitute nihilism for sentiment.

The Holocaust was evil. It was evil to us and to God.

However, it was an evil that a portion of humanity is morally responsible for.

God is not morally responsible for the Holocaust since he did not intend or will the Holocaust because, for non-voluntarist Christians, at least, God does not cause or will evil.

The evil of the Holocaust was a product of human beings failing to live up to the moral standards of love set by God.

The criticism of God is that God is implicated in the Holocaust because He could have done something but chose not to.

The root of that criticism is that God SHOULD have done something to prevent the Holocaust.

But "SHOULD" implies an obligation.

Why is God under an obligation to prevent the Holocaust. We are, but we are part of the human moral community. God is not part of the human moral community. So why is he under such an obligation.

Beyond that, as you say, we cannot comprehend the totality of reasons for decisions made by God.

Now to say that God is totally incomprehensible is a philosophical category error. We can comprehend God negatively. We may not know fully what God is, but we can comprehend what He is not, i.e., He is not mortal, finite or limited. So we do know some things about God though the via negativa.

 
Who links to me?