Atheism Anti-Theodicy And Praxis (PhD Edit)

To contact us Click HERE

Wales coast via trekearth

Glasgow from trekearth

King's College, Cambridge from trekearth

Dublin via trekearth

Why an Atheistic Anti-Theodicy is not Includedin the Thesis
One,my sample[1] has to be a certain group, and my advisors for both my MPhil[2]and PhD[3] work determined it must be persons within the ChristianChurch.  Therefore, sampling atheistswould need to be necessarily excluded and I would not review as a primary philosophicalpresentation a perspective that could not provide me with an empiricalsampling.[4]  
Two,there are key atheistic presentations within the work.[5]  The problem of evil itself is largely acritical and sometimes an atheistic criticism of theism and Christianity.[6]  This can be seen as the problem, as framedwithin the initial pages of the introduction,  and with the atheistic objections of Flew andMackie,[7] as well as with the argument for gratuitous evil from William Rowe,[8] andwith critics of John Hick’s theodicy.[9]  Atheism and an overall critical view ofChristianity, from traditional and progressive perspectives, will be examinedwithin this work,[10]but the sample group is those that attend Christian Churches.  Therefore, it was deemed not necessary or appropriatewithin the context of this thesis to review an atheistic position againsttheodicy as there are plenty of critical and atheistic citations and critiqueswithin my work, and far more importantly I would not be able to sample thosethat represent noted positions as they are not within the Christian Church.  This work is not seeking to place God in thedocks or primarily to take God out of the docks.[11]
Ishould point out that the majority of scholars cited within this thesis do not agree with my Reformedsovereignty theodicy.  CertainlyFeinberg’s view is similar as would be John Calvin’s[12]but Hick’s would be radically different,[13]and I would not likely receive support from the empirical theologiansdiscussed.[14]  I am also citing many atheists and critics oftraditional Christian views that would not agree with my perspectives.[15]  I havenot attempted to write a thesis where I face little opposition, as on thecontrary, even many of the traditional Christians cited would oppose myReformed sovereignty perspective, such as Plantinga and incompatibilists.[16]  I also have included many positions criticalof my own, such as non-traditional views on omnipotence that follows and theviews of Immanuel Kant concerning religious dogma and belief.[17]   WithinChapter Three where I discuss Reformed methodology, I also discuss differentnon-Reformed perspectives.  As shall bediscussed in Chapter Five, many of the questionnaire respondents do not agreewith my theodicy on key points.[18] 
Critical/Atheistic Praxis
This material was previously posted onSatire And Theology, October 22, 2009 but this works well with the other atheism sectionand so I present together.
Thethree approaches all take an ultimately positive view towards reality and thatGod would eventually succeed in his purposes.[19]  These three theodicy view evil as part of theend goal praxis of bringing about a greater good and justifying God, hisperfect goodness and plans in the end. C. Robert Mesle has noted these types of views that use greater goodarguments make God the author of evil and make evil less than genuine.[20]  As noted, atheist William Rowe states thatnot all evil can be used for the greater good and certainly some must begratuitous.[21]   The greater good argument can always bechallenged with good counter-arguments,[22]and although I disagree with the concept of gratuitous evil, I accept Rowe’spoint that some evil is inscrutable,[23]which is evil that cannot be understood reasonably well by human beings[24]  An atheistic[25]praxis concerning the problem of evil could be that life has no deeper meaningor purpose beyond physical death,[26]and that all persons suffer and die with no further meaning to life.[27]  Science does not offer humanity an enddirected goal of continued life.[28]  As noted earlier in this work, Darrow writesthe best one can do is basically cling to life on earth as we head toward ‘acommon doom.’[29]  An atheistic praxis coming from this type ofview could be criticized as negative,[30]but science cannot be primarily sought for support of theodicy,[31]and theodicy should be based on solid religious and philosophicalreasoning.  In the case of free will andsovereignty perspectives, there is a heavy reliance on Scriptural revelationwhich is based in history.[32]  Hick’s view has an understanding that Godcould begin to be understood to some degree in metaphorical terms through thewritings of a variety of religious traditions.[33]  He takes a Kantian understanding[34]  that God could not be affirmed as an actual orpossible concept,[35]although God can be assumed as possible.[36]  Hick takes this idea of Kant’s and deducesthat when it comes to religious doctrine the noumena realm that relates to thephenomena realm may have little in common with resulting phenomena.[37]
Certainly,an idea behind the writing of this thesis has been to make it clear that blindfaith fueled theodicy is not intellectually acceptable.[38]  Theodicy should be based on research andreason using and considering a variety of perspectives.[39]  I reason this thesis has demonstrated asupport for a reasonable Reformed theodicy and examined its strengths andweaknesses, as well as objectively reviewing other perspectives.

---

[1] The segment of apopulation selected for research. Bryman (2004: 543).  Therefore in this context, it is the group ofpeople I chose to survey.  The materialwithin my thesis is directly relevant to people within this population segment.[2] For my MPhilthesis sample, it was Bible school and seminary students within the ChristianChurch.[3] For my PhD thesissample,  it was those that attendculturally Christian churches.[4] By the samereasoning I also would not sample agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etcetera.[5] D.Z. Phillips andhis, in a sense anti-theodicy, are quoted throughout this thesis.[6] Epicurus (341-270B.C.)(1949: 80).[7] In regard toPlantinga, in Chapter Two.[8] Chapter Four.[9] Chapter Four.  [10] Any criticalevaluation of the problem of evil would include atheistic critiques evaluatingtheism.[11] Doubtless manycritics of theism and Christianity do place God in the docks and so a work shoulddeal with these concepts.  [12] Although Calvin didnot write a theodicy, his views on free will and determinism are similar tomine as will be documented throughout the thesis.[13] Hick’s theodicy isa non-traditional approach as he freely admits and I document in Chapter Four.[14] It will be seen inChapter Five that Reformed and Calvinist views of God’s retribution andpunishment for humanity are not strongly emphasized and supported.  The overall presentation of the Dutchempiricists is Christian, but not Reformed.[15] Frankly, a thesisminus serious critiques of theism and Reformed Christianity would not only beuntenable in a secular PhD context, but also a Christian one as well.[16] This will bediscussed in Chapters Two and Three.[17] Within ChapterFour.[18] Please see questionnaireresults in Chapter Five, and the graphs in Appendix.[19] A positive view ofultimate reality has been well challenged by those such as Phillips, Roth andDarrow within this work.  Phillips (2005:247).  Roth (1981: 19).  Darrow (1932)(1973: 453).  An intellectual problem being that free will,sovereignty and soul-making perspectives are all very speculative and statethat eventually reality will be different and far better than it obviously isnow empirically.  Tennant, contrary toHick, reasons with his evolutionary view of theodicy that evil might always exist.  Tennant (1930)(1956: 195).   Hick(1970: 252-253).[20] Mesle (1986: 418).[21] Rowe (1990: 1-3).[22] Rowe (1990: 1-3).  Mesle (1986: 418).[23] Rowe (1990: 3).[24] Rowe (1990: 3).  Philosophically certain evils and sufferingsare inscrutable as Rowe states, but they can still treated with appropriatepastoral care.  [25] And certain deistic and agnostic praxis aswell.                                                                           [26] Darrow (1928)(1973:266).[27] Darrow(1932)(1973: 453). [28] Darrow(1932)(1973: 453). [29] Darrow (1932)(1973: 453). [30] Phillips (2005:247).  [31] I will not supporta theodicy that is clearly against science, although I reason that metaphysicaltheodicy approaches are not scientific.[32] This has beendiscussed previously within Chapter Three and is a major reason I supportsovereignty theodicy as an overall approach.[33] Hick (1993: 126).  [34] Kant(1788)(1898)(2006: 1).  As discussedwithin Chapter Four. [35] Kant(1788)(1898)(2006: 1).  [36] Kant (1788)(1898)(2006: 1).  Guyer and Wood in Kant (1781)(1787)(1998:14).[37] Hick in Geivett (1993: 230).  [38] That type ofapproach does not reasonably answer the objections and problems of those withinand outside of the Church.[39] As with thisthesis and with my MPhil thesis, although I favour a Reformed approach, I doexamine other Christian and secular perspectives.
BRYMAN, ALAN(2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated byHenry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, WheatonCollege.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies,Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth ofthe Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds),A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
DARROW, CLARENCE(1932)(1973) ‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction ToPhilosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL(1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited byPaul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, TheFontana Library.
HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Presentand Future Life’, Harvard TheologicalReview, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.
HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis(ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993)‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Eviland the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate,Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press.
HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville,Kentucky, John Knox Press.
HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Lifeafter Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critiqueof Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason,Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translatedby Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason,Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials inTheodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George diGiovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT(1986) ‘The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy’, in The Journal of Religion, Volume 66,Number 4, pp. 412-430.October, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
MESLE, C. ROBERT(1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, NewYork, St. Martin’s Press.
MESLE, C. ROBERT(2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do TheodiciesDo?’, in American Journal of Theology& Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September.  Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) EncounteringEvil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God,Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy ofWilliam James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),Atlanta, John Knox Press.
TENNANT, F.R.(1906) The Origin and Propagation of Sin, Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress. 

TENNANT, F.R.(1930)(1956) Philosophical Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Poor Chucky. We just about shattered my ice tea mug, the blue object I move.

Working with the Swiss Army Knife retracted.
Aluminum bat-Uncle Chuck eventually receives a little bat to back the head...
These videos had a very difficult time loading.

A stick for striking and as spear...