DOCSLIB.ORG

GOD, Evolution and the Problem of Evil: Towards a Solution Derek J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GOD, Evolution and the Problem of Evil: Towards a Solution Derek J 1 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White God, Evolution and the problem of Evil: (Towards a Solution) Submitted by Derek John White to The University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Masters by Research in Theology In July 2014 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that material contained in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other university. Signature 2 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to offer a defence for the goodness of the God of the Judeo/Christian Scriptures—in the light of [the Triune] God’s use of an evolutionary process; a process that has predation, pain and death as an essential core of its potential, id est, to give rise to the ‘end purposes (telɒs) of God’. The methodological approach taken in this thesis is one in which the shape of the account is determined by Christian doctrine—the scientific contribution being critically appropriated to that doctrinally shaped account. Under the heading of ‘Changes to the traditional/Biblical view of the attributes of God’ we consider the implications/alternatives espoused by some philosophical theologians. This section of the thesis explores the alternative views of the ‘nature’ and ‘attributes’ of God, id est, the transposition of the God of Scripture with another in the light of the problem of natural evil—that of a creative ‘ground of being’ that is deemed more acceptable to both science and modern philosophical theology. Further to its research objectives the thesis investigates recent evolutionary defences/theodicies offered by several proponents of both scientific enquiry and theological research and reflection. The final part of the thesis offers an eight-step argument for the goodness and justice of God in the light of evolution—an argument that has developed out of the author’s work regarding God, evolution and the [evidential] problem of evil. A major part of the argument centres on the pre-cosmological existence of angels and the rebellion of those considered ‘fallen’. 3 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White The argument offered in this thesis is that such creatures have been at the root of the universal problem of evil (natural and supernatural) since before the ‘birthing’ of the universe and that the problem of evil was dealt a fatal blow through the incarnational work of Christ. A crucial part of the argument in this thesis is the significance of the evolutionary process—as being the only possible means for the development of biological life- forms—a pathway for the incarnation and a means by which God, in Christ, would bring about redemption for the creation and ransom for mankind. 4 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White Contents Part One 1. Introduction to Thesis 1.1 Methodological Considerations 1.2 Good & Evil 1.2.1 Good 1.2.2 Evil 2. Creation & Goodness 2.1 Goodness in the Hebrew Scriptures 2.2 ‘Good’ as opposed to ‘Bad’ 2.3 Goodness and its implications for an Evolutionary Theodicy 2.3.1 Distinctions 3. Changes to the traditional/Biblical view of the attributes of God 3.1 What of GOD? 3.1.1 Constraints on God 3.1.2 A Question of Ontological Veracity 3.1.3 Process Thought and Omnipotence 4. Ideas that further the case for the goodness of God—in the light of an evolutionary consensus 5 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White 4.1 Evolution: God’s Response to Rebellion 4.2 ‘Making Sense of Evolution’ 4.3 ‘Nature Red in Tooth & Claw’ 4.4 ‘The Groaning of Creation’ 4.5 A Barthian Theodicy of Nature 4.6 Against Instrumentalism: Animals and the Fall 4.7 Two Theodicies: Irenaeus & Augustine 5. Precursory Chapter to the Proposed Model Part Two An Eight Step Defence Step 1. It is good for God to create a world containing beauty, diversity and complexity of creatures. Step 2. Such a world can only arise via an evolutionary process, which also necessitates suffering and apparent waste. Step 3. Only such a world is capable of being transformed into the ‘new creation’, in which there need be no more suffering. Step 4. But also, there is evidence that angels exist. Step 5. That Angels may have existed before the creation of this universe Step 6. That it is a good thing that God gave angels freedom: 6.1 Free Will, Angels and Sovereignty Step 7. That angels rebelled and continued to oppose God’s will for humans and the rest of creation: 6 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White 7.1 Fallen Angels 7.2 Rationale for The Fall 7.3 Biospheric Consequences Step 8. That only such a world as this could make possible the incarnation of the divine Son and thereby the defeat of the angels and the implantation of justice through the power of the Cross: 8.1 ‘Only such a world’ 8.2 The Goal of Creation 8.3 The Justice of God 8.4 Beyond Shadowlands Conclusion Bibliography 7 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White Part One 1. Introduction to Thesis The interest for the subject of this thesis emanates from the conviction that the God of the Judeo/Christian Scriptures (The creator of all things ex nihilo) is both Omnipotent and Benevolent; and this in the light of an evolutionary process that is, seemingly, the root cause of suffering—a process that may be described as that through which, “…thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites…” [etc..] (Dawkins 1996, 132) The word benevolence is, as McCabe (2010, 56) reports Aquinas as saying, “…used ‘secundum analogiam’ (according to analogy)…The inferences in the case of God fail because ‘good’ is a contextually dependant word.” Though it is the case that Aquinas thought that evil was, most often, the absence (privation) of positive outcomes; it can be argued, as we do, that to say that God’s benevolence always has to be interpreted as God’s having to bring about ‘good outcomes for whosoever—whether justified outcomes or not is mistaken; this is not to deny God’s right to forgive but God’s right to bring about a just state of affairs. Clearly a theistic view of the creation must attribute some intentionality within the process of natural selection—a process that may be described as ‘purpose- driven’. Evolution in this thesis is taken to be the process through which [God], rather than entirely unguided materialistic processes, has brought about the best possible conditions for the development of life and consciousness—the process through which God will bring about His ultimate goal—at the eschatological climax of God’s creation. 8 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White Dennis Lamoureux (2013) offers an evolutionary theological perspective that he refers to as ‘Evolutionary Creationism’: “Evolutionary creation asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life, including humans, through an ordained, sustained and intelligent design-reflecting evolutionary process.” (42,43) It is from the perspective of a ‘purpose-driven natural process’ that the argument in this thesis is developed. Since the advent of Darwinism—and because of the increasing challenge of Naturalistic Materialism—there is an increasingly urgent need for a fresh approach to the subject of theodicy. As a result of a developing (hostile) narrative the existence of the God of the Bible is in question or simply classified along with ‘fairy story’ narratives—as being blatantly false. The second reason for the undertaking of this research is because of a personal dissatisfaction with theodicies/defences of: i) a traditional genre i.e. ‘Fall’ defences that offer the actions of the man and woman in the ‘Garden of Eden’ as the sole reason for the predation, parasitism and plague experienced by all carbon-based life- forms since the beginning of time—or in this case since the disobedience of the first humans. ii) defences that offer naturalistic explanations, philosophical speculation or dialectical reasoning—without major consideration for what Scripture may teach regarding past and future events. This thesis is concerned with the problem of suffering among sentient creatures of all varieties in the light of evolutionary processes that have been a part of life’s 9 GOD, evolution and the problem of evil: Towards A Solution Derek J. White progression from its genesis. This is not to say that there were would not have been significant ‘effects’ initiated by God after the Fall of mankind as Scripture indicates; neither is it to say that fallen angels have not, do not and will not bring about states of affairs that have increased, do increase and will increase the potential of suffering for sentient life-forms. On the contrary, Scripture makes clear that such causes and effects proceeded from both the fall of angels and of mankind. Moreover, it is the case that mankind itself is responsible for an unfathomable amount of suffering—whether through his moral ineptitude or through his abuse/misuse of God given natural resources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodicy: God's Sovereignty & Human Freedom
    1 The Foundation for Adventist Education Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department – General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists RELIGIOUS FAITHS AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE Lael Caesar, Ph.D. Andrews University 4th Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship Riviera Maya, Estado Quintana Roo, Mexico March 16-22, 2008 2 RELIGIOUS FAITHS AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE Lael Caesar Andrews University Introduction Beyond these introductory remarks, this paper, on the enigma of the existence of evil, proceeds in four stages. Stage One Stage one presents definitions of three terms—‘theodicy’, ‘pain’, and ‘suffering’. Needless to say, agreement on the meanings of these terms allows reader and writer to stand on common ground with regard to their use throughout the paper. Stage Two In stage two, following the definitions, and under the rubric of “Some Religious Perspectives on Pain and Suffering”, the paper reviews a number of faiths, ancient and modern, on their attitude to pain and/or suffering. The review serves to locate the paper’s subsequent arguments on suffering and evil within a global perspective. Stage Three Thereafter, discussion on suffering and evil reflects on a pair of ironies I find of considerable significance for Christian theodicy. Note that this paper offers no exhaustive answer on theodicy [as defined below]. Rather it proposes the sine qua non for beginning any biblically based Christian theodicy. Theodicies in general are doomed to fail to the extent that they give inadequate address to the question of evil’s origins. In Bart Ehrman’s opinion, humanity’s most important question concerns why we suffer.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation As Theodicy: in Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 14 Issue 4 Article 6 10-1-1997 Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil Robert Oakes Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Oakes, Robert (1997) "Creation as Theodicy: In Defense of a Kabbalistic Approach to Evil," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 14 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199714441 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol14/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. CREATION AS THEODICY: IN DEFENSE OF A KABBALISTIC APPROACH TO EVIL Robert Oakes The doctrine of Tzimzum (or divine "withdrawal") occupies pride of place in the Jewish mystical tradition as a response to what is arguably the chief theo­ logical or metaphysical concern of that tradition: namely, how God's Infinity or Absolute Unlimitedness does not preclude the existence of a distinct domain of finite being. Alternatively, how can it be that God, by virtue of His Maximal Plenteousness, does not exhaust the whole of Reality? I attempt to show that, while a plausible argument - one that does not involve the idea of Tzimzum - can be mounted against this "pantheism" problem, the doctrine of Tzimzum has considerable force as the nucleus of a theodicy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Golden Cord
    THE GOLDEN CORD A SHORT BOOK ON THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED ' " ' ..I ~·/ I _,., ' '4 ~ 'V . \ . " ': ,., .:._ C HARLE S TALIAFERR O THE GOLDEN CORD THE GOLDEN CORD A SHORT BOOK ON THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED CHARLES TALIAFERRO University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana Copyright © 2012 by the University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 www.undpress.nd.edu All Rights Reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Taliaferro, Charles. The golden cord : a short book on the secular and the sacred / Charles Taliaferro. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-268-04238-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-268-04238-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. God (Christianity) 2. Life—Religious aspects—Christianity. 3. Self—Religious aspects—Christianity. 4. Redemption—Christianity. 5. Cambridge Platonism. I. Title. BT103.T35 2012 230—dc23 2012037000 ∞ The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. CONTENTS Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 Love in the Physical World 15 CHAPTER 2 Selves and Bodies 41 CHAPTER 3 Some Big Pictures 61 CHAPTER 4 Some Real Appearances 81 CHAPTER 5 Is God Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know? 107 CHAPTER 6 Redemption and Time 131 CHAPTER 7 Eternity in Time 145 CHAPTER 8 Glory and the Hallowing of Domestic Virtue 163 Notes 179 Index 197 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply grateful for the patience, graciousness, support, and encour- agement of the University of Notre Dame Press’s senior editor, Charles Van Hof.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Doubting God's Goodness: Life in a Time of War Rich Nathan May 20
    Doubting God’s Goodness: Life in a Time of War Rich Nathan May 20, 2012 Apologetics: Doubting God Series Ephesians 6:10-12 I recently heard Dr. Greg Boyd, a pastor from Minneapolis, give the following illustration. I’m expanding on it with a huge degree of pastoral liberty. But the basic idea came from Dr. Greg Boyd. Imagine its June 5, 1944. You are living in France and have rented a beach house and you are planning to vacation with your family on the beach at a place called Normandy. You’ve been working hard all year and are looking forward to kicking back, relaxing, drinking good French wine, swimming in the surf with your children, and enjoying the beach for the next month. Well, to your surprise, that night, June 5, 1944, the sounds of planes flying overhead disturb your sleep. Paratroopers start dropping into your yard. And in the morning, before dawn, flotillas of landing craft land on just the spot you’ve planted your beach umbrella. You, of course, are very upset especially after one of the beach invaders breaks your favorite beach chair when he rolls over it with his tank. And then you have to contend with all the shooting and shells that are landing in your yard. You are in the backyard trying to get a little peace as you lie in your hammock. You finally lose your patience and start screaming at everyone, “Stop it! Stop it! I’m on vacation!” Dr. Boyd’s point was that the problem most Christians have and, indeed, most people have with all of the suffering and pain that exists in our world is that we basically believe that life should be like a vacation instead of like a war.
    [Show full text]
  • John Hedley Brooke Interviewed by Paul Merchant C1672/8
    NATIONAL LIFE STORIES ‘Science and Religion: Exploring the Spectrum’ John Hedley Brooke Interviewed by Paul Merchant C1672/8 This transcript is copyright of the British Library Board. Please refer to the Oral History curators at the British Library prior to any publication or broadcast from this document. Oral History The British Library 96 Euston Road NW1 2DB 020 7412 7404 [email protected] IMPORTANT Access to this interview and transcript is for private research only. Please refer to the Oral History curators at the British Library prior to any publication or broadcast from this document. Oral History The British Library 96 Euston Road London NW1 2DB 020 7412 7404 [email protected] Every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this transcript, however no transcript is an exact translation of the spoken word, and this document is intended to be a guide to the original recording, not replace it. Should you find any errors please inform the Oral History curators ([email protected]) The British Library National Life Stories Interview Summary Sheet Title Page Ref no: C1672/08 Collection title: ‘Science and Religion: Exploring the Spectrum’ Life Story Interviews Interviewee’s surname: Hedley Brooke Title: Professor Interviewee’s John Sex: Male forename: Occupation: Historian of science Date and place of birth: 20th May 1944, and religion Retford, Nottinghamshire, UK Mother’s occupation: Father’s occupation: teacher teacher Dates of recording, Compact flash cards used, tracks (from – to): 21/5/15 (track 1-3), 26/06/2015 (track 4-5), 22/09/2015 (track 6-7), 20/10/2015 (track 8-9), 08/12/15 (track 10-11), 02/02/16 (12-14), 26/04/16 (track 15) Location of interview: Interviewees' home, Yealand Conyers near Lancaster and the British Library Name of interviewer: Paul Merchant Type of recorder: Marantz PMD661on compact flash Recording format : audio file 12 WAV 24 bit 48 kHz 2-channel Total no.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Transcript
    Naked Bible Podcast Episode 165: Q&A 22 Naked Bible Podcast Transcript Episode 165 Q&A 22 July 1, 2017 Teacher: Dr. Michael S. Heiser (MH) Host: Trey Stricklin (TS) Dr. Heiser answers your questions related to: Source material showing Jesus’ existence When a believer receives the Spirit of God Balaam’s error related to geography Seventy archangels in Jewish studies Theosis Which events in Genesis 1-11 are literal Whether Adam and Eve pooped Transcript TS: Welcome to the Naked Bible Podcast, Episode 165: our 22nd Q&A. I'm the layman, Trey Stricklin, and he's the scholar, Dr. Michael Heiser. Hey, Mike, how are you doing? MH: Pretty good, pretty good. Been staying busy, as usual. TS: Yeah. I just want to mention that we talked about how we were going to do our voting for the next book that we're going to cover on the podcast on July 1. We've added another interview, so we're actually going to start the voting on July 15th and run it through August 7th. That's when the voting's going to begin on the what the next book we're going to cover will be. MH: That's good. So in other words, I have a little more time to contact the Russians to have them influence the outcome of our vote, correct? TS: No comment on that. (laughter) The Russians or the Vatican, I don't know who you want to reach out to. The aliens? I don't know. MH: The Rosicrucians, the Templars..
    [Show full text]
  • PAUL TILLICH and PROCESS THEOLOGY TYRON INBODY Adrian College, Michigan
    PAUL TILLICH AND PROCESS THEOLOGY TYRON INBODY Adrian College, Michigan HE TEMPORALIZING of the great chain of being has been one of the most Timportant shifts in the modern history of ideas.1 Both Paul Tillich and the process theologians share in this great revolution, the former through the Hegelian tradition, the latter through the impact of modern biology and physics on philosophy. One would imagine more fruitful dialogue between these two traditions than actually existed. The mutual isolation can in part be accounted for on the basis of the European background of Tillich as opposed to the British-American background of the process tradition. The differences, however, are primarily and genuinely philosophical and religious. Our purpose in what follows is to trace the discussion that did occur, isolate the fundamental issues, and question whether the issues can be resolved. AREAS OF AGREEMENT There are many areas of agreement, theologically and philosophically, between Tillich and the process theologians. First, both criticize their understanding of classical theism in favor of a more philosophically and religiously adequate doctrine of God. Theism is inadequate either because it makes God one being alongside other beings (Tillich) or because it entails static perfectionism (Hartshorne). In agreement with classical theism, but each in his own way, both maintain there is an infinite distinction between God and creatures, Hartshorne in the sense that there is a literally infinite gap between a finite-infinite individual and a merely finite individual,2 Tillich in the sense that God is beyond all finite distinctions. Furthermore, the element of mystery remains in the doctrine of God for each man, for Tillich in terms of the abysmal character of God, for Hartshorne in terms of God's concrete character (namely, why He should be my God now).
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction, Natural Evil, and the Cosmic Cross
    Evolutionary Theodicy with Denis Edwards, “Christopher Southgate’s Compound Theodicy: Parallel Searchings”; Ted Peters, “Extinction, Natural Evil, and the Cosmic Cross”; Robert John Russell, “Southgate’s Compound Only-Way Evolutionary Theodicy: Deep Appreciation and Further Directions”; Bethany Sollereder, “Exploring Old and New Paths in Theodicy”; Holmes Rolston, III, “Redeeming a Cruciform Nature”; Ernst M. Conradie, “On Social Evil and Natural Evil: In Conversation with Christopher Southgate”; Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp, “Evolution, Contingency, and Christology”; John F. Haught, “Faith and Compassion in an Unfinished Universe”; Celia Deane-Drummond, “Perceiving Natural Evil through the Lens of Divine Glory? A Conversation with Christopher Southgate”; Nicola Hoggard Creegan, “Theodicy: A Response to Christopher Southgate”; and Neil Messer, “Evolution and Theodicy: How (Not) to Do Science and Theology.” EXTINCTION, NATURAL EVIL, AND THE COSMIC CROSS by Ted Peters Abstract. Did the God of the Bible create a Darwinian world in which violence and suffering (disvalue) are the means by which the good (value) is realized? This is Christopher Southgate’s insightful and dramatic formulation of the theodicy problem. In addressing this problem, the Exeter theologian rightly invokes the Theology of the Cross in its second manifestation, that is, we learn from the cross of Jesus Christ that God is present to nonhuman as well as human victims of predation and extinction. God co-suffers with creatures in their despair, abandonment, physical suffering, and death. What I will add with more force than Southgate is this: the Easter resurrection is a prolepsis of the eschatological new creation, and it is God’s new creation which retroactively determines past creation.
    [Show full text]
  • Download ##Common.Downloadpdf
    Glocal Conversations Vol 9 (1) May 2021 http://gc.uofn.edu A Cross Vision of G. Boyd’s Cross Vision Paul Miller Email: [email protected] Abstract This paper critiques Greg Boyd’s Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence. The paper commends Boyd’s recognition that the God of the Bible prefers to extend grace and life instead of judgment and death, but addresses Boyd’s woefully inadequate hermeneutic—a hermeneutic based on a radically minimized concept of “revelation.” The paper addresses three basic concerns with Boyd’s approach: first, how Boyd’s hermeneutic fatally undermines the very concept of “inspired revelation”; second, that Boyd’s hermeneutic of “Christ crucified” is accurate but woefully incomplete; and third, that Boyd’s hermeneutic in continually contradicting major biblical themes is fatally hostile to Scripture. Key Words: Greg Boyd, Cross Vision, biblical inspiration, inerrancy, hermeneutics, progressive revelation, atonement, penal substitution ******* No shrinking violet, Boyd’s Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence tackles what he calls “the elephant in the room”: that is, trumpeting confidently the “God of love” on the one hand while holding to God as portrayed in the Old Testament (OT) on the other. Boyd argues that the OT presents “some portraits of God … [that] are, quite frankly, really ugly! How else can you honestly describe a depiction of God, for example, ordering his people to mercilessly annihilate every member of the Midianites except for the virgin girls…?”1 And how does this OT picture harmonize with the New Testament Jesus, who came to self- sacrificially give his life for sinners rather than to take their lives? The answer, according to Boyd, is that it doesn’t.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil S2
    Theodicy Episode 190 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL S2 I. KEY THOUGHTS S3 1. The existence of evil is the greatest challenge for theism. S4 1. “There is little doubt that the problem of evil is the most serious intellectual difficulty for theism.” Stephen Davis, Encountering Evil (Knox Press, 1981), 2 THE PROBLEM S5 IF God is all-knowing, THEN he must know about evil IF God is all-loving, THEN he must want to abolish evil IF God is all-powerful, THEN he must be able to abolish evil BUT evil exists THEREFORE God is not all-loving & not all-powerful OR God does not exist THE SOLUTION S6 Theodicy èåïò (theos) God äéêç (dikç) justice DEF: arguments justifying the existence of evil in a world created by an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God 2. ALL theodicies include the notion of “Greater Good” S7 God allows evil because it serves an ultimate purpose in bringing overall good into the world º EG selling of Joseph by his brothers he ends up in Egypt & his family is saved from famine S8 2. “You [his brothers] intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” Gen 50:20 3. Christian Theodicies have been intimately connected to Gen 3 & the Fall S9 K especially the COSMIC FALL Protestant Reformer John Calvin S10 3. “The earth was cursed on account of Adam [Gen 3:18] ... the whole order of nature was subverted by the sin of man ... Moses does not enumerate all the disadvantages in which man, by sin, has involved himself; for it appears that all the evils of the present life, which experience proves to be innumerable, have proceeded from the same fountain.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to Adams in the Augustinian Tradition
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 19 Issue 1 Article 6 1-1-2002 The Abolition of Sin: A Response to Adams in the Augustinian Tradition Katherin A. Rogers Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Rogers, Katherin A. (2002) "The Abolition of Sin: A Response to Adams in the Augustinian Tradition," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 19 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol19/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. THE ABOLITION OF SIN: A RESPONSE TO ADAMS IN THE AUGUSTINIAN TRADITION Ka therin A. Rogers Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas located the source of human misery in sin, freely choosing against God. Sin is permitted by God because the dig­ nity of the human creature requires that it be able to make free choices and live with their consequences. In Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God, Marilyn Adams critiques this view and offers an alternative explanation. I argue that Adams's criticisms do not connect with the traditional view and her proposed alternative entails conclusions which Christians should find insupportable, including the abolition of sin and the view that God is not good in any meaningful sense.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Relational Ontology Wesley J
    An Introduction to Relational Ontology Wesley J. Wildman, Boston University, May 15, 2006 There is a lot of talk these days about relational ontology. It appears in theology, philosophy, psychology, political theory, educational theory, and even information science. The basic contention of a relational ontology is simply that the relations between entities are ontologically more fundamental than the entities themselves. This contrasts with substantivist ontology in which entities are ontologically primary and relations ontologically derivative. Unfortunately, there is persistent confusion in almost all literature about relational ontology because the key idea of relation remains unclear. Once we know what relations are, and indeed what entities are, we can responsibly decide what we must mean, or what we can meaningfully intend to mean, by the phrase “relational ontology.” Why Do Philosophers Puzzle over Relations? Relations are an everyday part of life that most people take for granted. We are related to other people and to the world around us, to our political leaders and our economic systems, to our children and to ourselves. There are logical, emotional, physical, mechanical, technological, cultural, moral, sexual, aesthetic, logical, and imaginary relations, to name a few. There is no particular problem with any of this for most people. Philosophers have been perpetually puzzled about relations, however, and they have tried to understand them theoretically and systematically. Convincing philosophical theories of relations have proved extraordinarily difficult to construct for several reasons. First, the sheer variety of relations seems to make the category of “relation” intractable. Philosophers have often tried to use simple cases as guides to more complex situations but how precisely can this method work in the case of relations? Which relations are simple or basic, and which complex or derivative? If we suppose that the simplest relations are those analyzable in physics, we come across a second problem.
    [Show full text]