Love this post! I agree that “soul binding” sounds cool. Thanks for taking the time to consider various theodicies. I definitely think the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming in spite of evil. For all the evil, there is much more beauty. If children being brutally killed is evil, that’s only because the children had glory and beauty worth preserving. Before we try to solve evil, let’s make sure we’ve really reckoned with the good. Matthew exists, and Matthew is beautiful. If Matthew isn’t enough for you to know that a God of love and power exists, then a theodicy probably won’t help you.
"If children being brutally killed is evil, that’s only because the children had glory and beauty worth preserving." Depending on one's theology, though, that would seem to conflict both with God's killing or ordering the killing of children, and with God's deeming them worthy of infinite punishment in Hell by default.
Hi Shilloh! Thanks for your reply. Yes, infinite punishment would be extreme. I don't think that eternal conscious torment is well-supported in the Bible. The view of the afterlife repeated more than 100 times in the Bible is life vs. death, not heaven vs. hell. As for God ordering the killing of children, I can see how that offends a loving person. I probably don't have an answer that will satisfy you. But here's what I know: God is love, and no one loves more than God. He's the best. And he loves your loving heart.
Would you say that understanding that God is love requires an experience or knowledge outside of what the Bible provides? The Bible itself usually seems clear in describing God’s motivation for killing or punishing people. If that motivation doesn’t seem consistent intuitively with the concept of an all-loving God, how do we know that it’s our intuitions that are wrong?
If someone reads the parts of the Bible where God kills people, they are more likely to think, "God is scary", than "God is love." You asked, "How do we know that it's our intuitions that are wrong?" Well, human history and current events give us a strong reason to be suspicious of our intuitions. It is clear that collectively, we have a cruelty and brutality problem. You asked, "Does the understanding that God is love require an experience or knowledge outside of what the Bible provides?" Yes and no. I think you can understand that God is love when you read what the Bible says about God coming in the flesh, suffering at our hands, and dying to save us. But many read this story and it makes no sense. So I think there must be something God does to open our eyes to comprehend how a bloody death on a cross is a revelation of his love.
Can we know that that’s a problem with our intuitions, though? It seems as if someone could as easily say that it’s God who has a cruelty and brutality problem and humans are the ones who are misunderstood. If justifying God requires that we abandon or venture far outside our intuitions, how do we know what “love” or goodness are in the first place?
You said, "It seems as if someone could as easily say that it's God who has a cruelty and brutality problem and humans are the ones who are misunderstood."
Misunderstood? There are humans killing each other all over the world in horrifically brutal ways, and raping each other, and slandering each other, abusing each other, hating each other, cheating each other. Even our greatest heroes also turn out to be corrupt in some way. Examples: Ghandi was racist and slept naked in a bed with adolescent girls, MLK was cheating on his wife, the founding fathers in the U.S. were slave holders, and the list goes on. Those who think they are above corruption often fall into it. Mao was trying to help his people have a better life, but ended up becoming brutal and cruel. I'd say we don't just have a problem with our intuitions- we have a problem with our actions. I'm not saying we should abandon our moral intuitions. Our moral intuitions can lead us to make the world a better place (if we follow them and don't succumb to deception and temptation). If God is the one with the morality problem then all hope is lost. If God is cruel and brutal, you are absolutely screwed and so am I. But the way I've experienced life doesn't lead me to believe God is cruel and brutal. All the cruelty and brutality I've experienced has been at the hands of humans. You asked, "If justifying God requires that we abandon or venture far outside our intuitions, how do we know what "love" or goodness are in the first place?" It's a good question. Shilloh, how do you know what love and goodness are? Maybe we can start there.
Even the most free and unencumbered person though is still only free to do what they want to do (they can change their wants to varying degrees with effort, but first they have to want to do so (and so on)). If someone finds themself in God’s presence and decides they’d rather die instead, on what basis would they make that choice other than an existing aversion to or dislike for God? It would be similar to a case in which two people order the same meal at a restaurant but one of them finds it so disgusting they can’t finish it — it isn’t clear that either of them is more free than the other, but one of them seems to be much less lucky.
I think one of the biggest problems for theism is animal suffering, both human-inflicted and especially that inflicted by evolution. Evolution is just such a horrible, nasty and drawn-out way to create a sentient species if you are literally an omnipotent God who could create humanity with a snap of your fingers. Would love to see some argumentation about that specifically. If you wrote about this in previous posts, sorry, going to read those now.
"The soul-binding theodicy combined with plausible views about population ethics entails God would create every soul and make them into flourishing agents with valuable experiences who can learn things"
But only on the potentially circularity-producing premise that only humans have (are?) these things called "souls", right? Otherwise we might see that God has created lots and lots of short-lived insect souls, which apparently aren't flourishing agents, can't have very valuable experiences, and can't learn much.
What’s your credence in the existence of some Godlike being that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent?
I ask this because the language of your article on Harmony is quite strong save for the problem of evil. In this article you say that Evil is bad for theists, but use weaker language. It seems like you should have a fairly credence?
Love this post! I agree that “soul binding” sounds cool. Thanks for taking the time to consider various theodicies. I definitely think the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming in spite of evil. For all the evil, there is much more beauty. If children being brutally killed is evil, that’s only because the children had glory and beauty worth preserving. Before we try to solve evil, let’s make sure we’ve really reckoned with the good. Matthew exists, and Matthew is beautiful. If Matthew isn’t enough for you to know that a God of love and power exists, then a theodicy probably won’t help you.
"If children being brutally killed is evil, that’s only because the children had glory and beauty worth preserving." Depending on one's theology, though, that would seem to conflict both with God's killing or ordering the killing of children, and with God's deeming them worthy of infinite punishment in Hell by default.
Hi Shilloh! Thanks for your reply. Yes, infinite punishment would be extreme. I don't think that eternal conscious torment is well-supported in the Bible. The view of the afterlife repeated more than 100 times in the Bible is life vs. death, not heaven vs. hell. As for God ordering the killing of children, I can see how that offends a loving person. I probably don't have an answer that will satisfy you. But here's what I know: God is love, and no one loves more than God. He's the best. And he loves your loving heart.
Would you say that understanding that God is love requires an experience or knowledge outside of what the Bible provides? The Bible itself usually seems clear in describing God’s motivation for killing or punishing people. If that motivation doesn’t seem consistent intuitively with the concept of an all-loving God, how do we know that it’s our intuitions that are wrong?
If someone reads the parts of the Bible where God kills people, they are more likely to think, "God is scary", than "God is love." You asked, "How do we know that it's our intuitions that are wrong?" Well, human history and current events give us a strong reason to be suspicious of our intuitions. It is clear that collectively, we have a cruelty and brutality problem. You asked, "Does the understanding that God is love require an experience or knowledge outside of what the Bible provides?" Yes and no. I think you can understand that God is love when you read what the Bible says about God coming in the flesh, suffering at our hands, and dying to save us. But many read this story and it makes no sense. So I think there must be something God does to open our eyes to comprehend how a bloody death on a cross is a revelation of his love.
Can we know that that’s a problem with our intuitions, though? It seems as if someone could as easily say that it’s God who has a cruelty and brutality problem and humans are the ones who are misunderstood. If justifying God requires that we abandon or venture far outside our intuitions, how do we know what “love” or goodness are in the first place?
You said, "It seems as if someone could as easily say that it's God who has a cruelty and brutality problem and humans are the ones who are misunderstood."
Misunderstood? There are humans killing each other all over the world in horrifically brutal ways, and raping each other, and slandering each other, abusing each other, hating each other, cheating each other. Even our greatest heroes also turn out to be corrupt in some way. Examples: Ghandi was racist and slept naked in a bed with adolescent girls, MLK was cheating on his wife, the founding fathers in the U.S. were slave holders, and the list goes on. Those who think they are above corruption often fall into it. Mao was trying to help his people have a better life, but ended up becoming brutal and cruel. I'd say we don't just have a problem with our intuitions- we have a problem with our actions. I'm not saying we should abandon our moral intuitions. Our moral intuitions can lead us to make the world a better place (if we follow them and don't succumb to deception and temptation). If God is the one with the morality problem then all hope is lost. If God is cruel and brutal, you are absolutely screwed and so am I. But the way I've experienced life doesn't lead me to believe God is cruel and brutal. All the cruelty and brutality I've experienced has been at the hands of humans. You asked, "If justifying God requires that we abandon or venture far outside our intuitions, how do we know what "love" or goodness are in the first place?" It's a good question. Shilloh, how do you know what love and goodness are? Maybe we can start there.
Even the most free and unencumbered person though is still only free to do what they want to do (they can change their wants to varying degrees with effort, but first they have to want to do so (and so on)). If someone finds themself in God’s presence and decides they’d rather die instead, on what basis would they make that choice other than an existing aversion to or dislike for God? It would be similar to a case in which two people order the same meal at a restaurant but one of them finds it so disgusting they can’t finish it — it isn’t clear that either of them is more free than the other, but one of them seems to be much less lucky.
I think one of the biggest problems for theism is animal suffering, both human-inflicted and especially that inflicted by evolution. Evolution is just such a horrible, nasty and drawn-out way to create a sentient species if you are literally an omnipotent God who could create humanity with a snap of your fingers. Would love to see some argumentation about that specifically. If you wrote about this in previous posts, sorry, going to read those now.
"The soul-binding theodicy combined with plausible views about population ethics entails God would create every soul and make them into flourishing agents with valuable experiences who can learn things"
But only on the potentially circularity-producing premise that only humans have (are?) these things called "souls", right? Otherwise we might see that God has created lots and lots of short-lived insect souls, which apparently aren't flourishing agents, can't have very valuable experiences, and can't learn much.
What’s your credence in the existence of some Godlike being that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent?
I ask this because the language of your article on Harmony is quite strong save for the problem of evil. In this article you say that Evil is bad for theists, but use weaker language. It seems like you should have a fairly credence?
And thanks for writing!
5%