Well, the strategy that Matheson follows is one I am hearing more often: it offers a geneaology of theology which focuses on the Enlightenment and its abstraction of classical theism and claims that this is the entry point for a non-Christian doctrine of God - the 'God of the philosophers'. This is a cool way of side-stepping much modern and post-modern atheism which (it is claimed) attacks the philosopher's god and not the God who is Father, Son and HS. So, a good response to Matheson would focus on whether this is in fact the case: certainly, the free-will defence does not begin at the Englightenment. Something like it was offered by Augustine, famously. Do these absractions necessarily lead to a deistic, non-Christian god incompatible with Scripture and the creeds?
I must admit I'm a little surprised to see my lecture script reprinted on the Sydneyanglicans website!!! I feel kind of exposed - yikes.
By the way, I'm not willing to say - nor do i in the lecture - that the free will defense is a failure. On the contrary, it looks for all the world like it or something like it would succeed in disarming the objection that there is a logical contradiction between belief in evil and belief in God.
The point is: so evil isn't really a big deal? It's continued existence doesn't tarnish God's name? Of coures it is; of course it does. And this is why Christ is God's "theodicy" - it is in Christ that God's justice is enacted/revealed/vindicated...
So, yes, there is a problem of evil apart from the Enlightenment context and its abstracted theism; the historicising of the debate doesn't do all the work. But it does help to bring into relief some of the questionable assumptions made by many modern (i.e. post-Leibnizian) theodicies, and hopefully clears the way for the reconstruction of a more orthodox theological understand of the problem. That's the idea, anyway.
Well, actually, that to me is your brilliant point, adapted from the irascible Marilyn McCord Adams: evil is somewhat more than a bump on the knee. Evil, is like, you know, really BAD.
In Christology, am hoping for a more than Moltmannian theodicy: all we get from him is 'hey, you know, God suffers TOO, so it's ok everybody!' I think your more Wrightian account of 'evil and the victory of God' is far more convincing. Who needs solidarity? We need saving for heaven's sake!
Right on. I think i'm with you on Moltmann... Suffering God only takes you so far. But it does take you somewhere remarkable nonetheless, and there need not be an either/or here. So I'm not ready to junk it just yet!
Yes Byron, I can. I'm pretty sure the drink in my hand is neither red wine nor beer (although it is true that generally speaking I do prefer red wine over beer). It's a Magners Irish Cider, which I often ordered when we met at the Anchor. Only in the UK can one drink cider and retain one's respectability.
Now this is what I call high quality blog commentary!
9 comments:
So - is the free-will defence a failure?
Well, the strategy that Matheson follows is one I am hearing more often: it offers a geneaology of theology which focuses on the Enlightenment and its abstraction of classical theism and claims that this is the entry point for a non-Christian doctrine of God - the 'God of the philosophers'. This is a cool way of side-stepping much modern and post-modern atheism which (it is claimed) attacks the philosopher's god and not the God who is Father, Son and HS. So, a good response to Matheson would focus on whether this is in fact the case: certainly, the free-will defence does not begin at the Englightenment. Something like it was offered by Augustine, famously. Do these absractions necessarily lead to a deistic, non-Christian god incompatible with Scripture and the creeds?
I must admit I'm a little surprised to see my lecture script reprinted on the Sydneyanglicans website!!! I feel kind of exposed - yikes.
By the way, I'm not willing to say - nor do i in the lecture - that the free will defense is a failure. On the contrary, it looks for all the world like it or something like it would succeed in disarming the objection that there is a logical contradiction between belief in evil and belief in God.
The point is: so evil isn't really a big deal? It's continued existence doesn't tarnish God's name? Of coures it is; of course it does. And this is why Christ is God's "theodicy" - it is in Christ that God's justice is enacted/revealed/vindicated...
So, yes, there is a problem of evil apart from the Enlightenment context and its abstracted theism; the historicising of the debate doesn't do all the work. But it does help to bring into relief some of the questionable assumptions made by many modern (i.e. post-Leibnizian) theodicies, and hopefully clears the way for the reconstruction of a more orthodox theological understand of the problem. That's the idea, anyway.
Or is this also a fadish notion, hey? ;)
Well, actually, that to me is your brilliant point, adapted from the irascible Marilyn McCord Adams: evil is somewhat more than a bump on the knee. Evil, is like, you know, really BAD.
In Christology, am hoping for a more than Moltmannian theodicy: all we get from him is 'hey, you know, God suffers TOO, so it's ok everybody!' I think your more Wrightian account of 'evil and the victory of God' is far more convincing. Who needs solidarity? We need saving for heaven's sake!
Right on. I think i'm with you on Moltmann... Suffering God only takes you so far. But it does take you somewhere remarkable nonetheless, and there need not be an either/or here. So I'm not ready to junk it just yet!
I liked the article, but there's definitely something wrong with the red wine. ;-)
Well, the wine is obscured by someone's pint.
Matheson NEVER drinks beer. Only the house red.
A classic case of reading what you expect to find?
Matheson, can you arbitrate?
Yes Byron, I can. I'm pretty sure the drink in my hand is neither red wine nor beer (although it is true that generally speaking I do prefer red wine over beer). It's a Magners Irish Cider, which I often ordered when we met at the Anchor. Only in the UK can one drink cider and retain one's respectability.
Now this is what I call high quality blog commentary!
Post a Comment