Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



4/09/2018 3:26 pm  #1


Alternatives to Benevolent Theism and Atheism

I would like to introduce to this forum two innovative theistic frameworks, curious as to what it makes of them. As per their self-evaluation, these two systems cut through theistic debates between the largely domineering groups of Benevolent Theists* and Atheists, offering novel alternatives for appreciating the nature of the Creator. 

1) Ananthropocentric Theism, as discussed by Tim Mulgan in his Purpose in the Universe (2015). Mulgan utilizes the, to his evaluation, best arguments from both aforementioned camps such as PSR, objective-moral, and cosmological arguments, as well as POE and issues of scale and religious diversity, and argues for a fundamental purposive force that is indifferent to human concerns. For a neat summary as well as some evaluations, see the review of the book in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews by Joshua W. Seachris.

2) Omnimalevolent Theism as discussed by John Zande in The Owner of all Infernal Names (2015) and The Problem of Good (2017). He concedes the strength of PSR, teleological and design arguments but insists that the POE, specifically the ever-presence, ever-expansiveness and constantly coplexifying nature of suffering which quantifiably dwarfs pleasurable sensations taken as a whole, as well as the, to his imagination, incoherence of typical Christian theodicies, the Fall, soul-making, free-will etc., suggest a Creator that wills suffering, and whose creation, given his motives of continually maximizing ill, is free of errands or blunders, as God's perfect nature would, in Zande's mind, demand. In his synthesis, the presence of 'good', i.e. pleasure, compassion, empathy, solicitude, gentleness, generosity, nurturing, and self-sacrifice, is compatible with the existence of an omnimalevolent Creator because it ultimately encourages life's propagation, and consequently the continued expansion and complexification of suffering. This is a considerably more poetic, somewhat parodic, and less analytic framework mind you, though I still think it packs a punch, not least because of its wide scientific references. It should also mostly concern religious theistic notions rather than purely philosophical ones, so I would be very curious as to the evaluation of Zande's arguments by proponents of the latter. For those unwilling to look into the books themselves, his article Delicious Excrement available over at academia . edu could prove a useful introduction. Also, one could look into the discussion had by Zande and Kristor over at the Orthosphere in the article The Trouble with Atheists

What do you make of the perspectives offered here? Anyone know of other alternatives? 



* those who believe that God encompasses the Good and/or wills the Good for humans (and sentient life more generally)

 

4/09/2018 3:49 pm  #2


Re: Alternatives to Benevolent Theism and Atheism

I think it's ridiculous and will never get traction, and is mostly a way in which aspiring thinkers can try to be "innovative" or garner interest and notoriety by being provocative or defending new theses which are frankly just stupid. If you can't come up with anything true and new, then might as well come up with new absurd or ridiculous ideas to at least get your name out there.

"omnimalevolent theism" itself is the stupidest of all. And, obviously, wouldn't even make any sense whatsoever under the thomistic understanding of the good.

The suggestion that God doesn't care about humans is also pretty bad, because that wouldn't make sense with 1) the fact that God directly creates human souls; we were given a rational human soul directly by God, and why would He do this or give us such a perfection if he has no interest whatever for humans?; 2) it is a worse explanation for creation, especially when we consider that the universe didn't even need to have humans in the first place and God doesn't have to sustain intelligent life (gets even worse when we include fine tuning arguments, too); 3) religious experience suggests that God interacts with humans and is a loving figure; 4) it would be incompatible with God's perfect goodness and intelligence, as it is an objective fact that rational beings are good and should be cared for. Of course one could contest that but I'd find it extremely implausible; 5) it would be incompatible with arguments from moral experience which point to duties and obligations towards our fellow men; 6) overall it would just be completely incompatible with the nature of a perfect Subsistent Being.

The problems these issues bring to non-benevolent theism, and especially in comparison with how theism explains them, is way more severe than anything the problem of evil brings against theism (and religious pluralism, really????)

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum