iwpoe, I agree God could not be considered indifferent since that would contradict His Nature but I do think that at times it would “seem” that He is being indifferent to us. What people are presupposing in an “indifferent” God is some kind of relationship with Him. 

iwpoe wrote:

Indifference and lack of care, if they are meaningful at all, are going to amount to some kind of deficiency of power in God. This is essentially impossible. Consider the idea of indifference: God cannot become distracted, preoccupied, or, indeed, cease to be in total relationship to everything.

 Yeah I agree it would be impossible but in an anthropomorphic sense the indifference could be attributed to our own limited understanding. As an example when I was a teenager whenever my dad would discipline me (yes I am of that generation when this was very common) I felt that he was being indifferent to me rather than seeing the long term benefits of it. Looking back at it now and knowing how much he loves me I feel that it was the best thing he could do for me at that time. I think the same is with God, at times we might feel that He is being indifferent (by not answering our prayers or staying silent for example) but in the long run it might have some great benefits that we are not seeing right now.

I think what they mean is something like:

"Do you believe that it is not a deficiency in God to act in a way that we would perceive as deficient towards us?"

Will you elaborate on that? I'm not sure what you mean.

iwpoe wrote:

So, you think that the question is entirely on the ethical or even merely human level? You think, basically, that it is a modified version of the question about evil?

 Yes on both questions, although it may not be automatically apparent that it is modified version of the question about evil. 

iwpoe wrote:

That is, as a question which is posing evidence that the conception I put forward as God is, contrary to principle, indifferent. 

...then that looks like they are just asking me about whether or not God can be, in principle, indifferent and thus whether their perceptions are wrong. 

That is, it seems a lot like asking, 'That square, there, it looks like a triangle to me: is it?'

 I think that on an intellectual level it might seem like that but on an emotional level it does become a good question. Lets say for instance if someone loses their five year old suddenly to a terrible accident of some kind, it would very much become a legitimate question to the grieving parents even though they are intellectually aware of God’s Nature. As Christians, the trials of Jesus Christ and the hope we have in Him plays a vital role in helping people heal of such tragedies (I have personally witnessed it).

Also I think it could ultimately just be a misunderstanding on their part of your conception of God. If I am not mistaken, it does not involve an anthropomorphic sense of a relationship with God. That, in my opinion, makes it a bit difficult to emotionally understand such a relationship, leading to think of a distant and ultimately indifferent God (however mistaken that might be).

Last edited by Jason (3/28/2016 12:11 pm)

Shade Tree Philosopher wrote:

First, I wanna say I'm envious of anyone who's surrounded by lots of people who ask you about divine indifference.'

You are. Smarter normal people ask questions like that when presented philosophical positions.

Shade Tree Philosopher wrote:

This is a point where you realize your interlocutor isn't the kind of person who would use 'interlocutor' in a sentence.'

Just so.

Shade Tree Philosopher wrote:

The other definition is I think very American: things that are at least higher animals can be indifferent because they could but just *do not in fact* care about you. (I'm looking at you, cat.) Rocks are not 'indifferent' in this sense. Tribal and family gods are indifferent to strangers.

I understand indifference in this case to include even lack of caring where caring isn't possible. Thus rocks are indifferent, though, indeed, not as tribal gods and higher animals. So,if it turned out that God were a clockwork, or something then he'd also be indifferent.

Shade Tree Philosopher wrote:

It is possible to reject (1) by rejecting only (ii): God exists but is not omnibenevolent. There are then two choices
(ii.a) He is the philosophers' 'thin God': He is *impassible*; he *cannot* love you. If wrong, this position at least has a good philosophical pedigree.

But his impassibility is a consequence of his aseity, and is an old theological doctrine. God cannot fall in love with anything.

God is trivially indifferent in this sense, but this kind of indifference is uninteresting, because it doesn't imply what it's meant to. It won't, for instance, of itself, be a denial of omnibenevolence, since such a God can still be objectively good- for the compulsions of passions which often lead to good action (especially contrary to self interest) neither constitute nor (even in human experience) are necessary for good action. As Kant points out over and over, what is added to the good will's action by saying that accompanying it was some feeling of goodness? God's love is an objective relation to things- ours is also, but this is not usually noticed because the affective aspect is very strong -not a passion.

Moreover, a passionate God is only dubiously capable of being omnibenevolent. He would be subject to kinds of manipulation or else, as I've just pointed out, nothing is even added to God's goodness by giving him the usual accompanying affective content to his actions.

Shade Tree Philosopher wrote:

(ii.b) He has something like a personality but just *does not* love you. That's 'indifference' in the American meaning of the word. I doubt anybody's argued that God really exists, but is also an uncaring jerk. That's just a rhetorical ploy of some atheists (they have given an enthymeme, which the audience mentally finishes as 'and such a God is patently absurd; therefore He doesn't exist.')

Schelling comes the closest- since he thinks to possibility of evil exists in the nature of God's freedom.