Theodicy: Questions And Explorations

[mfbukowski]

The "Neoplatonic vocabulary" is the only context in which the terms "omniscient" or "omnipotent" are understood within non-Mormon Western theology. Mormons who use these terms to describe non-totalizing Mormonism are violating the authority of Plato and the rest of Western theology.

I don't acknowledge Plato's "authority".

Heraclitus might be a different story.

Edited December 16, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The "Neoplatonic vocabulary" is the only context in which the terms "omniscient" or "omnipotent" are understood within non-Mormon Western theology. Mormons who use these terms to describe non-totalizing Mormonism are violating the authority of Plato and the rest of Western theology. Not only that, if use of these terms is directed toward non-Mormon Christians, using the terms is even an act of deception (or perhaps in some cases, encryption), because Mormonism represents a break from Neoplatonic theology, and all the absolutist "omni" terms that come with it.

Good point.

OK how about "God knows everything about all that there is" (to know about).

And I certainly agree that Joseph could not eliminate the "philosophies of men" as long as we are not automatons. Every person alive sees things in their own way and has their own interpretation.

[supersnail]

Cobalt and Super

I think we are talking past each other. I disagree with probably every line in both above posts. You are both using what I think is an old Neoplatonic vocabulary to speak of God as being limited in some way or another, and using traditional Christian definitions for terms which I think need to be re-thought.

Just to be clear, my use of the word "finite" isn't meant to criticize finitist views of God (or imply that "omnipotent" shouldn't be used), and nor is it my own invention. I got it from discussions of Neoplatonism and theodicy, and Mormon theology, in which LDS scholars used the word. As Ostler said, and I agree, "a finite God is an adequate object of faith."

I am aware that Latter-day Saints among themselves may rarely use certain language such as that. I myself don't recall ever hearing the word "finite" spoken at a sacrament meeting, for example, in reference to what Mormons worship. The context here is a bit different even though the OP contained, "I'd like to continue the exploration of the subject, from an LDS standpoint." I see the conversation even here as an attempt to engage different ideas in a language that could be commonly understood by people (including readers) who may be operating from very different perspectives, or readily used to talk about different opinions expressed by LDS writers.

I am defining God in a somewhat different way of seeing him- I see him as a human infinitely above us in abilities, so I speak of him using humanistic and in many cases, postmodern language. For me, as I have said before, since God is human, some of humanism is can be seen as pointing to theology.

I'm familiar with what you are saying. In fact the other day I was re-reading an article by Carl Mosser in which he writes, from a critical point of view, "These commitments entail that human and divine beings (as well as angelic beings) differ from one another in the degree to which they have progressed in actualizing their innate potential. They do not differ in natural kind. Thus, there is no ontological gap between human beings and God. The traditional theological loci of theology proper (doctrine of God), angelology (doctrine of angels and demons) and anthropology (doctrine of humanity) reduce into one. Moreover, these commitments entail an understanding of ultimate salvation as the more full realization of one’s inherent divine nature, though not necessarily achieved by autonomous means."

I actually agreed with your statement, "As far as God being "omni" anything, I think that it makes perfect sense to think of him as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent" (except that I have no doubt that God will always make the right decision given choices).

I understand what many Mormons mean when they say God is all-powerful or omnipotent. One dictionary definition of "omnipotent" is even "having very great power," which is less than literally infinite. I think that describes God--and there's nothing wrong or undesirable about that. I'd agree there's no strong reason for Mormons to stop using the word "omnipotent." (I have seen it suggested that there has been a recent emphasis in Mormonism on God's omnipotence. Whether that is because of a concern about idolatry in society, or because of a desire to make Mormonism seem more like other denominations, is unclear to me. I do believe nobody should make any theologically significant changes just to fit in better--not that that has happened.) For me, the word "omnipotent" is related to monotheism. Since Mormons are monotheists, Mormon use of the word is basically correct. The Mormon concept is just more refined.

As long as nobody is claiming the LDS view isn't monotheistic or shouldn't be monotheistic, I wouldn't be hung up over wording. If Mormons want to use "omnipotent," great. If critics of Mormon theology or if Mormons themselves believe the term isn't clarifying, fine--as long as nobody is claiming a finite God doesn't qualify for monotheistic worship.

Edited December 17, 2011 by supersnail

[mfbukowski]

Just to be clear, my use of the word "finite" isn't meant to criticize the concept, and nor is it my own invention. I got it from discussions of Neoplatonism and theodicy in which LDS writers used the word. As Ostler said, and I agree, "a finite God is an adequate object of faith."

I know. I would love to get away from that. We don't need to use the classic vocabulary at all since it is based in a context we should be rejecting. The gospel is restored, but we still discuss matters in an un-restored sectarian vocabulary.

But it took about 150 years for the gospel in the meridian of time to adopt the current philosophical views, so I suppose the time is right.

I am aware that Latter-day Saints among themselves rarely use such language. I myself have never heard the word "finite" spoken at a sacrament meeting, for example, in reference to what Mormons worship. The context here is a bit different. We are trying to engage different ideas in a language that could be commonly understood by people who may be operating from very different perspectives.

Agreed.

I'm familiar with what you are saying. In fact the other day I was re-reading an article by Carl Mosser in which he writes, from a critical point of view, "These commitments entail that human and divine beings (as well as angelic beings) differ from one another in the degree to which they have progressed in actualizing their innate potential. They do not differ in natural kind. Thus, there is no ontological gap between human beings and God. The traditional theological loci of theology proper (doctrine of God), angelology (doctrine of angels and demons) and anthropology (doctrine of humanity) reduce into one. Moreover, these commitments entail an understanding of ultimate salvation as the more full realization of one’s inherent divine nature, though not necessarily achieved by autonomous means."

Quite ironic if he meant that critically. Sounds good to me. I am unfamiliar with his work, though the name is familiar.

I actually agreed with your statement, "As far as God being "omni" anything, I think that it makes perfect sense to think of him as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent" (except that I have no doubt that God will always make the right decision given choices).

I would also agree with that- indeed to me the fact that God is in some sense "limited" or perhaps might be considered not "omnipotent" in the old vocabulary because he is limited by natural law. In fact, as I see it, I see God as the organizer of natural law in the first place, so he is "self-determining". I see him as the "programmer" of the universe who has designated the rules of the universe's unfolding. How precisely it unfolds is undetermined and unknowable in principle since how it unfolds is partly the product of free agents- us- messing things up with our agency. The whole problem of whether or not God "knows the future" is a confusion which presupposes there IS a "thing" - a state of affairs called "the future" when in my belief there is not. It is as yet not organized, it has no context or meaning, nor can it have a context yet.

That doesn't mean God is limited because he "doesn't know the future", because the future is unknowable. It is undetermined. There doesn't exist any "future" to know.

I understand what many Mormons mean when they say God is all-powerful or omnipotent. One dictionary definition of "omnipotent" is even "having very great power," which is less than literally infinite. I think that describes God--and there's nothing wrong or undesirable about that. I'd agree that there's no strong reason for Mormons to stop using the word "omnipotent." (Some have suggested that there has been a recent emphasis in Mormonism on God's omnipotence. Whether that is because of a concern about idolatry in society, or because of a desire to make Mormonism seem more like other denominations, is unclear to me. I do believe nobody should make any theologically significant changes just to fit in better--not that that has happened.)

That's a reasonable approach, I think. Cobalt has a point about not mixing contexts, but I think it is inevitable that language blends old contexts with new contexts and these kind of discussions obviously happen here every day. That is what we are discussing! So it is inevitable there will be confusion and conflict over the Evangelical (say) use of terminology and the LDS use- and 99% of what happens on this board is exactly that. I am posting less and less exactly for that reason. Most of it is all just semantics and there are only so many times one person can raise the issue.

As long as nobody is claiming the LDS view isn't monotheistic or shouldn't be monotheistic, let's not be hung up over wording. If Mormons want to use "omnipotent," great. If critics of Mormon theology or if Mormons themselves believe the term isn't clarifying, fine--as long as nobody is claiming a finite God doesn't qualify for monotheistic worship.

Oops.

Disagree if I understand you. For me, "monotheistic" is just another buzz word waiting to be re-defined or rejected. I think it is clear that we believe in multiple gods.

Edit:.... unless you want to call us "monotheistic" in the sense that all exalted beings are "one" with God in a John 17 sense. But that is REALLY straining the sectarian vocabulary!

Edited December 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[supersnail]

Oops.

Disagree if I understand you. For me, "monotheistic" is just another buzz word waiting to be re-defined or rejected. I think it is clear that we believe in multiple gods.

Edit:.... unless you want to call us "monotheistic" in the sense that all exalted beings are "one" with God in a John 17 sense. But that is REALLY straining the sectarian vocabulary!

I talked about monotheism in more detail in this thread if you are interested: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56068-towards-naturalistic-deities/

I believe LDS theology is either monotheistic--or it is its own category, and I'm not ruling that out. However, it isn't polytheistic, henotheistic, or monolatrous, at least not in the ways polytheism, henotheism and monolatry have been understood historically, sociologically, and theologically.

I admit I've never heard "monotheism" at a sacrament meeting either, but then I also don't remember hearing the word at a Protestant service or during a Catholic mass.

The meaning of "monotheism" in colloquial use is focused on a single aspect and involves almost a linguistic issue of whether a religion uses the word "god" plurally, while other religions use "angels," "saints," "genies," or "Trinity," in places where they might have used "gods." (Whereas in reality there are differences that make Mormonism monotheistic and many others, who don't use the word "gods" as frequently, non-monotheists.) I'm not sure how much a word that is rarely usedly colloquially in the Christian context in the first place, except when criticizing Mormonism and for a few other purposes, could really be redefined.

This is its own topic, but it is not entirely off topic, because if polytheism is true that obviously is relevant to theodicy. However, I believe a viable monotheistic theodicy with a finite God is possible.

[supersnail]

mfbukowski, I believe you and I are basically in agreement on God being powerful enough and knowledgeable enough, but I'm not sure all possible disagreement on these questions is just semantic in nature. I want to respond to your reply in the naturalistic deities thread, but at the risk of making this conversation more complicated than it already is, I want to address the issue of postmodernism. I used the word "postmodernism" myself and then it seemed the word "postmodern" was later embraced in the thread here, apparently with a different understanding in mind that emphasized the ephemeralness of meaning.

For me, the word "postmodern" among other things connotes a lack of social progress (notwithstanding how various postmodernists might refine that idea) or a critique of various ideas of social progress with no alternative offered except perhaps an intellectual or inward one. For reasons I'm not sure I need to get into, the rise of a certain Christian movement and revitalization of particularly narrow or restrictive doctrines of faith alone and grace is connected to the ascendancy of postmodernism. This is compounded by an end-times thinking that sees the world as being in a state of decay with no sustainable social progress possible before Jesus' return. Certain doctrines of sola fide, and grace and election, by themselves, though, put into question the idea of working out one's salvation on earth and doing works of righteousness to lessen iniquity in the world. By lessening iniquity, I don't mean government entitlement programs or "social justice" as that term is used pejoratively.

The danger of moving toward Platonism-influenced ideas (which may be indicated by use of "omnipotence," but which in your case isn't) is that one may end up fixating on elegant ideas of "perfection" disconnected from any imperative to do good works, gutting the moral essence of monotheism and ironically getting oneself caught up in postmodernism. It is ironic because postmodernism supposedly repels all "totalizing" schemes. I'd argue that postmodernism and particular tendencies within Evangelicalism--or continued adherence to Platonic theology today--are actually complementary or interpenetrating. The notion that science, theology and prayer offer nothing new and unique of enduring practical importance regarding natural and moral laws or the method of their discovery/revelation, fits with the notion that all we need is faith in an infinite and unlimited God presiding over a world in decline, with no laws that we can use for improvement.

In other words, ideas can have a real world impact. Not all nominally Christian theologies are theological or practical equivalents of LDS theology with just some linguistic trappings. Some solutions to the problem of evil, and the acceptance of some theologies, reflect the influence of postmodernism even if the influence is just peripheral.

Edited December 18, 2011 by supersnail

[mfbukowski]

I'd argue that postmodernism and particular tendencies within Evangelicalism--or continued adherence to Platonic theology today--are actually complementary or interpenetrating. The notion that science, theology and prayer offer nothing new and unique of enduring practical importance regarding natural and moral laws or the method of their discovery/revelation, fits with the notion that all we need is faith in an infinite and unlimited God presiding over a world in decline, with no laws that we can use for improvement.

In other words, ideas can have a real world impact. Not all nominally Christian theologies are theological or practical equivalents of LDS theology with just some linguistic trappings. Some solutions to the problem of evil, and the acceptance of some theologies, reflect the influence of postmodernism even if the influence is just peripheral.

Well I'd like to see some evidence for any connection between postmodernism and Evangelicalism. I guess you are saying one is a reaction to the other.

I don't see it that way at all. I see postmodernism as saying essentially that man is god- with a capital G or not depending on how you want to see it. I find some extraordinary parallels with LDS ideas in the notion that man organizes the world as we know it first conceptually in language and mathematics which I see as a language and then physically by modeling those concepts and building "real" things like houses, space vehicles and skyscrapers.

We effectively live in a man-organized world- if you don't believe that, imagine leaving an infant alone in the Gobi desert and imagine how long it might survive. We actually need civilization now to even survive in our man made world. Nietzsche's slogan that "God is dead" really, I think, referred more to the god of the sectarians than to the restored God who is the Man of Holiness. I see the LDS concept of God being a Man is precisely raising something like the postmodern worship of man to a transcendental Worship of the Man of Holiness.

And yes, it is clear that the Evangelicals don't like that very much, and are going to react to it. But in all due respect, their theology is obsolete. It is dead and non-existent. About that, Nietzsche was completely right.

To me, if the LDS could ever see the power of their ideas and if the world could see the incredible power in the spiritual truth behind mundane postmodernism, the LDS church could truly become the "stone cut without hands" to roll forth and fill the earth. Philosophically postmodernism raises, in my opinion, man to godhood in a secular sense. If we could show the world the reality of the God/Man we worship, I think this theology could be the strongest force for good ever seen on this earth.

[mfbukowski]

I suggest you read this article and then look at the bibliography and see how many times the word "postmodern" appears in the works cited.

http://plato.stanfor...process-theism/

I haven't gotten into Whitehead here, because he his very difficult to understand because of his odd vocabulary- but he da MAN!

Edited December 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Loran Blood]

I have never thought that theodicity had any relevance to Mormonism, because the Mormon God is neither truly omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. The Mormon God is not responsible for all the good in the world, nor is he responsible for all the evil, but he is responsible for some good and for some evil.

I don't think this is doctrinally tenable, from an LDS perspective. The Book of Mormon is clear, and repeatedly, that all things good come from the Lord, and all evil is centered in Satan. God is not responsible for any of the world's evil, but is the fountain, or central influence, animating all good.

"Necessary" evil could be simply defined as evil caused by God, or to which God approves (such as Abraham's attempted murder of Isaac, the genocide of the Canaanites, or the killing of women and children in Alma 14).

I think you should watch your assumptions here, and perhaps flesh them out a bit before making a statement. You are defining killing qua killing here as "evil" and a "murder" which never occured and was never intended to occur, as "evil" without defining "evil" or considering the context of the phenomena in question.

All other evil is unnecessary as far as God is concerned, but God is not responsible for such unnecessary evil simply because he failed to be sufficiently benevolent to have prevented it--any more than a human is responsible for such evil.

This begs the very same question that is at the root of most discussions of theodicy: why should God prevent any specific instance of evil simply on the grounds that it is evil and his power allows him the option?

Moreover, good and evil are not absolute categories within Mormonism. They are not only relative to each other, but they exist on a scale that is informed by the circumstances and context, as Joseph Smith believed. What may be good in one context, may be evil in another. What may be "good" for God may be evil for humanity.

Certainly, it is not wise to allow a 3 year old to pilot an F-16, or get married, or be responsible for safety procedures at a nuclear p power plant.

What may be good for one culture (e.g., gentiles eating bacon) may be evil for another. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that good and evil are social and cultural categories.

The gospel does not draw that distinction or make that claim. The best one could say is that the Church teaches that good and evil are absolute, but that there is also a hierarchy of values within which lesser evils sometimes become allowable so as to prevent far worse or ensure far less in the future. Organized warfare, for one major example, is an absolute evil, and should be avoided to the last degree of human capacity. Once, however, it becomes necessary, and it becomes clear that a certain course of action is required to prevent or alleviate far more fearful conditions in the future, it may be, still "evil" in several senses, but not completely proscribed, any more than justifiable homicide in self defense against criminal attack is not in sme sense evil in the sense of being tragic, but justified for the defender, and indeed "good" as to its ultimate outcome (I survive and go home to my wife and family to continue my life and enjoyment of my unalienable rights).

[Loran Blood]

I can see that the way I put it was perhaps not the best statement of what I meant; I see the problem ultimately as an epistemological one, that ontology is largely irrelevant because we cannot ever really get "down" past our perceptions and experience to get to what "exists".

The gospel claims, however, that we can, in some sense, bore through to these core phenominal regions thoough various experiences centerred in the principle of revelation and the power of the Holy Spirit to "open" our spiritual eyes, allowing us to "see" things from a very different perspective and within a different perceptual sphere.

All we have is our experiences and how we speak about them.

Actually, we also have logic, critical thinking, and unspoken intuition and perceptual awareness, all of which are a part of a "mix" of which language and its conditioning of perception is one aspect.

So any discussion of what "exists", for me, becomes quibbling about definitions and artificial categories and linguistic structures which really are non-problems ultimately. If you are not familiar with this branch of philosophy (I am not saying you are not- I just don't know you) perhaps the most relevant category to put me into would be as an "anti-foundationalist".

On most of these issues, I suppose I am closest to Richard Rorty, who has serious problems with ontology

Rorty, as I understand him, is a post-modernist who does not believe in the existence of any truths or truth claims except in the sense of a subjective perception that truth exists which has been conditioned and socially constructed by language and culture. If this is the case, then nothing Rorty says on the issue of how our epistemology and/or knowledge of the world is conditioned and constructed by language and culture can by accepted as representing anything but a completely relative perspective grounded in Rorty's own immersion and conditioning by language and culture. Rorty's critique, and those like it (Foucault's, for one example) can only be "true" at the expense of being false.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

...the Mormon God lacks true omnipotence for other reasons than merely this paradox. Unlike the traditional Christian God, the Mormon God is not the creator ex nihilo of the universe. The universe existed before he became God, and exists from moment to moment independently of God's will.

This needs some flesh on its bones. Firstly, God, in LDS understanding, did not create the universe ex nihilo, not because he is not omnipotent, but because creation ex nihilo is an impossibility. This brings into focus the idea that God cannot do what is not possible to do. This places no restriction upon his power, per se, but only points to the outer boundaries of existent reality itself. The God of the philosophers is the ultimate ground of all being. In the LDS understanding, he is the master of being, and matter, and existence (and its principles/rules), but not that from which all existence and all attributes of it were generated at their most fundamental level.

Non-being is a concept of logical self negation, and its layered conceptual dead ends simply place it outside possible or potential reality at any level in which matter, energy, and consciousness are manifest ("Kingdoms"). Within any possible reality, God's power is total.

Secondly, nothing in LDS theolgy claims that "the universe" existed before he became God. If it is God, the Father we are speaking of, then while existence in various forms, manifestations, and phases of existence preceded him in an eternal frame of reference, This universe in which we presently live may not have. If this universe is his (or one of) his "mansions" and "dominions and principalities," then it did not exist but owes its existence as an organized entity, or body of entities, to his creative activities.

Plus, there are other "necessary beings" than just God, and God cannot wink these other gods and intelligences out of existence. God is impotent when it comes to the destruction of other coeternal gods and intelligences. Therefore, he is not truly omnipotent.

This provokes the question of whether God, being all good, could wink out of existence other gods, and pits God's power against his personal character attributes. Again, this is not a limit on God's power but only a limit upon the outer boundaries of existent reality and the degree to which the governing rules, principles, and underlying structure of that reality can be manipulated.

You are using the term "omniscient" in a way foreign to traditional Christian theology. If knowledge can be created, as you imply, then God cannot yet know the knowledge that has not yet been created, and he is not truly "omni" in the absolute Christian sense.

Knowledge can exist at various levels. God could have "knowledge" of all the infinite spirit children he will ever bring into existence even though, prior to their birth in the spirit world, he does not "know" them personally.

But I think the Mormon God is not omniscient for other reasons as well, because: (1) He cannot know in advance, for certain, the choice that will be made by every being with agency. Mormons do not believe in predestination, and therefore there are at least two possible future timelines until a choice is made.

Only two? In any case, the human heart and our freedom indeed man be a wild cared, and the only real wild card in the universe, beyond God's absolute future knowledge. Again, this would represent, not a limit on God's power, but only the reaching of the limits of ontological possibility.

The Mormon God cannot be omniscient because of the inherent uncertainty which Mormons acknowledge exists within the universe. (2) God is made of matter composed of individual "elements" and exists in a finite space, and therefore the number of "elements" within him is finite, and thus he cannot contain within himself an infinite amount of information.

Why should I believe this to be the case?

"Maximally good" is not the same as "omnibenevolent." Moreover, if he could do more good than he does, by changing the laws of the universe which he has created for himself, then he is not even "maximally good." For example, according to Mormon theology he chose to reject Lucifer's plan which would have eliminated evil from the earth. By rejecting this plan, he increased the amount of evil in the world, and therefore he is not "maximally good."

The fundamental question in LDS theology is not the pitting of good against evil in an abstract metaphysical sense and arguing over whether evil should have "existed" or not. Indeed, your entire approach implies that evil must be some kind of mistake in the cosmos that implies either the absence of God or a God that is not fully God because he doesn't use his omnipotence to eliminate certain conditions in the mortal realm that his omniscience tell him cannot be simply obviated in this manner without dire consequences to his entire plan of salvation for his children. You pointed this out yourself above, but did not follow through with the consequences of the example. God rejected Satan's plan, not because it would have eliminated evil from the earth - Lucifer's plan was evil by definition - but because it would have eliminated the probationary, experiential aspect of mortality from the earth - the central point of the entire process of "eternal progression" as understood in the gospel. It would have made "the immortality and eternal life of man" an impossibility. Would the absence of evil on the earth, purchased with the equal absence of good mediated by the absence of the free agency and will to choose between the two, have been worth the overall cost of the loss of all his spirit children to exaltation and eternal life?

Latter day Saints would say no.

[Loran Blood]

double

Edited December 19, 2011 by Loran Blood

[mfbukowski]

The fundamental question in LDS theology is not the pitting of good against evil in an abstract metaphysical sense and arguing over whether evil should have "existed" or not. Indeed, your entire approach implies that evil must be some kind of mistake in the cosmos that implies either the absence of God or a God that is not fully God because he doesn't use his omnipotence to eliminate certain conditions in the mortal realm that his omniscience tell him cannot be simply obviated in this manner without dire consequences to his entire plan of salvation for his children. You pointed this out yourself above, but did not follow through with the consequences of the example. God rejected Satan's plan, not because it would have eliminated evil from the earth - Lucifer's plan was evil by definition - but because it would have eliminated the probationary, experiential aspect of mortality from the earth - the central point of the entire process of "eternal progression" as understood in the gospel. It would have made "the immortality and eternal life of man" an impossibility. Would the absence of evil on the earth, purchased with the equal absence of good mediated by the absence of the free agency and will to choose between the two, have been worth the overall cost of the loss of all his spirit children to exaltation and eternal life?

Agreed.

Also, Rorty is of course ultimately mistaken about God, but the reason he is mistaken is that he does not even fathom the possibility that we might be of the same species as God. Of course that concept would be ridiculous to him because he has never had a direct experience that God could be such a being.

I honestly think that if Rorty ever had a direct religious experience, he might well have seen it for what it was, and things might have turned out quite differently. Indeed I think his central error was in postulating the contingency of the self- if he ever had had an experience of the self as pre-existent that would have been gone. He would have a reason to believe that the self is not fully contingent. Adaptable to the environment, of course, but not totally contingent.

And that would have made him quite possibly a process theologian rather than a process atheist.