What do you think of answering the problem of evil by supposing that God used to be omnipotent, but voluntarily gave up some of that power to make room for humanity -- therefore (1) there are things God can't do on God's own anymore, and (2) it's up to us to repair the universe and heal the broken pieces that God can no longer reach?
---Ben
--------------------------------
Thanks for the question, Ben!
It certainly is an interesting way to approach the problem of evil, and offers an answer. I even agree with it to a certain extent... the idea that the existence of humanity in the world enables the possibility of evil part, certainly.
It's the thought process on omnipotence where I start to quibble.
I'm a huge believer that theology can't just explain things. With the diversity of ideas to be found in the scriptures and the commentaries that have come after, simply having a workable grand theological theory isn't enough for me. I need that theory to serve a purpose, to be itself part of the Good News.
And for me, that requires that God's Omnipotence remains intact.
Like I said before, my personal approach to the problem of evil is similar to this one wherein I believe that there are things that God DOESN'T do because at some point in the process God made a choice concerning free will, allowing humanity to choose it's own course. The way I think of it, however, God still COULD do those things. Whether or not God acts is a choice, rather than God having given up the agency to act.
I resist Process theology, and other similar schools of thought that solve the problem of evil through downplaying the Power of God, because to my mind, once you have taken that path, you haven't just removed a power level from God, you have removed God.
I am not interested in a God who means well, but can't effect the change in the world we'd like to see. That is a God who basically exists to bring the world into existence, and everything else is up to us. So what then is the point of Christ, or the Holy Spirit? The God this leaves us is a God who made us, and maybe even loves us, but now is basically ineffectual.
I'd rather believe in the God that is more problematic theologically (so WHY can't you stop Bone Cancer, again?) but can actually be effectual in the world beyond Aunt Nellie style well wishes. I like the idea that though God has chosen not to intervene now for whatever reasons, God will someday, and while I do believe that we are called to work in the world to make it a better place, that the onus for that work does not, ultimately, lie with us.
If the only way to reconcile ourselves with God is to make God no longer God, I feel like it would be more intellectually honest to simply be atheist.
Still, a good question! How we think about these different theological approaches, and why we favor one approach over another, is a very important part of how our worldviews and our faith interact.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNot to pick nits, but how does a God who chooses not to act against any evils (and, let's face it, bone cancer isn't a consequence of free will) address the problem of evil?
ReplyDeleteGood Question! A nutshell answer...
ReplyDeleteThe basis of the Problem of Evil is that a God who is both good and all powerful by definition must destroy all evil, so that the existence of any evil is a repudiation of the existence of a good, all powerful God.
I reject the premise of the problem of evil in positing that a good, all powerful being would have the capacity to make choices about when or when not to intercede.
As to why God intercedes sometimes, and not others, I have to give an "I don't know." I suspect that the imperfection of the world is a part of free will, though. Not as a consequence of it, but rather a concession to it...
In a perfect world, free will is useless, because why would you ever choose to go from perfection to imperfection? But that's just a guess.
I see your points, but I'm not sure they're sufficient.
DeleteThe Problem of Evil isn't that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God *must* destroy all evil, it's that such a being would just do it (there would be no compulsion, it would simply be the result of its properties). Your rejection also seems to ignore the Godly property of omniscience (God would have to have the capacity to make choices, because it would literally have all of the information regarding any situation).
As to your claim that God intercedes sometimes, I'd be interested in examples.
For the record, I mean no disrespect, but a topic of this magnitude precludes much of the bush-beating that happens in general discussion.