DiscussMormonism.com

I've been following this little tyke's story since I read about him a couple of months ago. Youssif, a five-year-old Iraqi boy, was doused with gasoline by masked men and set on fire.

It's one tragedy out of the doubtless millions that occur each day on Planet Earth.

As the ONLY Calvinist--far as I can tell--on the board (i.e., one who actually believes in theological determinism), this boy's story hits me right where I live. Not just as a human being, but as a believer in a predestining God.

It would much easier to say, "There is no 'why' to this."

Inevitably, I'm reminded of Dostoevsky.

Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her?
...
You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child's torturer, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, excerpts, Chapter 35

There must be a 'Why.'
There is no 'Why.'

The exalted-man God of LDS faith has a slightly-better defense: free will.

See here, here, here.

CKS

And here.

It's hard to fully grasp all that has transpired in the month since Arwa Damon first reported Youssif's story for CNN and CNN.com. You -- the global Internet community -- have rallied around the boy, taken him under your wings and inspired action.

More than 13,000 donations have been made -- far surpassing the $300,000 estimated to meet Youssif's needs. His family has asked all excess donations go to other burn survivors, so that other children can get the help they need.

Thanks for sharing CK.

How anyone could do that to a kid is beyond me. Monstrous.

Glad to see its worked out so well for the boy.

Free-will doesn't solve the problem unless God is powerless to intervene or is not "good" in a moral sense.

CaliforniaKid wrote:Free-will doesn't solve the problem unless God is powerless to intervene or is not "good" in a moral sense.

But, of course, the punt here might be to a Greater Good defense. Free will, ultimately, is a greater good than divine micromanagement (and, thus, arguably, coercion)--as in Origen.

Or, as I've seen of late, LDS might employ an open-theistic model, where God is not in control of the future free actions of human agents--as in, recently, Boyd.

God can be definitionally good, in that case, and yet, either voluntarily or metaphysically, unable to intervene.

Deny God's ability and the purely-logical problem of evil is neatly solved.

All that, however, is to miss my larger point here: viz., Youssi's tragic ordeal is a problem acutely-specific to theological determinism.

I hurt for that kid.

CKS

Gazelam wrote:Thanks for sharing CK.

How anyone could do that to a kid is beyond me. Monstrous.

Glad to see its worked out so well for the boy.

I certainly get what you're saying, Gaz, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Of course, as you are well aware, and very unfortunately, "worked out so well" is a highly-relativized phrase in this instance.

Best.

CKS

cksalmon wrote:

CaliforniaKid wrote:Free-will doesn't solve the problem unless God is powerless to intervene or is not "good" in a moral sense.

But, of course, the punt here might be to a Greater Good defense. Free will, ultimately, is a greater good than divine micromanagement (and, thus, arguably, coercion)--as in Origen.

Or, as I've seen of late, LDS might employ an open-theistic model, where God is not in control of the future free actions of human agents--as in, recently, Boyd.

I was thinking more in terms of natural disasters, where God's intervention quite frankly would not impinge upon free will. There are also ways to apply the greater good defense to Calvinism, if that's the way you want to go. For example, some identify the greater good with a sort of narrative. Others root it in the dualistic nature of the universe, and suggest that in order for us to experience good, we have to experience our fair share of evil. And since libertarian free will locates freedom prior to the will rather than between the will and the action (as compatibilism does), there is still a sense under the libertarian schema in which our wills are "determined" by whatever is the mechanism of indeterminacy. (A lot of free-willers like to make subatomic particles/quantum indeterminacy the mechanism, for example.) In other words, people are no "freer" under a libertarian schema than under a compatibilist schema, which means that the free-will defense is equally applicable to both.

I hope that made sense.

God can be definitionally good, in that case, and yet, either voluntarily or metaphysically, unable to intervene.

Deny God's ability and the purely-logical problem of evil is neatly solved.

All that, however, is to miss my larger point here: viz., Youssi's tragic ordeal is a problem acutely-specific to theological determinism.

I hurt for that kid.

CKS

So do I. :-(

CKsalmon, You reference the role of a higher harmony in your first post. I may be jumping to conclusion about what sort of harmony is in mind in that quote but it is possible that it is an old notion of a balance of good and evil reflecting Gods greatness. There is a necessity for a certain amount of punishment and pain to reflect Gods glory. I have near zero belief in thaat sort of harmony.

To my ears you are slipping up to my what is time question, after all that is basic to the idea of causality and the relationship between our decisions and Gods design. I sometimes think of myself as Calvinist but I am a bit dubious about determinism. I might excuse this doubt while mentioning Calvinism by noting that there is a variety of Calvinists and determism is no invention of Calvin. Luther thought that way and was following the majority medieval view, as in Aquinas.

I might ask Califorinia Kid to explain that freedome prior to will idea. He notices that indeterminism does little to help freedom for the will even if it releases God from the responsibilty of making all of the map of events in time. I do not often see the idea referenced outside of LDS circles where freedom is placed upon a high pedestal. I think our choices are circumscribed and we can only make responsible application of our will if there is coherence in the pattern of cause and effect. An indetemancy principal seems likely either irrelavant due to microscopic scale or pricipal of incoherence and futility.

Instead my mind looks at the idea that our existence is dependent upon coherent processes in time. Our decisions may modulate that a bit but they can only do even that if the context of reliable cause and effect is maintained.

If God exists it is apparent that a very hands off approach to events is being taken. Why? It is absurd to say that if one has a high enough view the present is the reflect of true good, that higher harmony. Either God has abdicated long long ago or the process as we see is the one which can lead to a new and better existence. I believe the second.

I think one aspect which makes that better future seem an inadaquate explanation is we may not think of the future as shared enough. If we are isolated creatures the outrageous misfortune of some would never be made up for. I think the kingdom of God must be something shared enough that the fortune of one becomes part of the fortune of all in the long run. At least enough that the vast injustice of the present is fundamenally replaced. I think that replacement is the Biblical promise. It is the only theory I know of to escape the present, universe is unjust ,unjust, unjust, unjust.

I think my hope assumes some freedom but does not requre a lot of it. It actually could function in a stricter Calvinism than I actually hold.

cksalmon wrote:
Inevitably,
There must be a 'Why.'
There is no 'Why.'

The exalted-man God of LDS faith has a slightly-better defense: free will.

See here, here, here.

CKS

Free will may be argued against moral evil of why people are allowed to hurt others, but it doesn't touch all the natural evil in the world (which I consider far worse). Maybe one could do better to use the soul-making theodicy to explain evil in all its forms?

cksalmon wrote:I've been following this little tyke's story since I read about him a couple of months ago. Youssif, a five-year-old Iraqi boy, was doused with gasoline by masked men and set on fire.

It's one tragedy out of the doubtless millions that occur each day on Planet Earth.

As the ONLY Calvinist--far as I can tell--on the board (I.e., one who actually believes in theological determinism), this boy's story hits me right where I live. Not just as a human being, but as a believer in a predestining God.

It would much easier to say, "There is no 'why' to this."

Inevitably, I'm reminded of Dostoevsky.

Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her?
...
You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child's torturer, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, excerpts, Chapter 35

There must be a 'Why.'
There is no 'Why.'

The exalted-man God of LDS faith has a slightly-better defense: free will.

See here, here, here.

CKS

Why must there be a "why?" This is, I think, one of the great fallacies of believers is the presumption that there's a meaning behind everything, or even that life itself has some higher, transcendent meaning. (Calivinism provides its own why--because God pre-destined it.)

Life is, instead, a great deal of pure dumb chance. It is full of conindidence, both good and bad. And things just happen. For no reason--they just happen. To a large extent, we forge our own outcomes, but all of us are subject to a whole host of extraneous variables over which we have no control.

Once we let go of the belief that there's a meaning behind things, we no longer have to expend (waste?) so much time trying to square the seeming random and often cruel outcomes in life with the existence of some loving deity.

By the way, to accept that there's no transdent, high purpose in life doesn't preclude one from finding meaning in his or her own life--one that doesn't include belief in some white bearded, but painfully shy, dude in the sky.