God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

It's true that you wouldn't need faith if God intervened and stopped evil all the time. However, the def. of God is what it is, regardless. I mean, why do you need faith? It's a solution looking for a problem.

You “need” faith because ultimate commitments (to theism, naturalism, moral realism, etc.) always outrun strictly demonstrative evidence, so trust/faith is unavoidable for everyone, believer or not. Faith is not invented to explain evil away, but is the stance of trusting God’s goodness while freely choosing the good in a world where evil really is possible and often devastating.

If God were to constantly intervene in human affairs and make everything 'right'...then, yes, there would be no need for faith. But what kind of world would that be?

A world without moral agency. A world without virtue.

What would be the purpose?

It is only through God's ultimate redemption of the world through Jesus Christ that any of this really makes sense. At least to the believer.

You seem to be saying that that faith is a gratuitous extra. Something that WE are creating to navigate the crookedness of life. Similar to the idea that we've created God to explain our place in the universe so that it isn't simply a cold, heartless accumulation of carbon based star stuff.

From a believer's perspective moral agency resulting in virtue...or not...is essential for the progress/learning of human beings. In the mix of it all...a fallen world...there is going to be a LOT of crookedness. The lion's share unredeemable in the here and now. That is where the belief/hope in Jesus Christ comes into the picture. That somehow the Atonement of Christ will make everything right.

That's a BIG ask, right?

My two cents.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

One or two of the officers take up the free will defense, where do you think they go wrong with it?

-snip-

It's true that you wouldn't need faith if God intervened and stopped evil all the time. However, the def. of God is what it is, regardless. I mean, why do you need faith? It's a solution looking for a problem.

I think Plantinga would say because they tried to explain “why” the evil was permitted—turning it into a theodicy. The free will defense shouldn’t be applied to a situation in which the officer claims to know that non-intervention was morally better because free will was worth the sacrifice.

He also might say that the officer shouldn’t use free will as justification for his failure to act—I don’t think the point is to not act because we perceive God as not intervening. Rather our action could be the carrying out of that intervention.

I’ve appreciated the question, gad, and I don’t think I’d have ever picked up Plantinga if not for this discussion.
One of the most interesting insights from Plantinga is that he never moves to say, “now God is morally justified” but, I think like in the answer to Job, Plantinga would say “we are not entitled to demand a deductive explanation.”

None of this has been particularly satisfying to me in reconciling God’s goodness in the face of the Amalekite horror, but Plantinga never set out to make us morally at ease. In fact, I think Plantinga would say that if you are morally satisfied by such stories, you’ve probably entered an understanding that the defense was supposed to block.

I think in the case of suffering faith isn’t supposed to be something we use to fill in gaps where God doesn’t act, but a trust in God being there through suffering, comforting and grieving with the person who suffers. If God intervened to stop every evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

[Limnor]

This might be one of those areas where words mean different things—I think “faith” can mean commitment under uncertainty, but it can also refer to indwelling presence.

I don’t think faith is unavoidable in the same way ultimate commitments are. For Paul and Kierkegaard, faith isn’t trust despite insufficient evidence, it’s trust formed through participation in suffering—“Christ in you,” not an explanation about God. Faith isn’t solving the problem of lack of evidence for Joseph so much as describing what relationship looks like when God doesn’t perform as a control mechanism.

It’s like we were talking about music and then getting a lecture on acoustics and why sound must exist.

[malkie]

...

I think in the case of suffering faith isn’t supposed to be something we use to fill in gaps where God doesn’t act, but a trust in God being there through suffering, comforting and grieving with the person who suffers. If God intervened to stop every evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

What about the inverse hypothetical? Is this true?

If God never intervened to stop any evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

[Limnor]

...

I think in the case of suffering faith isn’t supposed to be something we use to fill in gaps where God doesn’t act, but a trust in God being there through suffering, comforting and grieving with the person who suffers. If God intervened to stop every evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

What about the inverse hypothetical? Is this true?

If God never intervened to stop any evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

If God never intervened and was never present, then yes—faith would be pointless. But Paul and Kierkegaard—and more importantly Jesus—describe the concept, and act, differently. The idea is that God doesn’t intervene to control outcomes, but is present within suffering.

[MG 2.0]

...

I think in the case of suffering faith isn’t supposed to be something we use to fill in gaps where God doesn’t act, but a trust in God being there through suffering, comforting and grieving with the person who suffers. If God intervened to stop every evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

What about the inverse hypothetical? Is this true?

If God never intervened to stop any evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

That's what I'm sayin'. What would the world look like, per my previous post. Faith isn't a bug (need), it's a feature. For moral agency. For virtue. For growth and understanding.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

...

I think in the case of suffering faith isn’t supposed to be something we use to fill in gaps where God doesn’t act, but a trust in God being there through suffering, comforting and grieving with the person who suffers. If God intervened to stop every evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

What about the inverse hypothetical? Is this true?

If God never intervened to stop any evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

As an aside—this last week my wife and I traveled to Groton CT to attend our son’s embarkment on the USS Virginia for a deployment. He is the navigator. We are very proud of him.

[malkie]

What about the inverse hypothetical? Is this true?

If God never intervened to stop any evil, faith wouldn’t go away because the problem was solved, it just wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

As an aside—this last week my wife and I traveled to Groton CT to attend our son’s embarkment on the USS Virginia for a deployment. He is the navigator. We are very proud of him.

Congratulations all round. I think your pride is well justified.

[bill4long]

As an aside—this last week my wife and I traveled to Groton CT to attend our son’s embarkment on the USS Virginia for a deployment. He is the navigator. We are very proud of him.

Very cool.

[bill4long]

As an aside—this last week my wife and I traveled to Groton CT to attend our son’s embarkment on the USS Virginia for a deployment. He is the navigator. We are very proud of him.

Hats off!