Grumpy

Well, not in so many words. But it's easy to jump to the usual Problem of Evil arguments after reading this article on Crosswalk.com.

See, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has declared war on "open theism," the notion that God cannot predict what humans do with free will. In fact, they may vote to expel anyone who disagrees at their gathering in Atlanta next month.

Sure, this sounds a lot like debating which shade of pink the Invisible Pink Unicorn actually is. But you must admire their certainty. After all, in such an argument, how do you know you're right? Simple: If I think it, it must be right. And don't let inconvenient consequences get in the way.

Okay. Wouldn't want to leave the plan of salvation up to the free choices of Jews and Romans. But... Wouldn't that make God aware of the intentions of all humans, good or evil? And wouldn't that mean that he allows humans to do evil things, given that he has the power to stop them? Wouldn't that make God an accomplice?

Oops. I wonder if anyone will raise that point in Atlanta.

Dargo

Don't you know that even though god is all powerful, knows all and controls all, nothing bad is ever his fault? He's just like a human CEO. When the company is making good income, it is entirely due to the CEO's brilliant leadership, and he or she deserves a big bonus. If the company is losing money, it is not due to any fault of the CEO, so he or she should still get a big bonus. Of course, the CEO still has complete control over the company, even though the loss is not his or her fault. God has complete control of the universe, but nothing is ever his fault.

McNamara

But it's okay, because the CEO (God) will compensate the laid-off workers (dead believers) by paying them a greatly increased salary (heaven) after they're fired (dead). At least that's what he promises, but the laid-off workers don't seem to have much of a voice, so I'm not sure if the contract is being fulfilled.

On the OP, I think it's impossible to justify God allowing people to do evil things to each other if you believe he knows what's going to happen. It does make him an accomplice. First the fundies will try the "violation of free will" argument, but that's easily discarded. If I know my next-door neighbor is beating his children, I'll call the cops on him and have it stopped. I'm not violating his free will by stopping his evil actions.

Then the fundies will fall back on the "No one knows God's plans but God" which is a total cop-out. Even if he has such a great plan, there is no way that the suffering of innocent people due to illnesses or natural disasters will accomplish anything.

Finally, in a last attempt to justify why God allows evil, some will try the "can't have good without evil argument." Evil caused by others, sure. But God doesn't need to give my fiancee kidney cancer for the second time to make me appreciate the good things in life.

Grumpy

The weakness of the Unknown Motives Defense is, to me, the fact that God ostensibly wants to draw humans into a love relationship. But how could anyone love an entity who is indifferent to suffering and won't explain why?

More to the point of the Southern Baptist resolution -- is it true that "open theism" is, strictly speaking, un-Biblical? I can at least respect their POV, assuming it is consistent with all available evidence (such as it is). The reason I doubt it is because nullifying the Free Will escape clause entails too many complications, which are perilously close to contradictions.

Dargo

Back when I was a god fearing SB I didn't see any contradiction between god knowing what would happen in advance, everything happening in accordance with god's will, and humans having free will. Granted, I never put much thought into it and never heard a skeptic's side of the story. BTW, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (located in Louisville, KY) is actually one of six seminaries operated be the SB convention, although I believe it is the oldest of them. The others are in Fort Worth, Kansas City, New Orleans, North Carolina, and San Francisco of all places. They were becoming somewhat liberal in the 60's and and 70's (by SB not COE standards of course), but then the conservative churches started a take back the convention movement which has been largely succesful. There may still be a few SB seminary profesors who aren't Bible thunmping conservative theologans, but they would be in the minority.