Inscrutable Images?

Bristol-Google+

I finished a ten hour shift @ corporate security yesterday which was originally supposed to be four to seven hours, but someone missed and I was asked to fill in.

I received these classic photos that evening trying to chill...

Satirical photos sent to me by email, unless otherwise noted.

Now I am the first to admit that I am not mechanically inclined. But I have evolved (not macroevolution, take it easy) to a point where I can replace a broken lock on a door and do some minor car repairs and maintenance. This gentleman I suppose could support somewhat the philosophical and Darwinian scientific idea of survival of the fittest, and he does not look too fit. And also more accurately his actions support the Biblical concept of fallen nature and bad choices, implied and explained from Romans, which in this case works against common sense.

'Hey Mom hurry up and finish that bucket of ice cream. Do you want me to get hurt working outside without a helmet?!' 'Yea I need the bucket'. The bucket is not recommended or sanctioned by any government safety board, but by Safeway.
In the context of my present employment I would deduce that a turban would provide more protection.

Do not be too judgemental! The worker in the yellow construction vest could be holding: a) Mr. Fantastic b) Plastic Man or c) Elongated Man d) Mr. Bobby Buff. Four 'reasonable' philosophical possibilities, in another 'possible world'. 

See that backs up previous comments. Comicvine.com

Now this appears to be an adult male, but does it not look like the work of a three year old? 'Look Mommy, I can fix it!'

I philosophically disagree with this photo. The area behind the yellow metal bars should be a designated group smoker's pit...And frankly the way Western society is going one had better open that area up for potheads and crackheads too.

From crackheadscandy.com

Bravest wildcat: Daily Mail

Cited

'Tiny wildcat fights for its life in a battle against four lionesses Lionesses are 30 times its size - but the cat will not give up without a fight Kitten bares teeth and swipes claws at the predators in Botswana park'

Cited

'This brave little wildcat took on four lionesses in a battle for its life in a wildlife park in southern Africa. The tiny cat ferociously bore its teeth and rose its claws in an attempt to fight off the predators as the lionesses crowded around. In the David versus Goliath attack, the females ganged up on the animal - despite it being 30 times smaller than them. Tragically the little wildcat lost the battle, but proved that it still had some fight left in its body and scratched one of the lionesses across the nose before it was killed - causing the predator to lurch back.'

End citations

This incident made me emotionally sad and admittedly reminds me of, and I will have to paraphrase because I did not document the exact words, the statements of my temporary academic advisor at Manchester University, Professor and Philosopher of Religion, David Pailin.

Basically one the major objections he used against a Biblical and Reformed philosophical/theological position on the problem of evil was in regard to the pain and suffering of creatures in nature.

Some possible critical views, not an exhaustive list, are that God is deistic, in contrast to the Biblical God and does not intervene in material affairs although he is the creator, which I think was at least somewhat the Professor's position.

That God is unable to intervene, perhaps less than infinite and omnipotent, which was I deduced perhaps the Dean's position when I spoke to him on the subject.

These types of views have been discussed on my other blog or my PhD thesis.

Other options include that God does not care about creatures like this wildcat.

Or that God cares, but creatures like the wildcat have much less value, in a divine view, than human beings would provide for them.

Or that God, if he exists, is evil. 

These are not my views after twelve years plus of problem of evil and theodicy research, granted within a Christian worldview.

Some possible Biblical, Christian theological views could be that God cannot or does not intervene because of human free will, with humanity having dominion over the animal world (Genesis 1). When humanity fell, so did all of creation (Romans 8).

I think this view is incompatibilistic and places too much emphasis on human free will and freedom.

God as first cause could be reasonably understood as intervening in the sense of preventing pain, suffering and death, at times within creation.

Another possible explanation is that this type of animal death is at least in this present realm, a natural part of God's plans for his animal creation and non-human biological creation.

I personally reason that within a compatibilistic view that there is an aspect of the fall effecting creation, but more likely this effected human beings primarily and secondarily other creatures, although human beings can effect other creatures via sin.

I also reason ecologically animal, plant and no-human death is likely a natural part of God's creation. At least, minimally, in the present realm.

I am not certain how this shall work in a restored Universe.

Human death at this point is also in a sense, natural. Human beings need to be transformed from present flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15) and cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. Non-exhaustively, theological views, include that prior to the Genesis 3 fall, human beings were immortal and lost that aspect of nature through sin, or that they were mortal and would have been translated into immortality, theoretically if the fall had not occurred.

However, I still find the incident sad and once again this demonstrates to me even taking a Biblical, Reformed position on the problem of evil, suffering and theodicy, that God, the Biblical, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, takes a radically different view on the problem of evil and suffering than does humanity.

And often radically different that many in the Church or cultural Christianity.

I do not believe, as documented especially on my other blog and in my PhD, in gratuitous evil, as God is the sovereign first cause of all things with purpose, but I certainly from a human perspective reason there is inscrutable evil, as also documented.

This would be evil and evils be very difficult if not virtually impossible to reasonably fully understand for humanity. I would also further state that these would be very difficult if not virtually impossible to reasonably fully explain at times.

Perhaps the death of a cute, lovable looking, wildcat kitten within nature's food chain may at least, even accepting the fall and natural order, fit somewhat under the category of inscrutable evil.

Further

But this depends on whether or not, I suppose, in a restored Universe, all death is to be ended, or if rather human death is to be ended based on Revelation 21-22.

It seems philosophically that even in a realm of everlasting life (eternity) that an ecology would require at least a type of death via and through a programmed life cycle in the sense of regenerating itself, but the ending of animals for food is perhaps possibility and therefore perhaps an inscrutable evil at this point.