Saturday, March 07, 2026

Final Events II: Introduction Continued: Satire Und Theology Version

Final Events II: Introduction Continued

This book review continues:

REDFERN, NICK (2010) Final Events: And The Secret Government Group On Demonic UFOS And The Afterlife, San Antonio/New York, Anomalist Books.

Introduction continued 

Previously

Friday, August 07, 2020: Final Events I: Introduction

Author Redfern explains that Ray Boeche, an Anglican priest and Rector at Celebration Anglican Church in Lincoln, Nebraska, is also the founder and former director of the Fortean Research Center. He is as well a former Nebraska State Director for the Mutual UFO Network. In 1991, Boeche, after being contacted, met with two United States Department of Defense physicists in regards to the subject of UFOs. (I). 

Redfern learned about these meetings when he met Boeche in 2006 and then interviewed him in 2007. (I). The book states Boeche had a shorter, and then a longer meeting with the two physicists from the Department of Defense. (I). This led to Boeche being 'plunged headlong into a strange and surreal world of classified Department of Defense projects, secret meetings and follow-up dialogues...'(2). 

What was presented to Boeche from these Department of Defense physicists was descriptions of NHE's or Non-Human Entities, which many within UFO research and analysis reason are aliens (extraterrestrials, my add). (2). However, in contrast, certain persons within the Department of Defense reason these are 'deceptive minions of Satan.' (2).

August 27, 2020

The two men Boeche met with were physicists (2). They were both Christians and while working for the US Department of Defense, an aspect of their work was to contacts NHE's. (2). The next part of this text is revealing:

Quote:

'And part of this effort was to try and control the NHE's and use their powers in military weapons applications and in intelligence areas, such as remote-viewing and psychotronic weapons.' (2).

These two Department of Defense, physicists reasoned the NHE's 'were not extraterrestrial at all; they believed they were some sort of demonic entities.' (2). Further the scientists stated that all the benevolent or beneficial contacts with these entities were 'tainted'. (2). Eventually the results of the contacts worked out to be 'bad'. (2). The scientists therefore viewed these encounters as demonic as opposed to extraterrestrial. (3). From a biblical context, the entities were viewed as deceivers of humanity. (3).

The two scientists that held to Christian faith and philosophy reasoned that others with the US Department of Defense were 'being lulled into a false sense of security' (4). The text explains that the supposed technology provided by the NHE's, such as psychotronic weapons and  remote viewing was not really being done by the Department of Defense, but the entities 'were always the causal factor'. (4).

Opinion

I am not a UFO: Unidentified Flying Objects or NHE: Non-Human Entities, expert. I make no dogmatic claims on the subject, or on the particular existence of such entities, but I will defend reasonable theology and reasonable theistic philosophy of religion. This is a book review.

I am just beginning the review of this text, but if the Department of Defense scientists are correct that these entities were (are) demonic and therefore multidimensional/extradimensional as opposed to extraterrestrial; deception in acts and actions, from these entities, is indeed to be expected. Human beings, especially the unregenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter, for the regenerate) do not typically significantly understand the supernatural realm. Or if they have an intellectual, but not regenerate understanding, do not navigate properly, the supernatural realm. The demonic entities, as do God's angels, have significant knowledge of the supernatural realm and the natural realm. As demonic entities, the fallen angels (2 Peter 2, Revelation 12: 7-9) serve Satan in both supernatural and natural realms. Angels serve the triune God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in both supernatural and natural realms. The regenerate in contrast to the unregenerate, have been enlightened by God and embrace the atoning and resurrection work of God the Son, applied to them.

Demonic entities have the upper hand in any dealings with the Department of Defense or any other human entity that does not embrace the power of Almighty God through the gospel for protection from the powers of darkness. A key is to humbly as finite and sinful humanity, seek the biblical God as opposed to seeking human knowledge and wisdom, alone, while interacting with extraterrestrial or extradimensional entities which too are finite. The entities as finite, are not eternal. If these entities are not under direct submission to the eternal, infinite, God, and have rebelled against God, they are tainted by evil.

Non-exhaustive examples: New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Matthew 6:13 

13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from [a]evil. [b][For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’] 

Footnotes 

a Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one 

b Matthew 6:13 This clause not found in early mss 

Ephesians 6:11 

11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

2 Thessalonians 3:3 

3 But the Lord is faithful, [a]and He will strengthen and protect you [b]from the evil one.

Footnotes

a 2 Thessalonians 3:3 Lit who will 

b 2 Thessalonians 3:3 Or from evil

James 4:7 

7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

1 John 5:19 

19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

World = κόσμος = cosmos

Here κόσμος appears to be not only our world system, but also our planet and universe. In other words, wherever humanity has dominion, Satanic beings are also operating.

Bible Hub

Cited 

HELPS Word-studies 

2889 kósmos (literally, "something ordered") – properly, an "ordered system" (like the universe, creation); the world. [The English term "cosmetic" is derived from 2889 /kósmos, i.e. the order ("ensemble") used of treating the face as a whole.]

---

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) 'A logical proof that Mormonism is false', Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm 

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org 

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

TOLHURST, TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Wikipedia Review 


Updated 20260307 from a version on Dr. Russell Norman Murray

Posted by at No comments:

Final Events I: Introduction: Satire Und Theology Version

Amazon
Final Events I: Introduction

Archives


Updated 20260703 from Dr. Russell Norman Murray

Preface

My good friend, Mr. JCZ bought me 'Final Events' for my birthday, so as it has arrived, I will begin a book review series and consider how it progresses. This has me with four book reviews at present on this website, plus other theological, philosophical and biblical issues I research, analyze and write on that come to mind. Many are subjects that I continue to work on over the years.

My MPhil and PhD research was in regards to problems of evil, theodicy, free will, determinism and the nature of God, and I continue to write on these subjects. I embedded a biblical, Reformed solution to problems of evil within my British, PhD thesis.

My Mom has recently passed and so I have extra work to do with estate issues and will be producing shorter articles for now.

REDFERN, NICK (2010) Final Events: And The Secret Government Group On Demonic UFOS And The Afterlife, San Antonio/New York, Anomalist Books.

Mr. Redfern is a full-time author, lecturer and journalist. (Back cover). 


For decades, stories of alien abductions, UFO encounters, flying saucer sightings, and Area 51 have led millions of people to believe that extraterrestrials are secretly among us. But what if those millions of people are all wrong? What if the UFO phenomenon has much darker and far more ominous origins? For four years, UFO authority Nick Redfern has been investigating the strange and terrifying world of a secret group within the U.S. Government known as the Collins Elite. The group believes that our purported alien visitors are, in reality, deceptive demons and fallen angels. They are the minions of Satan, who are reaping and enslaving our very souls, and paving the way for Armageddon and Judgment Day. 

In FINAL EVENTS you'll learn about the secret government files on occultists Aleister Crowley and Jack Parsons, and their connections to the UFO mystery; revelations of the demonic link to the famous "UFO crash" at Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947; the disclosure of government investigations into life-after-death and out-of-body experiences; and an examination of the satanic agenda behind alien abductions. FINAL EVENTS reveals the stark and horrific truths about UFOs that some in the government would rather keep secret. 
---

Introduction

Author Redfern explains that Ray Boeche, an Anglican priest and Rector at Celebration Anglican Church in Lincoln, Nebraska, is also the founder and former director of the Fortean Research Center. He is as well a former Nebraska State Director for the Mutual UFO Network. In 1991, Boeche, after being contacted, met with two US Department of Defense physicists in regards to the subject of UFOs. (I).

Redfern learned about these meetings when he met Boeche in 2006 and then interviewed him in 2007. (I). The book states Boeche had a shorter, and then a longer meeting with the two physicists from the Department of Defense. (I). This led to Boeche being 'plunged headlong into a strange and surreal world of classified Department of Defense projects, secret meetings and follow-up dialogues...'(2).

What was presented to Boeche from these Department of Defense physicists was descriptions of NHE's or Non-Human Entities, which many within UFO research and analysis reason are aliens (extraterrestrials, my add). (2). However, in contrast, certain persons within the Department of Defense reason these are 'deceptive minions of Satan.' (2).

The Reverend Boeche has a website.

Dr. Raymond W Boeche

Cited 

Founder and former director of the Fortean Research Center, The Reverend Dr. Raymond W. Boeche has been involved in the study of unexplained phenomena since 1965. He has served as Nebraska State Director for the Mutual UFO Network, on the Board of Advisors for Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, and in various capacities with numerous other organizations around the world, involved in the study of unexplained phenomena. 

Boeche has delivered juried papers at two MUFON International Symposia; was retained by the University of Nebraska as a consultant to organize, host, and present research papers at two major international conferences on the unexplained in 1982 and 1983. He has had numerous articles published, as well 4 books: a collection of his writings, "An Anthology of the Unexplained"; "The Collected Annals of the Journal of the Fortean Research Center"; "Bloodless Cuts: The Complete Collected Works of Thomas R. Adams"; and "A Time to Stand: When Government Turns Its Back on God." 

Boeche is well-known as one of the primary investigators of the 1980 Bentwaters (UK) UFO incident. He is also recognized for his extensive work in the areas of animal mutilations, out-of-place animal sightings, Bigfoot reports, the Men-in-Black phenomenon, and occult religions and philosophies.

His research has often been cited in national publications such as Omni and Fate magazine, and in books by researchers such as Loren Coleman, Janet and Colin Bord, Jenny Randles, Jerome Clark, Timothy Good, and others. He has contributed to the Time-Life book series Mysteries of the Unexplained, the LBS Communications production "UFO Coverup. . . Live!" for the Fox Television Network, and Guennette Productions’ Home Box Office special, "UFO’s, What on Earth is Happening?"
He helped produce and host a popular weekly radio call-in talk show, Exploring Unexplained Phenomena for three years, is a frequent guest on other talk shows, and a popular speaker on theology and the unexplained. 

Cited 

As a theologian and apologist, Dr. Boeche headed an outreach to the academic community and the 'New Age' movement called "Reasonable Defense" from 1987 through 1994.
---

Opinion

From my non-exhaustive research, both Mr. Redfern and Dr. Boeche appear as legitimate researchers on the subject of UFOs and their possible ontological sources. As a theologian and philosopher of religion, I find it very interesting that representatives and physicists (these two physicists were both Christians, page 2), from the US Department of Defense would consider extradimensional alternatives to extraterrestrial UFO theory. I shall continue with the Introduction from the book in a future article.
---
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) 'A logical proof that Mormonism is false', Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm 

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org 

TOLHURST, TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Wikipedia Review 


Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 26, 2026

The Importance of Theodicy: Satire Und Theology Version

The Importance of Theodicy

Preface 

This article was originally published on Blogger 20091111. I republished 20260226, with significant revisions and additions. 

Photo is of Glasgow Cathedral: Glasgow-Cathedral-09 myhighlands.de 

On the original posting, I mentioned a 2009 USA trip which tied into visiting Wales for my PhD Viva. Now in 2026, quite soon, I will be visiting the UK and France, including Glasgow. This will be my first walking tour of Glasgow, which I have wanted to do for some time. This section below was the basis for some PhD thesis work.


2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

The importance of theodicy 

Some dismiss theodicy entirely and some view it as only having limited value. Hille reasons that a satisfactory self-coherent answer to the question of the justice of God cannot be found in theology or philosophy. Hille (2004: 26). Ferraiolo explains that many critics of theism would claim the existence of gratuitous evil makes a theodicy a difficult thing to establish in our present world filled with evil. He concludes his article by noting it is not obvious that human suffering is reconcilable with theism. Ferraiolo (2005: 1). Pereboom writes that despite some important work within theodicy over the last thirty years, the problem of evil still remains the greatest challenge to theistic belief. Pereboom (2005: 33). Lindsley notes that many persons are unimpressed by Christian attempts at theodicy. He suggests that theodicy must be careful not to portray itself in a way that it is speaking for God. Lindsley (2003: 3). I fully admit and reason that theodicy is a speculative exercise to a degree, and any person writing on the subject should with humility approach it very carefully. 

Marcel Sarot comments that many feminist theologians see theodicy as dominated by white males, and these feminists reject notions of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness. Sarot (1997: 29). An important point here is that it needs to be remembered that each writer of theodicy is approaching the subject from theological assumptions. Many theodicy views are written by men and some of these male writers may not adequately portray female and feminist perspectives on the problem of evil. Theologian Carl Henry writes that empirical and philosophical considerations devoid of revelation cannot vindicate God in this evil world. Henry (1983: 282). I can accept Henry’s point, as from a traditional Christian perspective, Biblical revelation is viewed as explaining God’s workings in his creation, although this revelation does not exhaustively discuss the problem of evil. Henri Blocher notes theodicy are failures in themselves and must have ideas within that square with Biblical revelation in order to be true and beneficial. Blocher (1994: 84). I do not agree that all theodicy are failures in themselves, but can grant a Christian theodicy needs the support of Scripture, which connects the reader to the salvific work of Christ. 

It should be noted that a theodicy written from a sovereignty perspective, to be very valuable, needs to focus on how God’s divine plans and purposes are accomplished through the development of human beings. Erlandson explains that many theodicy are fatally flawed since they are too focused on the idea of God creating a world for the best possible state of human beings. Erlandson (1991: 1). The ideas of Erlandson are in line with sovereignty theodicy, which places greater emphasis on God’s perfect and holy plans in willingly allowing the problem of evil to exist in creation, than does free will theodicy. 

Scudder comments that if the sovereignty of God is stressed, and evil is still considered to be reality, then this logically leads to the idea that God causes evil and it is part of a predetermined plan. Scudder (1940: 248). I agree with this notion, but Scudder deduces that a strong view of God willing evil for the greater good means evil could be understood as not really being evil. Scudder (1940: 248). I can understand how a scholar could come to such a conclusion, but a Reformed influenced sovereignty theodicy does not need to agree with this idea which is foreign to both traditional Reformed and conservative theology. 

Robert H. Mounce explains that God directs the affairs in life, for those who love him, for the greater good. Mounce (1995: 187). C.E.B. Cranfield comments that although God can will grievous and evil things to occur, God in Christ works these things towards the greater good, in particular in the context of salvation for those that know Christ. Cranfield (1992: 204). Evil and sin are not to be confused with goodness and obedience within Reformed traditions, but as God willingly allows evil things to occur, his purposes and motives are pure. 

David Ray Griffin critically disagrees with this concept of John Calvin and others, but correctly defines the idea that God’s will must be regarded as righteous, even when we as human beings cannot fully understand the rightness of his judgments, since God is the definition of righteousness. Griffin (1976: 129). Wright reasons the problem of evil can be solved in a straightforward manner by proposing that God predestines evils to occur for a particular purpose, and that persons do not have an answer back for God. Wright (1996: 197). This comment from Wright is accurate from a Reformed perspective. I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur. The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonable solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation. 

Ultimately, Christ’s atoning work and resurrection leads to a culminated Kingdom of God (Revelation 21-22) with resurrected citizens. That is the solution to the problem of evil within the realm that God intended human beings to have dominion over. A critic can rightly state that everlasting hell and therefore, in a sense, the problem of evil, will still exist. My reply is that an actual everlasting realm of hell, as a place of punishment is not intended for human beings to have dominion over and therefore there is no certain need for a remedy for evil within it. 
 
20260226: Compatibilism v Incompatibilism

The revealed biblical Scripture through God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, presented via inspired biblical authors is the ultimate and final authority on religious matters, including human salvation, theodicy and problems of evil. But this in no way prohibits God's truth from being found within philosophical theology and theistic philosophy of religion. Especially within Reformed theology and compatiblist positions, coherent, reasonable solutions in regards to theodicy and problems of evil can be found. 

A key example is the insights on incompatiblism versus compatiblism through philosophical means which can be extremely insightful when understood correctly with an open-mind. Another key example is how a Reformed, compatibilistic, perspective can effectively deal with the issue of gratuitous evil.

Compatibilism (Soft determinism)

Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling define compatibilism as the theory that human free will is compatible with God’s sovereign prerogative to determine or will all events. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 28).  P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to the philosophical concepts of free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1). Louis P. Pojman defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596). 

John S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force (for there to be significant human moral accountability with human will and actions, my add), but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine, with the use of persuasion, that actions will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). 

Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet these were committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637). 

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30). 

I personally embrace, what I named limited free will, within compatibilism. Human beings through nature, consciousness, desire and will embrace as secondary causes, thoughts, acts and actions. Simultaneously, God, within theistic compatibilism, is the primary cause of all things, but with holy, pure and good motives. Limited free will is compatibilistic, not incompatibilistic, it is not to be confused with libertarian free will.

Incompatibilism (Indeterminism)

Indeterminism is equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion, any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. This would include concepts of libertarian free will.

Blackburn explains free will theory requires autonomous beings that are able to perform free actions without any significant influence upon their will. He describes autonomy as the ability of agents to govern themselves, and for this to occur autonomous agents must commit actions which are truly their own. Philosopher Tim Mawson reasons that incompatibilism, which is also known as libertarianism in regard to human free will, believes that true human free will must be uncaused by preceding states. Mawson (1999: 324).

Norman Geisler (1986) describes a form of incompatibilism which he calls self-determinism. Geisler (1986: 75). Moral choices are not caused or uncaused by another being, but are self-caused. Geisler (1986: 75). Incompatibilists, therefore, do not deny there are outside forces that influence significantly free human actions; however, they do not accept any notion that a free act can be caused in a determined sense by one being upon another and remain a significantly free act. Ferre (1973)(1976: 35). Geisler (1986: 75). Mawson (1999: 324). An act cannot be determined or simultaneously determined and remain truly free within incompatibilism. Ferre (1973)(1976: 35). Geisler (1986: 75). Mawson (1999: 324). 

Determinism (Hard determinism)

Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137). In other words, there are forms of determinism where human actions are significant. 

D.G. Bloesch explains that fate is not chance, but instead is cosmic determinism that has no meaning or purpose. Bloesch (1996: 407). He writes that fate/fatalism would differ from a Christian idea of divine providence and its implied use of determinism, in that fatalism is impersonal and irrational, whereas providence is personal and rational. Bloesch (1996: 407). In contrast to 'fate' or fatalism, biblical, theological determinism, has divine meaning. Thiessen comments that fatalism is not determinism because fatalism holds that all events are caused by fate and not natural causes, and nothing can change these events. Determinism, in contrast, holds that all events occur by necessity. Thiessen (1956: 186).

Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for actions determined, as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

In contrast, the compatibilist, soft-deterministic God of Reformed theology allows significant human freedom with the embracing of human thoughts, acts and action via human nature, desires and limited free will. The human ability with significant freedom to embrace thoughts, acts and actions as a secondary cause, philosophically and theologically eliminates God as forcing or coercing human thoughts, acts and actions where there is human, moral, accountability.

I reason God at times, does force or coerce events in regard to humanity, in those cases, there is not significant human moral accountability. For example, a person unwillingly becomes an amputee. This is against the nature, desires and will. A person does not sin by rejecting the amputation with nature, desires and will.

20260226: Gratuitous evil

I also dealt within theodicy with the issue of evidential issue or gratuitous evil for my PhD thesis. The evidential problem was considered less solved than the logical problem; I rejected this idea and documented why this was the case. I reason a sovereignty theodicy/approach can reasonably state that as an infinite, omnipotent God can use all evil for the greater good, no amount of evil is too much or gratuitous. God remains perfectly good and holy in the process. God's plans achieved means the evil he willfully allows is not gratuitous.

Romans 8:28 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

28And we know that [a]God causes (A)all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are (B)called according to His purpose.

However, from our human perspective much evil often remains unexplainable and very painful.

Gratuitous evil is also known as the evidential argument for evil and has been presented by atheistic philosopher William Rowe on more than one occasion. He presents an argument for gratuitous evil in ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’ in The Problem of Evil.

Rowe’s evidential argument for evil, states the following propositions: Rowe (1990: 1).

(1) God, an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being exists.
(2) Gratuitous evil exists.
(3) A perfectly good being would always eliminate gratuitous evil as far as it can.
(4) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Rowe (1990: 3).

Rowe concludes that there is no good state of affairs where an omnipotent, omniscient being would be justified in allowing evils where no possible good can arise from them taking place; he also calls these inscrutable evils, which are evils that cannot be understood. Rowe (1990: 3). Rowe’s proposition (1) and those like, seem reasonable from a traditional Christian perspective. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 89-99). Proposition (2) is debatable because it assumes that concepts of those within sovereignty and soul-making theodicy are incorrect and that an infinite, omnipotent God cannot use all wrong actions by creatures for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Hick (1970: 292). Proposition (2) really does not prove anything, but simply states a disagreement between Rowe and many within Christian theism on whether or not God’s purposes are being fulfilled, even when horrendous evils occur. Rowe states that there is too much evil that does not make sense in existence. Rowe (1990: 3). Numerous theists would answer that although finite human beings cannot know the purposes of evil, God has a purpose. In my view, the human being is therefore unable to truly judge if too much evil exists. 

Proposition (3) is questionable because it builds upon the debatable proposition (2). It assumes that God cannot use all evil towards the greater good, and since gratuitous evil would exist, it implies that God likely is not a perfectly good being. Proposition (4) can be challenged by the theist because although God technically could rid the world of evil, both Feinberg and Hick for example, have provided good reasons why the creator would allow preventable evil. Feinberg states that eliminating evil would prohibit other divine plans for the greater good, Feinberg (1994: 130). Hick writes that God must allow a hostile imperfect environment in order for soul-making to occur. Hick (1970: 292).

Rowe has written a logical argument, but it is not necessarily true because theists can debate proposition (2) and claim the infinite, perfectly good God can always use the evil actions of his finite creations for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). It also can be stated concerning proposition (3) that as Calvin noted, God’s motives would remain pure even while horrendous evils take place, and God need not be less than perfectly good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 40). This would seem reasonable and possible for an infinite deity to accomplish as he is dealing with finite creatures that could never match him in morality, power, and knowledge.

Frances and Daniel Howard-Snyder reason that a way to deny premise (3) is to state that there is no such thing as a minimum amount of suffering that God must allow in order for the greater good to be accomplished. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). This idea would not accept the critic’s notion that there is a minimum amount of evil and suffering that God must allow in a situation, and if he goes beyond that amount, gratuitous evil has occurred and God therefore does not exist. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). Jeff Jordon disagrees and argues that the no minimum of suffering claim is false or implausible, because for any distribution of evil for divine purposes there is always a less painful distribution that would accomplish the same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238). 

I think it more likely that for each varying amount of suffering that God willingly allows there are resulting amounts of greater good or evil that occur. There is also the possibility that if God allows a certain amount of suffering in a given situation that the greater good will not occur and therefore God would not allow this amount of suffering to take place. Since the amount of suffering is largely related to the amount of greater good, it is not likely that a smaller amount of suffering could accomplish the same results as a greater amount, either good or bad. I therefore, doubt Jordon’s claim that a less painful distribution of evil would accomplish the exact same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238).

A critic may state that Jesus could have simply atoned for sins by dying with a much less brutal death. Christ could have been beaten less, not been crucified, died in a less painful way, and still died for sins, but I reason that the exact purposes of God would not have been accomplished through less suffering. I conclude that in the case of the death of Christ, a less painful distribution of evil would not have accomplished the exact same purposes. 

Unfortunately from our human perspective, what we may often view as gratuitous unnecessary evil, is in a sense, God accomplishing his purposes in a situation. I can certainly relate on a personal level, with the atheist and non-Christian that deems this as wrong and unfair, but as human beings we are in no position to judge God’s motives and plans in working in his creation in regard to the problem of evil. I have determined that my sufferings which are often very annoying, do not provide me with a strong enough intellectual argument to overcome the Biblical, theological and philosophical evidence for God's existence. 

My suffering, and the suffering of others, is certainly very difficult and often unappreciated, but from Job 40:1-2, from the New American Standard Bible, it states.

Then the Lord said to Job,
‘Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.’

---

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Fatalism’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, InterVarsity Press.

BLOESCH, D. (1996) ‘Fate, Fatalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CLARKE, O. FIELDING. (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited. 

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Job, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Proverbs, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ERLANDSON, DOUG (1991) ‘A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil’, in Doug Erlandson PhD Philosophy, Reformed.org, Orange County, Covenant Community Church of Orange County.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FERRE, FREDERICK (1952)(1976) ‘Self-Determinism’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 10, Number 3, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

GREENSPAN, P.S. (1998) Free Will and Genetic Determinism: Locating the Problem (s), Maryland, University of Maryland. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 

HENRY, CARL (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books. 

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press. 

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology. 

HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK, Evangelical Review of Theology.

HOWARD-SNYDER, DANIEL AND JOHN O’LEARY-HAWTHORNE (1998) ‘Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga’s Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 44, Number 1, August, Springer, Netherlands, Publisher International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

HOWARD-SNYDER, FRANCES AND DANIEL (1999) ‘Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?’, American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2, April, pp. 115-130, Chicago, University of Illinois.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

JORDAN, JEFF (2003) ‘Evil and Van Inwagen’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 236-238. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KRAUT, RICHARD (1996) ‘Plato’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 619-629. Cambridge University Press.

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing & Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.  

MACDONALD, SCOTT (1989) ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonist Account of Goodness’, in The New Scholasticism, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 485-509. Baltimore, The New Scholasticism. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MAWSON, TIM (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil and Moral Indifference’, in Religious Studies, Volume 35, pp. 323-345. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do Theodicies Do?’, in American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September. Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

LAFOLLETTE, HUGH (1980) ‘Plantinga on Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, The Hague, Martimus Nijhoff Publishers.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1994) (David Arthur) 1936- Worldcat.org
 
PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Enlightenment’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

PEREBOOM, DERK (2005) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, William E. Mann, (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. 

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLATO (360 B.C.)(1982) ‘Timaeus’, in Process Studies, Volume. 12, Number 4, Winter, pp.243-251. Claremont, California, Process Studies. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1994) ‘The Problem of No Best World’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 269-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1996) ‘Privation’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1999) ‘The Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 16, Number 1, January, pp. 98-101. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College

SAROT, MARCEL (1997) ‘Evil, Tragedy and Feminist Theology: New Impulses for Theodicy’, in Theology Digest, Volume 44, Number 1, Spring, pp. 29-33. St. Louis, Missouri, Theology Digest. 

SCUDDER, DELTON, LEWIS (1940) Tennant’s Philosophical Theology, London, Oxford University Press. 

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

VAN INWAGEN, PETER (2006) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WICKHAM, EDWARD R. ‘Forward’, in O.Fielding.Clarke (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited. 

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, February 15, 2026

Teleology: Satire Und Theology Version

Teleology 

Preface
Paris, Civil Engineering Discoveries, LinkedIn, March 28 2023. I have a London-Glasgow-Paris trip booked for parts of March-April 2026.

Originally published 20140824, significantly revised on Blogger 20260215.

Teleology Defined

British philosopher Blackburn describes teleology as 'The study of the ends or purposes of things.' (374). Blackburn claims that the notion that life has a beginning and end purpose was an idea of Aristotle and is also a Christian theological concept (374). In other words, in contrast, some modern views such as Darwinian evolution, reject teleology. Darwinian evolution holds to 'natural selection' (374) where a thing has a function 'without any idea of a commitment to a designer who put it there for a purpose...' (374). Teleology would therefore be viewed as 'unscientific' (374) within Darwinian evolution. 

Scientism


Empiricism

The Oxford Dictionary of Science...

Empiricism: 'Denotes a result that is observed by experiment or observation rather than by theory.' (287). I view empiricism as a legitimate academic approach in reasonable contexts.

Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy

Cited

'These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).'

'So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.

Even so, this entry will not aim to pin down any more informative definition of “naturalism”. It would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding the term. Different contemporary philosophers interpret “naturalism” differently. This disagreement about usage is no accident. For better or worse, “naturalism” is widely viewed as a positive term in philosophical circles—few active philosophers nowadays are happy to announce themselves as “non-naturalists”'

Noted Bibliography from this source

Krikorian, Y. (ed.), 1944, Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York: Columbia University Press.

Mackie, J., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Plantinga, A., 1996, “Methodological Naturalism?”, in J. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
---

Interesting definition and explanation from Stanford. In writing and discussion I have focused more on the terms 'empiricism' (nothing wrong with that view in itself) and the extreme position of scientism. I also as a Christian theologian and philosopher within the Reformed tradition, do not embrace any notion of naturalism.

Scientism

Blackburn explains...

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

The Oxford Dictionary

Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).
---

As a moderate conservative Christian of Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, I reason there is a need for openness to scientific truths, as in being open to inductive scientific evidences and the use of empiricism.

For the sake of a reasonable, balanced academic approach, the entirety of worldview should be never be reasoned at the expenses of biblical revelation and theological and philosophical deductive evidences within the academic disciplines of biblical studies and theology. These are found based on legitimate religious history. Also reasonable, rational deductions within theistic philosophy of religion should not be easily dismissed. There exists theistic philosophy of religion based on deduced, reasoned, philosophical premises and conclusions. With Darwinian evolution we can understand that teleology is rejected for naturalism and what I view as reliance only on scientific data. In the extreme this can be viewed as scientism.

Let us consider that naturalism and scientism which reject teleology, are to some degree within philosophy of science, so as there is some crossover with the academic discipline of philosophy which also deals with worldviews; it is fair and reasonable for me to legitimately have theological and philosophical disagreements with views that embrace scientism and reject teleology.

Teleology: Aristotle and Plato

Aristotle

c. 335–323 BCE for this text

"For if in medicine, or in shipbuilding, or in any other such art, some things are done for the sake of an end, it is evident that this is also the case in the products of nature. Further, in cases where a series of things has a limit, the last step is the end for the sake of which the others are done." — Physics II.8, 199a10–15

A ship being built has a beginning and an end, therefore according to Aristotle is has a teleological purpose. It also has teleological meaning. Aristotle held to 'internal teleology' as in 'invested nature itself with goals'. Hull (1996: 791).

Plato

Teleology is a philosophical doctrine that all nature, 'or at least intentional agents, are goal-directed or functionally organised'. Hull (1996: 791). Plato suggested that the organised world/universe could be understood by comparing it to the behaviour of organised agents. Hull (1996: 791). This was known as 'external teleology'. Hull (1996: 791). Human beings could anticipate their future and plan accordingly. Hull (1996: 791).

Persons could calculate their own futures, so to speak.

From Plato and Timaeus t

It states in the section Mind Persuading Necessity (48a):"The creation is made up of both [mind and necessity], mind persuading necessity as far as possible to work out good".

The idea of working things out, from Plato, would seem indeed an teleological one.

Each of these has their own final cause with the entities being constructed in a way that they tend to meet their directed goal. Hull (1996: 791). Natural theology from theologians and philosophers took these concepts and supposed that the 'all-powerful God' was to fulfill his divine intentions. Hull (1996: 791).

Today philosophers may acknowledge apparent 'functional organization' in reality, but attempt to not reference the supernatural. Hull (1996: 791). In other words to not reference, God or angelic beings. Naturalistic references and preferences would be used.

Philosophical Theology

The views of Plato and Aristotle seem over-speculative, as in a finite being cannot safely and fully accurately predict the teleological pattern for self, or teleology for self because of lack of knowledge and because human beings are a finite, secondary cause of thoughts, acts and actions. God would be the infinite, eternal, first and primary cause of all finite things. Only God could determine teleology in a full sense.

In regard to the related teleological argument, it is not the purpose of this article. But when reviewing various arguments over the years under the headings of 'natural theology' some of the premises do at times seem to be over-speculative and views that could be easily endlessly challenged by theists and non-theists. I therefore have not used them online or offline. In other words, how provable are the premises and conclusions philosophically and theologically?

I instead do hold to the concept of first cause and reason it is consistent, although not identical to the concept of the creator Biblical God. First cause being primarily of philosophy and philosophy of religion; God, primarily being of theology and Bible.

As I studied Alvin C. Plantinga's book 'God, Freedom and Evil' very thoroughly for my theses work, there was a section on Natural Theology and he largely dismissed concepts related to the teleological argument as not having evidence with points 2 to 6. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 84). In contrast, R. Douglas Geivett was much more positive in regard to natural theology in 'Evil and the Evidence for God'. Plantinga's views and his dismissal assuredly largely debatable and controversial.

I lean more towards the views of Geivett in favour of at least some significant usefulness for natural theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion from a Christian perspective, but again acknowledge the speculative nature.

In the Scripture from the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament to Revelation it can be seen and understood though that God does have teleology in play. God has a teleological purpose in creating angelic beings, human beings, in the fall, problem evil, the gospel and in the restoration of the universe.

From a finite human perspective while admitting that all truth is God's truth, in regard to God, it is more reliable depending on revelation and reason than only philosophical speculation and reason. I am certainly not opposed to using philosophy and philosophy of religion in the pursuit of truth, but teleology from a Christian theological perspective is dependent on biblical revelation from religious history found in Scripture. 

A biblical example of teleology is from Revelation 1:8, 21: 6, and Revelation 22: 13, which is the end of the New Testament...

The beginning and the end is what God the Son, Jesus Christ claims...

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Revelation 1:8

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who [a]is to come, the Almighty.”

Footnotes
Revelation 1:8 Or is coming

Revelation 21: 6

6 Then He said to me, “[a]It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give water to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life, without cost. 

Footnotes 
Revelation 21:6 Lit They are

Revelation 22:13 

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

13 ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος.14 

I the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end

I referenced


---

In great contrast, modern science that embraces Darwinian Evolution may in fact, believe in 'teleonomy', as opposed to 'teleology'. Here is a definition.

'teleonomy The quality of apparent purposefulness in living organisms that derives from their evolutionary adaptation, rather than from any conscious intention or external design." 

Source: A Dictionary of Biology (8th Ed.), edited by Robert Hine.

Not to be confused with 'theonomy'


John Frame from Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy I think that Frame’s definition is quite helpful. 

'Theonomy can be defined simply as adherence to God's law, which would make all Christians, especially Reformed Christians, into theonomists. Here I define the term more narrowly as a school of thought within Reformed theology which prefers literal, specific, and detailed applications of Mosaic civil laws to modern civil government. The word "prefers" gives us some leeway. At points, the theonomists, like the rest of us, apply the law only in general and non-literal ways. But they tend more than the rest of us to prefer the specific and the literal.'

From: Theonomy The word "theonomy" derives from the Greek words “theos” God, and “nomos” law. It is a theology which applies God's law as rule of law. I reject it for civil authorities, as within this current world system, which is fallen and corrupt, God's law will be to subject to human interpretation and not by the perfect rule of Jesus Christ and the triune God. I support theonomy only under the authority of God the Son and the triune God when the Kingdom of God is eventually fully culminated, with perfect humanity as its citizens.

Again, not to be confused with teleonomy...

--- 

ARISTOTLE, Physics (1934-1957) Greek text with translation by P. H. Wicksteed, F. M. Cornford. Loeb Classical Library 228, 255. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

ARISTOTLE, Physica (1951) Ed. W. D. Ross. Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BURY R. G. (1960) (ed. and trans.), Plato: Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles, Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb Classical Library.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HINE, ROBERT (2019) (Ed.) A Dictionary of Biology (8th ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

HULL, DAVID, L (1996) ‘Teleology’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE (2010) Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLATO (360 BCE) Timaeus, Translated by Benjamin Jowett https://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html 

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)