 |
| Trekearth.com: Manchester University |
Originally published on Blogger, 20150317. Revised on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20250208.
Preface
I earned my PhD thesis research degree from the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David at Lampeter, preceded by my MPhil thesis research degree at Bangor University. I had previously, very briefly, worked with Manchester University and my advisor was Professor David Pailin. I did not receive a grade at Manchester University. I used the library there.
I earned my PhD thesis research degree from the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David at Lampeter, preceded by my MPhil thesis research degree at Bangor University. I had previously, very briefly, worked with Manchester University and my advisor was Professor David Pailin. I did not receive a grade at Manchester University. I used the library there.
The professor I had agreed to work with in Manchester was away for a year, so with God’s help, I soon signed with the University of Wales and completed the academic work required on two occasions with MPhil and PhD theses at Wales. I lived in Manchester for my most of my stay in the United Kingdom, but completed most of my British academic work in British Columbia through distance learning with no local advisor. I did stay at the PhD campus in Wales on return visits to the United Kingdom and liked Wales very much. Living in Manchester had some benefits such as making church friends and also having Manchester United home membership, as well as viewing Manchester City at home as well. I also toured England with a friend in Manchester that had Arsenal away membership. I continue the football touring with my hopefully yearly British Isles/Europe trips. Staying in Wales had benefits, as Lampeter was isolated and very scenic.
Defence/Defense versus Theodicy
I reason Professor Pailin was correct in stating that academically, within the problem of evil discussion, a defence (approach) versus theodicy (approach) difference was minimal. This is contrary to what I read from Alvin C. Plantinga, although I found Plantinga's work very useful in my MPhil and PhD research. I came to this same conclusion as Professor Pailin myself as both defence and theodicy approaches largely speculate in regard to the problem of evil (more specifically, problems of evil, in my work), as human beings have finite knowledge, in comparison to God’s infinite knowledge. It is true that a theodicy is expected to be more robust and dogmatic. A defence is less dogmatic. I cautiously embedded a theodicy within my PhD relying on Bible, Reformed theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion. To Professor Pailin's credit, stating a defence might be true, in comparison to stating a theodicy is true, still means that a defence and theodicy are both are equally speculative, in general terms.
Defence/Defense versus Theodicy
I reason Professor Pailin was correct in stating that academically, within the problem of evil discussion, a defence (approach) versus theodicy (approach) difference was minimal. This is contrary to what I read from Alvin C. Plantinga, although I found Plantinga's work very useful in my MPhil and PhD research. I came to this same conclusion as Professor Pailin myself as both defence and theodicy approaches largely speculate in regard to the problem of evil (more specifically, problems of evil, in my work), as human beings have finite knowledge, in comparison to God’s infinite knowledge. It is true that a theodicy is expected to be more robust and dogmatic. A defence is less dogmatic. I cautiously embedded a theodicy within my PhD relying on Bible, Reformed theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion. To Professor Pailin's credit, stating a defence might be true, in comparison to stating a theodicy is true, still means that a defence and theodicy are both are equally speculative, in general terms.
If one studies the problem of evil thoroughly he/she will come across the issue of a defence in regard to the problem, and a theodicy that deals with the problem. Theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and perfectly good God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists. Alvin C. Plantinga differentiates between his own free will defence and a free will theodicy. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He states that his defence is mainly a logical presentation, attempting to maintain logical consistency, whereas theodicy is more dogmatic in approach, Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). Within my MPhil and PhD dissertations, however, I view defence and theodicy as equally speculative.
Philip L. Quinn notes that Plantinga’s view of a defence in contrast to theodicy means Plantinga does not speculate on God’s reasons for permitting evil, but merely argues that God’s existence is logically consistent with the problem of evil. Quinn (1996: 611). I agree with Quinn, somewhat. Plantinga is mainly arguing that God’s existence can be shown as logical in regard to the problem of evil with his defence; however, Plantinga as does every scholar with any type of explanation for the topic of the problem of evil, speculates within his defence. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 45-59). This type of speculation is perhaps not done as forcefully as some in theodicy. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28).
I therefore reason that a defence can be reviewed under the umbrella of theodicy and did so within my formal academic work and my website work. Theodicy is by nature somewhat speculative and therefore, theodicy, like a defence, is also dealing with a possible reason for God to permit evil. A theodicy may be more dogmatic than Plantinga’s defence in its assertions and arguments, but it is still speculative, as is my own work on theodicy. Plantinga comments that one who writes a theodicy assumes that it is true, while one who writes a defense is stating that it is possibly true. Plantinga (1982: 192). However, even a person writing the theodicy does not have exhaustive knowledge of God and his reasoning in regard to the problem, and I therefore conclude that theodicy and defence are generally both equally speculative, although perhaps not equally dogmatic.
Process Theology
David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some process theology approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging. However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation. Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures. Pailin (1999: 469). I disagree, as God is infinite, God is unlimited in nature and character. God does not change, although God as infinite can interact within finite reality that God created. In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit. God does not change as God is infinite, ontologically. I do agree that God does love his creatures, although this love does not from the New Testament, equate to a universal human belief and trusting faith, in the triune God. If one is not regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as examples) in election (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-11, as examples), the love of God, does not suffice for salvation in these cases. Revelation 20-21, although using significantly figurative language, makes it clear that all people whose names are not within the book of life (20: 15) are not part of the post-mortem, everlasting Kingdom of God (21: 27).
Enlightenment
Pailin (1999) writes that since the Enlightenment era, the traditional propositional view of revelation has widely, but not completely, been replaced by the understanding that divine revelation comes through events. Pailin (1999: 505). Enlightenment thinkers tended to reject external sources of knowledge and elevated human reasoning. Biblical doctrines were therefore under suspicion. This view was clearly expressed to me in my few discussions with Professor Pailin. I prefer to seek enlightenment and reason through the direction of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All truth is God's truth and the Hebrew Bible and New Testament records are revealed, religious history.
Deism
Pailin, defines deism as coming from the Latin word deus and parallels the Greek which is theos. Pailin (1999: 148). In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).
David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some process theology approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging. However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation. Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures. Pailin (1999: 469). I disagree, as God is infinite, God is unlimited in nature and character. God does not change, although God as infinite can interact within finite reality that God created. In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit. God does not change as God is infinite, ontologically. I do agree that God does love his creatures, although this love does not from the New Testament, equate to a universal human belief and trusting faith, in the triune God. If one is not regenerate (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, as examples) in election (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-11, as examples), the love of God, does not suffice for salvation in these cases. Revelation 20-21, although using significantly figurative language, makes it clear that all people whose names are not within the book of life (20: 15) are not part of the post-mortem, everlasting Kingdom of God (21: 27).
Enlightenment
Pailin (1999) writes that since the Enlightenment era, the traditional propositional view of revelation has widely, but not completely, been replaced by the understanding that divine revelation comes through events. Pailin (1999: 505). Enlightenment thinkers tended to reject external sources of knowledge and elevated human reasoning. Biblical doctrines were therefore under suspicion. This view was clearly expressed to me in my few discussions with Professor Pailin. I prefer to seek enlightenment and reason through the direction of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All truth is God's truth and the Hebrew Bible and New Testament records are revealed, religious history.
Deism
Pailin, defines deism as coming from the Latin word deus and parallels the Greek which is theos. Pailin (1999: 148). In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).
I respected the Professor's encyclopedic knowledge of philosophy of religion, and have aimed for that myself, as well as focusing on philosophical theology within a Reformed, biblical, tradition. We strongly disagreed on what a reasonable, Christian faith would be. A reasonable, Christian faith and philosophy without a significant trust in scriptural revelation and guidance through the Holy Spirit in life, is more so speculative theism, and deism, in some cases, and not really a biblical Christianity at all. In contrast to a supernaturally revealed Christianity, this is Christianity within Christendom, that does not truly significantly embrace the revealed doctrines and New Testament worldview, based on a reasonable trust, by grace through faith, in the triune God.
Bibliography
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
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.
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.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
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.
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.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
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.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.
PACKER, J.I. (1996) ‘Regeneration’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
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.
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.
 |
| River Taff, Wales, trekearth |
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.
QUINN, PHILIP L. (1996) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, Robert Audi (ed.), in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.
Also referenced for the academia.edu version
Cited
David Arthur Pailin (1936–2021) graduated from Trinity College and became a leading British philosopher and theologian. He wrote numerous books, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. He eventually became head of the Department of Philosophy of the University of Manchester.[1]
In his work, he "took a critical realist approach to theology, with particular attention to the possibility of reconstructing a theism that is both credible and significant."[1] One reviewer wrote of his last collection of essays, 1994's Probing the Foundations: A study in Theistic Reconstruction: "The influence of process theology in Europe is restricted to some individuals. David Pailin, professor of philosophy of religion in the University of Manchester, is one of the most important of these."[2]
References
1 "Pailin, David Arthur". DMBI: A Dictionary of Methodism in Britain and Ireland.
2 Sarot, M., Review of the book Probing the foundations, Bijdragen: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology, 1997.
Cited
Books
'Attitudes to Other Religions: Comparative Religion in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Britain (1984)
Groundwork of Philosophy of Religion (1986)
God and the Processes of Reality (1989)
The Anthropological Character of Theology (1990)
A Gentle Touch: From a Theology of Handicap to a Theology of Human Being (1992)
Probing the Foundations: A study in Theistic Reconstruction (1994)'
