Wisdom and Folly

In the coming weeks, a number of bloggers will be posting reviews or interviews with me about my book, The Making of an Atheist.  Some of these have already begun to appear.  Joe Gorra interviews me at the EPS Blog, and Frank Turk has posted a very thoughtful review over at Evangel, the First Things blog.  Also, Chris Reese has posted a two-part interview and my responses to some readers’ questions at Cloud of Witnesses.  The entire schedule is below.  These are all superb blogs, most of which feature content related to apologetics and/or issues related to faith and culture.  I invite you to check them out.

The other day I received some good news from one of my publishers, InterVarsity Press.  The book I co-edited with Doug Geivett last year, Faith, Film, and Philosophy, is going into a second printing.  This is gratifying because it means the book is selling at a decent clip.  The responses of our readers are more important than sales, of course, but it’s always nice to know that your book is not wasting your publisher’s efforts and expenses.  The folks at IVP, especially Andy LePeau and Gary Deddo, believed in this project from the outset, and Doug and I are indebted to them for getting behind our vision for the book.  It feels good to see that support rewarded.

In case you’re not familiar with Faith, Film, and Philosophy, the book features essays by fourteen philosophers (including Doug and myself), each which discusses a film (or two or more) from a Christian perspective.  The films discussed include dramas, comedies, documentaries, and horror films—classic and contemporary, domestic and foreign.  And the philosophical issues explored range across many of the major areas of philosophy, such as epistemology, philosophy of mind, ethics, and philosophy of religion.  Contributors include James Sennett (on Citizen Kane), David Hunt (on The Matrix), Ron Tacelli (on horror films), Win Corduan (on Hong Kong films), and Dallas Willard (on American Beauty, Cider House Rules, and Pleasantville).

Doug has put together a website featuring more information about the book and other content related to film and philosophy:  http://www.faith-film-philosophy.com/.  When I complete work on my current project—a Philosophy introductory text—I’ll have more time to contribute content to that website, such as film reviews.  But Doug already has some interesting stuff posted.  I recommend checking out Doug’s blog as well.

Its been a good couple of days at the annual Evangelical Theological Society conference here in Providence, Rhode Island.  This morning I presented my paper on the problem of evil—specifically, comparing the free will and soul-making theodicies—and it was received well by the 50-60 folks in attendance, several of whom asked some interesting and helpful questions about my thesis, which is that the two theodicies are properly seen as complimentary (because logically interdependent) approaches to the problem.  I have posted my paper on a separate page on this blog, which you will find on the right side bar.  I’d welcome any comments, pro or con, as I’ll be submitting it for publication soon.

In addition to attending many informative and stimulating (as well as a few ponderous and soporific) paper presentations on assorted issues, from apologetics to gender issues to the hiddenness of God, I’ve been perusing endless book exhibits, chatting on subjects profound and frivolous, getting lost in the labyrinthine convention center halls, and eating far too much food—including fresh, melt-in-your-mouth Atlantic salmon on two occasions.  (Amy’s going to be sick with envy when she reads this.  Sorry, honey!)  Yes, our brand of vegetarian diet—”ovo-pecto-lacto vegetarianism,” to be tiresomely precise—does allow for fish (that’s the “pecto” part).  It also allows for chocolate mousse, by the way.  And I’m paying for it now with some late-night indigestion (belch).  Oh, but it felt so good going down…

Goodnight.

One of the most challenging issues in the philosophy of religion is the problem of evil.  Put simply, the problem concerns the difficulty of reconciling the reality of evil—from immoral behaviors to diseases and natural disasters—with the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God.  If God is almighty, then he can prevent evil, and if God is morally perfect, then presumably he would wantto prevent it.  Yet evil exists—in massive doses, in fact.  On its face, then, the problem amounts to evidence against theism, at least as traditionally construed.  One way out would be to deny God is omnipotent, as Harold Kushner essentially does in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People.  Another route would be to surrender belief in God’s goodness.  But these approaches contradict the biblical portrait of God.  So, it seems, the theist is in a fix.

Since the ancient philosopher Epicurus first posed the evidential problem of evil, theists have proposed many ways of eluding its logic by contriving “theodicies”—explanations as to why God would permit sin and suffering in this world.  Two of the most well-worn among these are the “free will theodicy” and the “soul-making theodicy.”  Both of these aim to deny the premise that God would not want to allow evil.  Each explains God’s permission of evil in terms of some greater goods that God wanted to achieve in this world. 

According to the free will theodicy the greater goods God desired were the various goods that depend upon human freedom, such as genuine relationships and moral qualities.  But, of course, we have misused our freedom and, well, now things are a mess.  But the risk, so to speak, was worth it, or so say defenders of the free will theodicy.  According to the soul-making theodicy, the greater goods God aims to achieve by permitting evil is higher or “second-order” virtues which can only be displayed in response to evil.  For example, forgiveness requires sin to forgive, perseverance demands difficulty to overcome, and so on.  Such traits as forgiveness, perseverance, patience, compassion, mercy, etc. are good and beautiful virtues, and well worth the price of evil to achieve.  Or so say proponents of the soul-making theodicy.

I think both of these theodicies are helpful in dealing with the problem of evil.  But is either one preferable to or more helpful than the other?  This question has been occupying my mind a bit lately, as I will be giving a presentation on it at next week’s national meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society in Providence, Rhode Island, which will be held at the Rhode Island Convention Center.  (Once it is finished, I plan to post my paper on this blog.)  If you’ll be in the New England area from November 18-21, you might want to consider checking out this conference and hearing presentations by some leading lights in the world of Christian philosophy and theology.  It’s not too late to register.  And I also invite you to consider joining the EPS or its sister organization, the Evangelical Theological Society.  In each case, membership is inexpensive and includes a subscription to the society’s journal (Philosophia Christi or the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society).

My interview with Apologetics.com on KKLA in the wee hours of Saturday morning (12-2 a.m. Pacific Time) went swimmingly.  I’ve done plenty of radio interviews, but these typically last 10-20 minutes, not two hours! Fortunately, I was armed with a stiff cup o’ tea and managed to get through it without losing my train of thought or falling asleep. You can read an edited version of the interview by clicking on the appropriate link in the column to your right. Or you can listen to a podcast of the interview by clicking here.

I want to thank the hosts of the Apologetics.com radio show, Rich Park and Steve Tsai, for having me as a guest on their program and for making the time fly by.  I had a great time!

This is very late notice, but I will be interviewed tonight (or, rather, tomorrow morning) from 12:00-2:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) on KKLA (99.5 FM), which broadcasts from San Diego to Santa Barbara in California. The interview is for the Apologetics.com program which airs every week at this time. You can listen to the podcast here at the Apologetics.com website. The hosts will drill me with a lot of tough questions, many of which are discussed in my book, Gum, Geckos, and God, and many others which are not. Should be fun.

Today’s stop on the Gum, Geckos, and God blog tour is At a Hen’s Pace. A review of the book is posted there as well. My thanks to Jeanne and the other bloggers participating in the tour! Its been a blast so far, especially since I can actually be on tour while doing projects around the house, which lately have included painting, building bunk beds, and pouring some concrete steps. Good times.

Also, below is the first response to our invitation to submit owl and ass drawings. It comes from an actual artist, Danny Wilson. You can see his work at Satellite Studio. Danny tells me it was a quick “30 second” sketch. Cool. I like how the two beasts look mutually suspicious—an accurate reflection of the relationship between wise and foolish people.

Owl and Ass by Danny Wilson

I am doing a blog tour for my book, Gum, Geckos, and God, and it begins TODAY. For the next two weeks, a dozen different bloggers will post my answers to their questions about my book, and they will share their own thoughts about it as well. The subjects and themes of the participating blogs range from theology and culture to homeschooling and family issues. But what all of the bloggers have in common is a Christian perspective and a thoughtful approach to faith and culture.

The blog tour schedule is below. I hope you’ll drop by and perhaps even join the conversation. For more information about Gum, Geckos, and God. See the “related website” link to the right.