Christianity, Theocracy, and Liberal Democracy

Christians think that Christianity is The Way.  Jesus is thought to be divine, and his way is the way for humanity.  Everyone should not murder.  Everyone should not lust.   Everyone should turn the other cheek. Everyone should not steal.  Everyone should love their enemies.  Everyone should trust in Jesus.

Moreover it is thought Jesus's way is the only way.  "I am the way, the truth, and the life."  Salvation hinges on having faith in Jesus, living by his ethics, avoiding sins unto death, and so on.

The stakes are immense.  Given the immensity of the stakes, Christians should do all they can to turn people to The Way.  So why shouldn't Christians living in a state which is not a theocracy, advocate and do all that they can to bring about a theocracy?  Why should they not compel Muslims to profess that "Jesus is Lord" or face imprisonment, fine dissident atheists $135,000 who refuse to photograph a Christian wedding and thus cause psychological harm, and compel all states to recognize Christian marriages?

Liberal Christians often have scorn for the "theocratic Christian right," but should they given the stakes which involve eternal consequences?  Rarely is an argument given for why a theocracy should not be advanced.

Perhaps this is a beginning of an argument: Christians should not advocate for a theocracy for the central reason given to explain why God Himself allows there to be so much evil (i.e. for the Problem of Evil): He greatly values freedom and autonomy and, as such, coercion is to be avoided. 

Of course more needs to be said if one thinks that Christians, given the massive, coercive nature of the state should not advocate anarchy or libertarianism but socialism or something in between.  More can (and should) be said.

Animals Go to Heaven or God Doesn't Exist

Eternal Salvation: It's not our place to judge

How could a powerful and loving God allow so much animal suffering?  In the case of humans, an answer might seem easy and forthcoming: free will.  Humans bring a lot of suffering on themselves, but the good of freedom makes the suffering worth it.  Not so, it seems, with non-human animals.  If God knew that non-human animals would suffer so much, why would he create them in the first place?  And if he were to create them, why would he allow so much suffering?  It seems that he wouldn't. So we have reason to think that God doesn't exist.

Philosopher, Trent Dougherty, has recently written a book on the issue.  He thinks that it's reasonable to believe that at least some animals go to heaven.  Not only that, but they will end up like the talking animals in Narnia. (!)  

Here is a link to a short podcast at Dale Tuggy's website on animal suffering (click on the arrow at the top left to listen.)  I haven't quite finished listening to it, but so far it's not only interesting but entertaining.  (I believe at about 6:30 he makes a reference to one of my philosophy colleagues who did a dissertation with Dougherty on this very issue.)  Tuggy interviews Dougherty about his own conversion to Christianity as well the Problem of Evil more generally in another episode here. I have listened to this interview in its entirety and also recommend it to the reader.  In some ways it sets the stage for the talk on the Problem of Animal Suffering in the first link.  

There's also an interesting discussion of cats, so cat lovers might find the first link particularly interesting.  

My Son Samuel & Augustine: Evil as Privation

Sam (6-yr-old): Daddy, why does Johno go up to your room in the middle of the night?

Me: Because he's a chicken.

Sam: Why is he a chicken?

Me: Because he's afraid of the dark.

Sam:  Why is he afraid of the dark?

Me:  I don't know, but I do know that you need to go to sleep.

Sam: OK.  I used to be afraid of the dark, but not anymore.  The dark is nothing.

Paul Copan's Apologetic Response to "the Slaughter of Women and Children" Destroyed

Lydia McGrew puts the royal kabash down on Paul Copan's (and Copan-like) strategies for dealing with problematic Old Testament passages.

Dang.  I was kind of hoping his line of argument had promise.  Now I'm quite doubtful.  We're back, then, to the following options:

1. Divine Command Theory--  Here is Aquinas's take (though he's not at DCTheorist):  God commanded the killing of women and children in the Old Testament times.  BUT (contrary to McGrew) this wasn't a case of murder since implicit in murder is that it's an illicit killing.  But God commanded it making it licit.
There are problems with this view that I won't get into.  Suffice it to say, I think this is the least plausible option for reasons left unsaid.

2. The Biblical Writers Got it Wrong-- Here the Peter Enns's and Peter van Inwagen's of the world take refuge. If the writers can get it wrong about the sun going around the earth, one of the spheres of heaven flooding the whole earth, and so forth, why not think they could get some things wrong about God too?  Revelation is progressive and God meets people where they are.  The Biblical folk learned more and more about God, and revelation culminates in Jesus who gives us the fullest picture of God.  God IS love.  God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  He wouldn't have commanded killing babies.  "YOU say an eye for an eye, but I say...."
I can't say I have a huge problem with this view.  Some innerantists won't like it but there is more than one way to be an innerantist.  Moreover as an apologetics strategy--"for all I know they got this wrong"--I don't think that it's necessarily a bad one.

3. Throw Up Your Hands View -- I like this view and recommend it to the reader.  Perhaps 1 is correct; Perhaps 2; Perhaps some unknown alternative 3.  Right now it is an utter mystery.

In conclusion, Lydia is spot-on when she says,

Philosophers of science are well aware that a theory does not need to have answers to all anomalies in order to be well-supported and rationally accepted. We have ample, to my mind overwhelming, evidence, quite independent of our response to the question of the Canaanite slaughters, that God exists, that He is loving and all-good, that His goal is to redeem mankind, and that Jesus is God the Son who reveals the loving Father to us. That means that we can handle points where we do not know the answer while still retaining a robust confidence in the truth of Christianity. 

Leibniz and the Problem of Evil

Here  is a great discussion of Leibniz's Theodicy--great not only because it features Jan Cover, one of the more remarkable people I've known and the face of my current Twitter picture.

I can't figure out how to upload the video straight onto the blog so here is a picture of Jan: