Book: Letters From A Skeptic.
Authors: Dr Gregory A Boyd And Edward K. Boyd,
Correspondance 1.
The Main Objection (a summary):
The father who is a skeptic slightly brings up the theological problem of evil. He brings up the history of Christianity, and the horrific acts of the Catholic church:
The father writes to his son, ââ¦where was God when the Christians where slaughtering the Muslims and Jewsâ¦â The objection goes on to state the wrong doings of the Catholic Church, including the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and the problem with the Catholic Church taking part in the Holocaust. Also, the skeptical father assumes it was the Catholic Church that decided on which of the holy books were divine that constituted the âHoly Bible.â Then the father retorted that it is a joke for the same church to arbitrarily decide what constitutes the books to fit into the bible.
The Response (a summary):
First, the son speaks of how the Christian worldview is superior, or as he puts it, âfar more fulfilling,â and how he will eventually get around to this fact. There is not much more stated about this, but it is a positive claim that he espouses.
Gregory Boyd, the son, does respond to the objections. The son claims god is not responsible for the Catholic Churchâs evil doing. Also, he states the point that Christ is a god of love, and of freedom. That you cannot have love without freedom. The son claims that we are free to choose love or evil. He continues stating that all evil in the world comes from freewill. Moreover, the theologian states that if someone commits evil in the name of god, then it would be to assume that humans must be robots who simply act out a divine, preplanned program. The theologian states, âWhat God wills and does is always good.â And what is not good is not from god. The son claims, it is the church who committed those acts, and that christianity is a relationship with Jesus. Only people, not institutions, can be christian.
My assessment and objections:
Assumptions made by the theologian:
The christian faith is far more fulfilling that other faiths.
There is freewill.
You cannot have love without freedom.
There is love and evil, and these are chosen from freewill.
If someone commits evil in the name of god, then it would be to assume that humans must be robots.
The Christian Faith:
For the son to claim that the christian faith is far more fulfilling is interesting to me. I find this interesting because there are people of other faiths who claim just the same, and they back their experience and theologic stance on equal footing. A person of the islamic faith could claim the same, with as much confidence. However, before I make any response to this I will need to wait and read his reasoning before assuming the position of the son.
Love and Evil:
There should be a point about dichotomies. Could the son be setting up a false dichotomy between love and evil? We will see as the book goes on, but I hope Dr. Gregory Boyd is not making a dichotomy between love and evil. If so, this would be a false dichotomy. For example, people can perform loving acts, but if they do not perform loving acts, it does not mean the non-loving acts are evil. And the converse would also follow, hence, not a true dichotomy.
There is good and there is bad(right and wrong), and there is a whole lot of grey in between. I am curious when a christian theologian brings up the word evil. I wonder if this theologian thinks evil is a powerful spiritual force. We must ask ourselves, is there evil? We should clarify when people say evil, and in general it means that evil is a heinous act, or the lowest of the low. Evil, should be understood on a graded scale of bad(wrong) action. This does not mean it is some force that has some mind behind it, influencing people to do things. This, of course, should be the case for love as well.
Love and Freedom(Freewill):
The son makes many statements about choices. But he may very well be wrong about people making choices. The more we learn and the more the philosophical debate continues, the more we understand that there are wonderful points for determinism. The theologian is speaking on laymanâs terms, but he could have provided some explanation. It intuitively feels to the human experience that there is freewill. The reason for this intuitive feeling, is because we are always looking forward to the next action. It takes effort to look back at antecedents from the current actions or from the supposed choices we make. Does the theologian agree that there are antecedents to our situation? If there are antecedents, then logically, it follows that our decisions were not choices, but the inevitable position we find ourselves from the prior constraints that brought us to the current predicament.
Furthermore, if the theologian assumes that we cannot have love without freedom(freewill), and cannot have evil without freedom(freewill), then he should assume that his god does not have a predetermined divine plan.
The excluded middle, and the contradiction:
I am surprised by the implied dichotomy the son keeps referencing. Let us grant him his point about how the institution of the church is not, âGodâs institution.â However, I disagree that it was only the Catholic Church who committed these acts. People in the church committed these acts. It was inpiduals who believed in Jesus Christ, and these killers had an ideology. It is because of religious and political ideologies that these persons and institutions end up killing. We have seen history repeat itself this way, either for religious or for political reasons.
It is an evasion of responsibility to say, only what is good comes from god. To elucidate, if the Spaniards (Spanish Inquisition) did good in their life, then it was from god, but, when they did bad then it wasnât from god. First of all, this creates an excluded middle. There are many actions that are neither good nor bad but are completely neutral and benign. Does it also not come from god because it is not good but neutral? It does not follow logic to say that there is a god who created all things, and, if there is anything that is not good then it is not from the god who created all things.
The theologian claims, âIf someone commits evil in the name of god, then it would be to assume that humans must be robots.â What the son is stating is a caricature. If someone is not free to choose, does that mean they are a robot? No, it does not mean a person is a robot. A robot is a loaded word, and implies many different ideas. It creates another false dichotomy. The robot dichotomy shows, if an action is in the name of god(or from god), then anyone who follows the will of god is a robot. The theologian must then admit, that if there is someone who does anything in the name of god, good or bad(right or wrong), then, they are a robot. According to his own logic. Yet the son claims you cannot have love without freewill. Although, if love is good, then it would be from god, and it would be possible to claim it is in the name of god. Then if someone committed good in the name of god, would they be a robot? There is an inherit contradiction by having a god evade responsibility for bad actions.
Summary:
The points that the son makes are only to fit a particular theological stance. I have read some hindu and muslim thought where the only freewill we have in this life is to surrender to godâs will, and everything else is the by the will of god. I disagree with this as well, however, I am only responding to the book and the claims made by Dr. Gregory A. Boyd. There is a reason why he asserts there is freewill, and this is to fit the version of his christianity. There is a Calvinist position on this and it disagrees with freewill. I am not the only person who would disagree with freewill. I am somewhat disappointed by the first dialog, but I will continue to read nonetheless.
Works Cited:
Dr. Boyd, Gregory A., and Edward K. Boyd. Letters from a Skeptic. Canada: David C. Cook Distribution, 2008. Print.