[lbo-talk] theodicy (was Re: nailing the holy ghost)

[Jeffrey Fisher]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:24:24 -0600, Eubulides
<paraconsistent at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> I wonder if Whitehead, who knew his Job and lost a son in WWI, may be a bit
> more pertinent:
> 
> Thus as a further element in the metaphysical situation, there is
> required a principle of limitation. Some particular how is necessary,
> and some particularisation in the what of matter of fact is necessary.
> The only alternative to this admission, is to deny the reality of actual
> occasions. Their apparent irrational limitation must be taken as a proof of
> illusion and we must look for reality behind the scene. If we reject this
> alternative behind the scene, we must provide a ground for limitation which
> stands among the attributes of the substantial activity. This attribute.
> provides the limitation for which no reason can be given: for all reason
> flows from it. God is the ultimate limitation, and His existence is the
> ultimate irrationality. For no reason can be given for just that limitation
> which it stands in His nature impose. God is not concrete, but He is the
> ground for concrete actuality. No reason can be given for the nature of God,
> because that nature is the ground of rationality....
> 
> Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish
> the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed
> of paying to Him metaphysical compliments. He has been conceived
> as the foundation of the metaphysical situation with its ultimate
> activity. If this conception be adhered to, there can be no alternative
> except to discern in Him the origin of all evil as well as of all good.
> He is then the supreme author of the play, and to Him must therefore be
> ascribed its shortcomings as well as its success. If He be conceived as the
> supreme ground for limitation, it stands in His very nature to divide the
> Good from the Evil, and to establish Reason 'within her dominions supreme.'
> 
> "Science and the Modern World", 1925, p. 178-179
> 
> [Smith and Rothschild coming soon.......]
> 
> Ian

i love that line about metaphysical compliments, which you will see
has already been added to the sig file.

beyond that, it sure seems like whitehead leaves us at the end with
the same old theodicy problem . . . unless somewhere he notes that
omnipotence is one of those metaphysical compliments we ought to set
aside. or am i, again, missing something?

j

-- 
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish
the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed
of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
-- Alfred North Whitehead