This ties back to Berdyaev; imagine physical reality as a calcified objectivization of spirit, and the need for God's All-Knowledge to apply to that realm is null; All-Knowledge doesn't apply to a form of reality that's only an empty husk. — Noble Dust

Well said.

I always think of it like this: does a good parent shield their child from all possible negative experiences in the world? No, the parent trains the child to have autonomy, and through that autonomy, the child comes to experience the negative things in life through his/her own eyes. The parent can't prevent this, only train the child for it. — Noble Dust

That a good parent doesn't shield their child from all possible negative experiences doesn't entail that they don't shield their child from any possible negative experiences. Parents may allow their kids some leeway in getting into scrapes with each other and learning conflict resolution skills, but if one tries to stab the other with a pair of scissors, no "good parent" would fail to intervene, I should think.

(As a side note, those who are bothered by what they perceive to be the over-anthropomorphization of God probably shouldn't lean on parent/child analogies when explaining the nature of Man and God's relationship.)

What does Christianity look like when God no longer holds our fate in Her hands? — Preston

One of my favorite works of philosophy is The Essence of Christianity. It argues that the essence of Christianity is humanism. But it also argues that miracle is at the heart of religion. Providence! As soon as the world becomes a lawful machine indifference to man, any kind of pantheistic residue of God is a dissipating vapor. Feuerbach interprets the myth of the creation of matter as the human wish to utterly dominate matter. God is our fantasy super-self. We want to have created Nature for our pleasure and be able to switch it off when it starts to hurt. If we abandon this fantasy of absolute control on our behalf and settle for increasing but limited control through technology, we switch into a more "Satanic" or tragic view of heroic man versus blind, massive bitch-Goddess Nature. But what then is the purpose of life? To get better, stronger, more conscious, freer. But to what end? It's as if the goal is a direction rather than a place. Up. More.

That a good parent doesn't shield their child from all possible negative experiences doesn't entail that they don't shield their child from any possible negative experiences. Parents may allow their kids some leeway in getting into scrapes with each other and learning conflict resolution skills, but if one tries to stab the other with a pair of scissors, no "good parent" would fail to intervene, I should think. — Arkady

So what does getting stabbed with scissors represent in your analogy? Intense emotional pain, death, or what? All analogies break down eventually. In the second half of my paragraph which you didn't comment on, I explained more of my thoughts on the topic of God intervening in our pain. You seem to have critiqued my analogy without noticing that I addressed your point directly afterwards?

(As a side note, those who are bothered by what they perceive to be the over-anthropomorphization of God probably shouldn't lean on parent/child analogies when explaining the nature of Man and God's relationship.) — Arkady

"those"? Is this passive-aggressively aimed at me or something? >:O Anthropomorphization and analogy/metaphor are different. Analogies are self-conscious; when we use them, we know full well that they're ONLY analogies. An analogy is a way of imagining a theoretical idea, it just happens to not be a very popular mode of thinking in academic philosophy. Anthropomorphization, on the other hand, is unconscious; the Biblical analogy of God as Judge, for instance, is an anthropomorphization because it's so ingrained in Western and even Eastern Christendom's conception of God that it isn't even questioned, by and large. Anthropomorphization of God is corrosive because it shapes the very framework of how Christians imagine God; it closes off countless possibilities of wisdom.

You say quite a lot of good things in this post. I will definitely check out Berdyaev. I have heard of him, but haven't gotten around to reading any of his works. I think the point about God's intervention is that, just like parents, God wouldn't allow his children to be raped if God could stop it. I'm not sure what the lesson to be learned there is. So, I try to keep in contextual when I focus on God's potency. It helps me stay on target when constructing my thoughts about God and God's ability to intervene. Generally, I take a process panentheistic position these days, when my radical theological mind isn't flared up. That is, I see God as limited by love, but not because God can do anything. God is a weak God who cannot intervene but can only persuade and lure, never coerce.

I agree that God is wise, but that if God knew what I was going to do tomorrow, and God knew it completely and infallibly, I could do nothing else unless God's knowledge was wrong. So, my point was about placing limits on God, reasonable limits to preserve our freedoms and God's goodness. This might be where our revelations about freedom inform God about who God is.

I like this a lot, and have thought a bit about Feuerbach's work, but have been troubled recently by a work which questions his assumptions. Essentially, the argument is Jungian and suggests that the foundational archetypes of reality exist prior to humans. These are the elements which we use to make our images of God. So, if I am understanding Winks argument, the archetypes are more primordial than humans and thus cannot be directly related to a human construct. Sorry, that was poorly written, but the point is that God made the archetypes out of which we have fashioned our notions of God.

You say quite a lot of good things in this post. — Preston

Thank you.

I think the point about God's intervention is that, just like parents, God wouldn't allow his children to be raped if God could stop it. — Preston

But this is such a random, abstract analogy. Are you talking about actual God preventing his actual children from actually being raped? Or is it an analogy? Or what?

It helps me stay on target when constructing my thoughts about God and God's ability to intervene. — Preston

And this seems to be just the problem, that you feel the need to remain "on target" when constructing your own, personal thoughts about God. What does that even mean? Why should I consider your personal thoughts about God to be on par with my own?

I take a process panentheistic position these days, when my radical theological mind isn't flared up. That is, I see God as limited by love, but not because God can do anything. God is a weak God who cannot intervene but can only persuade and lure, never coerce. — Preston

How is God as a weak God panentheistic?

So, my point was about placing limits on God, reasonable limits to preserve our freedoms and God's goodness. — Preston

So you're placing limits on God him/herself, or on your personal concept of God? Or what?

Edit: sorry if my response comes off as cold or overly critical. Just read my responses as honest questions.

So what does getting stabbed with scissors represent in your analogy? Intense emotional pain, death, or what? — Noble Dust

It represents nothing in particular: only a form of evil so severe that it would warrant the parent's (or "parent's") intervention.

All analogies break down eventually. In the second half of my paragraph which you didn't comment on, I explained more of my thoughts on the topic of God intervening in our pain. You seem to have critiqued my analogy without noticing that I addressed your point directly afterwards?

There was nothing in the remainder of your paragraph which bolstered your point. You simply made unfounded assertions and ad homs against those who might disagree with you, calling them "weak-minded." You are free to believe that "pain is a gift," but that doesn't advance the discussion one bit, or speak to the problem of evil.

"those"? Is this passive-aggressively aimed at me or something? >:O

Not only against you: the anthropomorphization of God complaint arises with some regularity in these parts. X-)

Anthropomorphization and analogy/metaphor are different. Analogies are self-conscious; when we use them, we know full well that they're ONLY analogies. An analogy is a way of imagining a theoretical idea, it just happens to not be a very popular mode of thinking in academic philosophy. Anthropomorphization, on the other hand, is unconscious; the Biblical analogy of God as Judge, for instance, is an anthropomorphization because it's so ingrained in Western and even Eastern Christendom's conception of God that it isn't even questioned, by and large. Anthropomorphization of God is corrosive because it shapes the very framework of how Christians imagine God; it closes off countless possibilities of wisdom.

Christians literally anthropomorphized their God (in the form of Jesus Christ), and even the God of the OT is routinely spoken of as having a will, desires, emotions (e.g. anger), etc. It's not merely a "Biblical analogy": it's what the Bible says, and what Jews and Christians believe. Christian eschatology involves God standing in judgment of mankind at the end of days, for instance.