[quote=“Eddie, post:5, topic:4402”]
Your judgment, or mine, does not matter for the point I am making. Neither of us is a biologist. The point is that the scientist carrying out the research has not yet declared that the species are distinct.[/quote]
Hello Eddie,
It seems to me that the declarations or lack thereof of the researchers are irrelevant. Besides, only a pompous git would write something of the sort you seem to be expecting: “We therefore declare that the species are distinct.” Seriously, man, have you ever read anything like that in the primary literature? Real scientists write things like, “These data are consistent with speciation.”
[quote]You were claiming more than she claimed herself. And this happens in science reporting all the time. It’s something one must always be on guard against.
[/quote]If only you followed your own advice when touting the tertiary literature…
I used to agree. And I’m not being dismissive or trite when I say that I no longer hold that position. In fact, even though I often disagree with William Lane Craig, I have to agree with him that in the past half century or so, philosophers (not just Christian philosophers) have generally conceded that it is not a problem for anyone.
I would have angrily fought that idea until I finally got enough background in philosophy to understand how they approach the logic of it. It is only a “problem” if various assumptions are made which aren’t warranted.
I doubt if I could explain the resolution in a quick summary…but I can at least make the point that one can’t assume that there could NOT be a purpose for pain and suffering. (Yes, that sounds cruel. But “cruelty” doesn’t settle the issues.)
I found that people often assume that omnipotence means that “God can do anything”. That has never been the Christian definition of the doctrine of omnipotence. (It is certainly not the Bible’s claim.)
Also, it cannot be assumed that there were alternative universes which could avoid pain and suffering while still meeting other objectives intended for the universe.
Yes, I know the next round of objections…but since the thread is about six chromosomal races, I will pursue the tangent any further. I just wanted to say that I have no problem with the “theodicy problem” and I don’t know any Systematic Theology colleague in my sector of the evangelical world that does. And I have atheist colleagues in the Philosophy Dept who joke about this being a rare topic where they agree with me: they don’t use the theodicy problem as an anti-theism argument. It’s “old news” and was settled long ago.
But…to each his/her own. We all know that neither of us will be changing any viewpoint based on this post.
I agree with you that there is at least one reasonable solution to the problem of theodicy. However, the availability of a solution does not mean there is not a problem. The fact that my washing machine can clean my dirty clothes does not mean I do not (at least at times) have a dirty clothes problem.