Christian Theodicy: A Critique of William Gass’s Anti-Theology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary

 

This article takes issue with William Gass´ critique of religion, more precisely Christianity, according to which religious thinking is impotent both in demonstrating the existence of God and the ubiquity of evil. In answer to these claims, the author of the article provides a historical survey of the “Classical Christian Tradition” and its solution to the above questions. More precisely, the author argues that Christian metaphysics is a legitimate explanation of reality and that the Christian theodicies represent perhaps not conclusive but nevertheless serious attempts to solve the problem of evil. In the second part of the article the author argues that William Gass´ nihilism is incongruent with this philosophical and literal work which is supposed to instigate positive change in society. I believe that this is a well written and honest contribution, but it also has some flaws that need to be corrected before it can be published. They are indicated in the “General comments” below. I´d especially recommend the author to indicate clearly the concept of the Demiurge s/he is working with (which it seems to be there in lines 400-404), to acknowledge that scholars have different understanding of the same entity and to underline why, on whose authority, etc., s/he decides to work with the one applied here. Another point that I find rather confusing is the treatment of Rousseau. More objections are brought up in what follows. Finally, I decided to check the "Reconsider after major revision" option, although I´d rather opt for the non-existing "Accept after moderate revision". 

 

General comments

 

1)      The full references should be at the end of the paper, not in the footnotes. Also, footnote references should be adjusted to Religions standard.

2)      The author oscillates between uppercase and lowercase Demiurge. I am not sure whether this is done on purpose, but if not, a single option should be followed throughout.

3)      It is unclear to me why Rousseau’s God is said to be Demiurge or Demiurge-like. In the provided quotation from Rousseau there is no sign of a craftsman-like God. I am not aware of Rousseau’s claim that God is a demiurgic entity. If the author knows of such a statement, he or she should supply a reference. If not, there are many thinkers in history who actually believed in a demiurgic God, so no need to use Rousseau in this context.

4)      Since the author appeals to the Demiurge a lot in this article, s/he should invest more time and effort in understanding the concept behind it. The story of the Demiurge is not that simple. First, there´s the good Demiurge of the Platonists and the evil demiurge of the Gnostics (Plotinus argued against them in Ennead II.9). Second, not all critics agree that Plato´s Demiurge is “objectively distinct and separate from creation” (line 156). I personally do understand Plato´s Demiurge as a transcendent God, but that´s far from the only interpretation and also does not imply that he “with external hands form[s] reality” (lines 332-333). Some of the scholars who hold that the Demiurge is immanent to the world are Carone, Gabriela R. 2005. Plato’s Cosmology and Its Ethical Dimensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 31, 42-52). Cherniss, Harold F. 1944. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press (pp. 605-607); Cornford, Francis M. 1997[1937]. Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company (pp. 38-39 and 197); Taylor, Alfred E. 1928. A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Oxford: Clarendon Press (pp. 71-82). For a very recent discussion of the Demiurge and further references, see Ilievski, Viktor. 2022. “The Demiurge and His Place in Plato’s Metaphysics and Cosmology”. In Daniel Vázquez and Alberto Ross (eds.). Time and Cosmology in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Leiden: Brill.

In conclusion, this paper cannot be successful if it criticises the notion of a demiurgic God, but doesn´t really dwell on the concept of the Demiurge as advanced by Plato and the Platonists.

5)       Similarly for Plato´s take an evil. It is a serious matter and shouldn´t be rejected so lightly. The most recent discussions of Plato on evil that I know of are Kamtekar, Rachana. 2019. “Explaining Evil in Plato, Euripides, and Seneca”. In Evil: A History, edited by Andrew P. Chignell, 97-128. Oxford: Oxford University Press (mostly moral evil, or evil that men do).; Scudieri, Alina. 2019. “Plato on Evil.” In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Evil, edited by Thomas Nys and Stephen de Wijse, 15-29. London & New York: Routledge.

And it is not only Plato´s and the Platonists´ theories of evil are relevant, but also many of the theodicies used by later authors, including Christian ones, have their origin in Plato´s theodicy. For example, John Hick, whom the author mentions, tracks what he calls the Aesthetic Solution back to Plato.     

6)      There are several typos and missing little words in the text. I marked some but got tired of doing that somewhere around page 12.

 

Line 5: only the Gnostic Demiurge is a caricature. The Platonic one is not so, but one of the legitimate views of the Deity.

Line 2: is the death date an important info?

Line 25: “is” missing.

Lines 44-48: inverted commas missing.

Line 60: “l” missing in immortal.

Line 61, passim: see general comment 4).

Lines 62-63: see general comment 5).

Line 68, passim: see general comment 3).

Lines 97-101: Plato does not say this in the Timaeus.

Lines 109-115: this is a bit unclear, maybe rephrasing would help.

Lines 116-120: it is unclear whether this is a quotation or not, because they aren’t inverted commas.

Line 135: perhaps full stop instead of comma before “however”. Buy the way, what is a “oligarchical moral dictator”?

Line 154, passim: I don´t think I found the “Rousseau dilemma” clearly stated anywhere. Above we have the “Rousseau syllogism”, but that doesn´t sound like a dilemma to me.

Line 155: missing “T”.

Line 159-150. I wouldn´t say that the Platonists weren´t serious philosophers. See general comment 4).

Line 169: seems that “that” is missing.

Line 194: in each what?

Line 217: I think that “rationally” is here a bad choice of word, perhaps “willing, wilful” is better. If turning away from katabolea is a wrong thing, then the decision to do it cannot be rational. 

Line 218: perhaps “on” instead of “by”.

Line 225: “will” missing.

Line 231: Origen was to a significant degree a “Platonists”. That is, much of his philosophising was based on Platonic postulates, Platonism being, after all, the philosophy of the day. Thus, Origen identified God with nous (Intellect), and Plato´s Demiurge is also nous. So, I´d be very careful here and investigate more profoundly Origen´s notion of the Divinity with relation to the Platonic one. It is perhaps worth mentioning that Plotinus, who was Origen´s contemporary and the founder of the so-called Neoplatonism, understood Plato´s Demiurge as nous and didn´t believe in a craftsman-like divinity.  

Line 233: ditto.

Line 338: guess “called” instead of “call”.

Lines 376-377: see general comment 4).

Lines 390-391: this is actually one of the explanations of the relation between God and evil in Plato (deduced from the Timaeus); the primordial chaos mars the good intentions of the benevolent Demiurge, but he overcomes the chaos (i.e., powers of corporeality) by “persuading” it and incorporating it within the good creation. However, to say that God is “harmed and hurt” by evil is a very strong statement and one that challenges divine immutability and omnipotence (NB, Plato´s God is NOT omnipotent, but even such a God is not threatened or harmed by evil).  

Line 460: I´d use “teleology” instead of “cosmology”.

Line 531, fn. 39: more precise reference is missing. Where in the Republic? (e.g., Republic 509b, or Republic 414c-416b, etc). Besides, everything that is good in Plato is good because of the [Form of the] Good, inasmuch as everything that is beautiful is beautiful because of the Beautiful (for the latter see Phaedo 100c), etc.

Line 666: I cannot understand the sentence “In that being is, …” Perhaps reformulate?

Author Response

Reviewer #1

1. In light of the reviewer’s observations, I have made my use of the “Demiurge” more precise.  I now critique Gass for relying on a “quasi-gnostic Demiurge,” and not the Demiurge of Plato.  By making this distinction I also clarified my use of how Gass treats Rousseau’s Dilemma.  See lines 67-104 and endnotes 10,11,12, and 13. 
2. Also, the reviewer asked to clarify the relationship of the Classical View to Plato’s idea of evil. See lines 295-296 and endnote 28. 
3. I corrected the typos, choices of wording, and confusing sentences, which the reviewer pointed out.
4. The reviewer asked my more clarity on my interpretation of Origin’s relationship to Plato’s philosophy. I give this in lines 338-341. 
5. Finally, I am grateful to the reviewer for the observations. I believe they enable me to write a more substantial paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to point out that, even if this article is well written and I must confess that I really like it, I should perhaps highlight a few aspects which - in my opinion - could contribute to the quality of the article:

1. Given that this is a scientific endeavour, I would suggest that a presentation of the methodology should be performed in some detail;

2. The article needs a different, more elaborated structure; it needs - for instance - more divisions/sections and a conclusion, in which the author presents not only a brief summary of his argument and what he did in this otherwise wonderful article but also some personal findings.

3. Even if this paper is a refutation of Gass' ideas/perspectives on Christianity as a religion - and I do understand the author's reaction - I think that the tone of the article is a bit too strong; I mean, the author seems much to involved in his enterprise; I'd recommend a more objective, more distant approach to Guss' arguments - but, I must admit, that could be me being extremely subjective on this one.

To conclude: I do like and appreciate the author's efforts and I hope this article gets published - but I'd warmly suggest that the above three aspects should be taken into account before publication.

Author Response

Reviewer #2

1. The reviewer asked for a statement concerning the paper’s scientific methodology.  I explain in endnote 1 my textual examination of William Gass’ works relevant to my investigation and, also, my historical analysis of several prominent authors (from Origin to Karl Barth) in the intellectual-theological tradition of Christianity. 
2. To the reviewer’s suggestion, I inserted eight sub-headings.
3. To the reviewer’s suggestion, I reworded and removed numerous phrases that might suggest to a reader my “subjective” leanings on the issue. I hope this editing make the paper read more as an objective analysis of Gass’s thoughts and claims.
4. To the reviewer’s suggestion, I strengthened my conclusion. See lines 945-965.
5. Finally, I am grateful to the reviewer for the observations. I believe they enable me to write a more substantial paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I express my gratitude to the author for the excellent effort and his or her thorough revision of the article. In my humble opinion, it is now ready for publication; I´d have to point out only three minor points which the author may consider if s/he so pleases. 

a) Line 253: typo - Origin instead of Origen

b) Line 277: understanding - it gives the impression that it is about faculty, while in fact Plato´s (and I guess Origen´s) nous is an entity and a God. Therefore, it has been usually rendered with Intellect, Reason, even Mind. 

c) Lines 86-96: I think this is a bit too strong, because it appears to me that it makes Numenius´ Demiurge look quite similar or identical with the Gnostic one. Numenius´ Demiurge does contemplate the Forms, but not constantly, like the First God, and he also contemplates matter. The Demiurge is inferior to the First God, but he is neither uncooperative not ignorant.

In this regard, I shall quote O´Brien, since the author already used one of his works: "The idea that the Second God undergoes a conversion seems to imply that world-generation is the result of some kind of ´moral fall´, and that the Numenian Demiurge is similar to his ignorant or fundamentally flawed Gnostic counterpart, which is clearly not the case here" (O´Brien 2015, 155, emphasis added); "Despite the slightly negative portrayal of the Demiurge here, there is no question that world-generation is evil in any way; it is just that the Demiurge is inferior to the First God" (O´Brien 2015, 156, emphasis added), etc. See entire Chapter 6 in O´Brien, C. S. 2015. The Demiurge in Ancient Thought. Cambridge: CUP

However, it could very well be that I misunderstood the authors intention in the above passage. Thank you. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1, second revision

1. Corrected the spelling of Origen on lines 321, 358, and 360
2. Changed “understanding” to “rational intellect, Mind” on line 359
3. In light of the reviewer’s comments on Numenius, I rewrote my comments about Numenius and his influence; see lines 105-112; I also added the following comment to endnote #13--"closer to Gnosticism than the neoplatonic philosophers"