|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Phillips on god and evil, 10 Jan 2005
This is an excellent book, of which I would just say, Go and buy it!! Part 1 deals with the problem of evil, and responses to the problem. Phillips is at Claremont, and took part in a symposium on God and evil in 2001. This resulted in the book Encountering Evil (new edition) edited by Stephen T Davis, who had also edited the first edition in 1981. In the book, kind of a five views book, Phillips dialogues with, and is misunderstood - on his own admission - by other Claremont personnel, J Hick, S T Davis, David Jay Griffin, and J K Roth. In his book he also interacts with Swinburne - whom he has previously encountered - and Plantinga. More interestingly is his use of Wittgenstein, Rush Rhees, and Simone Weil. He spends this first part putting to bed the ten morally sufficient reasons for evil, as I pointed out a few days ago, along with the free will defence. In the second part of the book he deals with the problem of God. His project is a 'purifying atheism', or, 'down with popular religion' - though not in a nasty way. I don't follow him on that route. He shows in the first part that the idea of resurrection life should not be a philosophical justification of evil in the world - though it can be a personal faith one; but it does not mean we have to dump the idea, which he does do. As we shoud remember, abusus usum non tollit [abuse does not take away proper use], and I think Phillips forgets that. This same applies when he comes to discuss God. He deals with what it means to be a conscious being, and shows that, contrary to the philosophers - and here we hear Iris Murdoch, as I have also noted before - humans are not atomistic rationalist individuals, but relational beings. Consciousness is a relational concept. I am not conscious of being conscious, only of retrospection of having been conscious, and of dealing with those I recognise as being conscious. For Phillips, pure consciousness does not exist. And if it does not exist for us, he says, levelling his philosophers gun at the platonist unitarian picutre of God that infects theology and Christianity generally, then it doesn't apply to God either. Unfortunately, though I agree with him as far as his criticism of this bogey man of theology is concerned, I fail to see how he then does not turn to the new trinitarianism that came from Barth and Rahner, and through Gunton and Zizioulas. God is community too. His consciousness is not an atomistic point of pure consciousness contemplating himself in eternity, but relational in the trinity of persons, and from which ours is derived. This is a major failing of Phillips' book , I think, at least for my purposes, but that does not detract from everything he then says. He writes on sacrifice, drawing on Rhees and Weil, who profoundly affected Rhees it seems. The issue is not about sacrificing ourselves for God, an ego oriented activity, but sacrificing ourselves to God, an ego transcending activity: Let my sacrifice be a sacrifice to thee, rather than, Let me sacrifice myself for thee. He falls down again when discussing last judgment: God's last judgment on us is a kind of critical comment at the end of our life, whether we were good or bad. Something God will remember for eternity - not prolonged temporality. There is no personal survival for Phillips, just this memory of God. But I think the biblical view of God's memory is something more substantial than that, despite Phillips' logical problems with personal continuity. I think it was NT Wright I heard recently saying, God downloads our software onto his hardware, and then onto new hardware. God's remembering is not a mere memory, a mere approbation of a life lived well in spite of all, but a very real re-membering, as we receive new members, a new body. Still, all in all, a very well written, and challenging book, which I intend to read again, and get some of his other works. Do get it, you won't regret it, I think
|