Summary of text [comment] pages 45 and 46<\/p>\n
Schoonenberg asks: Can the same act be both unavoidable (similar to natural evil) and guilty (pertaining to the level of freedom and morals)?<\/p>\n
He concludes: No, because that would violate the concept of free will.\u00a0 But his conclusion is conflicted.\u00a0 He agrees with de Chardin that \u201cmoral evil must parallel natural evil\u201d (in that it must entail statistical necessity).\u00a0 Yet, that would imply that “moral statistical necessity\u201d violates freedom.<\/p>\n
The conflict is highlighted by the rhetorical side-step that immediately followed: “It may be true that for one saint, a large number of good (but not necessarily \u201csaintly\u201d) people are needed, but it is not true that for a large number of good people, an even greater number of damned are required.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Summary of text [comment] pages 45 and 46 Schoonenberg asks: Can the same act be both unavoidable (similar to natural evil) and guilty (pertaining to the level of freedom and morals)? He concludes: No, because that would violate the concept of free will.\u00a0 But his conclusion is conflicted.\u00a0 He agrees with de Chardin that \u201cmoral […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-science-of-original-sin"],"yoast_head":"\n