Posted on 01/03/2018 10:09:34 AM PST by Heartlander
Many atheists today argue that the existence of suffering is powerful evidence against the all-good, all-powerful God of Christianity. Many philosophers, both Christian and atheist alike, believe the “problem of evil” to be the most persuasive argument in favor of atheism.
Dr. Peter Kreeft, a prolific author and professor of philosophy at Boston College, states in “Making Sense Out Of Suffering” that “the most powerful argument for atheism that I have ever seen anywhere in the literature or philosophy of the world” is the problem of evil as demonstrated by Ivan Karamazov in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s famous novel, “The Brothers Karamazov.” In the novel, Karamazov describes a child’s suffering in a manner so grotesque that after reading it even the most ardent believer would wonder how a good God could allow such evil.
Formally, the argument states that if God is all powerful, he could prevent suffering and, if God is all-good, he would prevent suffering. But, suffering exists, therefore the Christian God does not.
Sam Harris, a popular author and one of the “Four Horsemen of Atheism,” made this argument in a debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. The so-called Four Horsemen, which also includes Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, are not the first to make this argument, but they sure have done an excellent job of popularizing it among their followers.
Taken at face value, the problem of evil appears to be a devastatingly convincing argument against the existence of the Christian God. It is emotionally and rhetorically compelling. However, according to Dr. Edward Feser, professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College, the “problem of evil” may not be all that it is cracked up to be. It is rhetorically effective but logically not so much.
In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all.
As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.”
Because the rain falls on the just and the unjust. The rain feeds all crops, the sun warms all of the earth. The atmosphere we need to breathe fills all lungs. Within God’s Creation man is free to exercise his free will to bow the knee or not, but no man is ignorant of God’s greatness as evidenced by God’s Creation.
Aquinas responded adequately to Epicurus to my mind.
[[Why do good things happen to bad people?]]
Eternity in hell is all the punishment needed for those that are bad- They may prosper her on earth- get away with stuff etc- but their eternity is etched on stone unless they accept Christ before death
It has been said- life on earth for a sinner is as close to heaven as they will ever get, and life on earth for a believer is as close to hell as they will ever get
The bad may prosper- get away with crimes etc- But God is watching and will hold them to account one day
Charles Manson thought that, by starting a race war, he would rid the country of black people and make a better America with only white people.
Bill Clinton thought that he was providing a "ministry" to Monica Lewinsky.
6
One day, when the sons of God* came to present themselves before the LORD, the satan also came among them.
7
The LORD said to the satan, “Where have you been?” Then the satan answered the LORD and said,”Roaming the earth and patrolling it.”
8
The LORD said to the satan, “Have you noticed my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him, blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil.”
[[what about natural disasters that cause suffering to a great many people? Where is the blame for such to fall?]]
IF you are interested in a fascinating take on your question- read the followign article- Here’s an excerpt :
“Second, we must focus on clarity of terms. ‘Natural evil’ is, strictly speaking, a misnomer. What is actually under discussion is the problem of ‘agent-less pain’ or ‘agent-less untimely death’ or the such like.
This distinction is important. “Evil” implies some kind of moral agent—local or remote. But in the two cases we will examine here—children being killed in a natural disaster earthquake, or the excessive pain felt in certain types of terminal illnesses (such as the ‘hot virus’ referred to)—there is no ‘agent’ to do the ‘evil-ing’ as it were. The issue is NOT ‘evil’ per se, but something else. We will need to isolate those ‘something elses’ for analysis.
[We must also point out the complexities of the problem of suffering in general. ‘Agent-less’ pain is NOT RANDOM in the lives of those in personal relationship with God. When one enters into this special relationship of honesty, trust, and ‘adoption’ into the family of God, he or she ‘switches status’ from mere creature (with only the barest of relationship to God), to both citizen (with its corresponding privileges and responsibilities) and child of God (with its corresponding privileges and responsibilities). In this new relationship, God ‘filters out’ SOME pain (but allow much of it to pass through, of course), but His commitment is to make sure the experience is not ultimately destructive of our character—which we get to ‘keep’ for all eternity. He has to ‘approve’ all of the painful events that might be ‘scheduled’ according to natural law, and those events perhaps initiated by malignant intelligence’s in the universe (cf. the book of Job). So what we must exclude from consideration here are cases of ‘suffering’ in the lives of those in commitment-acceptance relationships with God.]”
http://christianthinktank.com/natevl.html
All well and good, but explain the good that comes from miscarriage. It is hard to find a blessing that arises from it. If someone could explain with spiritual clarity, they would help a lot of suffering.
When Adam sinned he gave God a choice: destroy Adam at that moment, or distance Himself from Adam and work on a plan to save him.
God’s presence in this world is limited to those who are justified through the means God provides. Otherwise, the just and good God would need to deal with evil by destroying the evildoer rather than give him the opportunity to repent and find life.
This limited presence of God allows some evil in such forms as natural disasters to avoid condemning men before they can repent.
Thanks, I’ll give it a good read.
‘I suppose the Bible isn’t enough of an argument against irrational atheists?’
you realize that not all non-believers are irrational, right...?
“Blame really is beside the point”
—
However, who is responsible was exactly the point of the question I posed. e.g. If a bunch of kids break a neighbor’s window it would matter to you if your kid was the one who threw the rock that broke it.
[[It is hard to find a blessing that arises from it.]]
It is painful bu consider the fact that all children who die go to heaven- now, that child may have grown up to be a lost sinner- eternity in hell- Yet God, knowing their future decisions, spared that child because that child may have encountered things that drove them to reject God- God is all knowing, and things don’t happen without reason- Miscarriage is a painful thing, but if we believe in God, We have to trust that He knows what He is doing- That is a hard thing to come to terms with- definitely, but true believers will trust in Him. And remember- the Evil One is testing the person who had the miscarriage, with God’s permission only- It is a true test of faith- Job lost his whole family except his wife- God allowed Satan to destroy him- Yet Job stood strong- and in the end God really blessed him for it- (Remember though that even Job, a great strong saved person, felt despondent- Yet he sinned not- it’s not forbidden to feel grief and despondency, but we can’t live in despondency as it breeds hatred eventually- something Stan is counting on when He tests us
Atheism is irrational.
All well and good, but explain the good that comes from miscarriage. It is hard to find a blessing that arises from it. If someone could explain with spiritual clarity, they would help a lot of suffering.
I’m so sorry . . . there is no explanation - only how we deal with/what we learn through the suffering. (The world teaches us that suffering is bad, but this is a false teaching.) Meet with others who have gone through this - shared grief is best carried on many shoulders. And in this sharing, friendships and faith will grow, and you will come out stronger. But it is hard - my prayers go with you.
Being "all-powerful" doesn't mean that God can just automagically slice through any and all contradictions.
Given that, we have to ask if God can really "prevent all suffering" without causing worse evils, e.g., removing our free will and making us just mindless automatons without moral responsibility. I think he does not wish to do that because he regards that as a much greater evil.
we benefit by our participation in that suffering...
that’s true, to a point; that point being until our sufferings lead to our untimely demises...after which benefits fall into the realm of theological boilerplate...
The fella that wrote that site is a deep deep thinker and has a unique ability to relay his thoughts in a manner that is easy to see and say “Of course, why didn’t i see that before?” The fella really struggled with severe depression, and battled suicidal thoughts- but he gained a lot through it all in regards to thinking through life’s most troubling subjects- He’s a lot like C.S Lewis actually-
He hasn’t written any new stuff recently, I hope He’s alright- as we need more brains/thinking like His- He tackles a lot of troubling problems and common objections to Christianity on that site- it’s a goldmine of info regarding common objections to God, in well thought out easy t understand explanations-
There aren’t too many sites like His- I’ve got it bookmarked- It’s been invaluable when discussing certain issues such as “Why does God allow good people to suffer” or “Why didn’t God stop the process before it started, if He knew of the massive suffering that would befall His creatures??” or “Did God arbitrarily decide who to save and who to condemn?”
Here’s a list of his articles- many many great topics- many questions tackled that are common objections to Christianity by folks searching for answers, and lots of well thought out objections posted by those struggling to come to grips with life’s ills and seeming injustices- A lot of great topics and back and forth correspondences with folks looking for answers-
‘Atheism is irrational.’
explain your point; with precision, not generalization...
“This limited presence of God allows some evil in such forms as natural disasters to avoid condemning men before they can repent.”
—
That’s an interesting take on it.
Lewis hit on a very profound point. Apart from a transcendent God what makes anything “right”, “wrong” or “evil”? Only a transcendent God can establish an objective morality or ethic. Apart from that all you’ve got is personal preference or social convention and those can and do change frequently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.