Posted on 01/23/2004 5:41:11 PM PST by xzins
In my experience, it is the most commonly asked question by honest skeptics: "If God is real, if God is personal, if God loves us, why does God allow evil?" A proper understanding of this issue not only provides great insight into the nature of God, it ties together a comprehensive understanding to some of life's ultimate questions: the answers to my origin, meaning, morality and destiny!
Email from A Skeptic
The question of evil was brought into clearer focus in an email I recently received from a skeptic:
The Christian worldview is an impractical, even phony, view of the Cosmos because it embraces a God who is either incapable of stopping evil and suffering, and he is therefore not omnipotent, or is unwilling to do so and therefore a devil!
The skeptic's point is well taken because the Bible states that one of God's attributes is love. "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (I John 4:8) In the book of Romans, Paul the Apostle stated that the invisible attributes of God "are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead."1
However, what the skeptic is saying, in effect, is this: "If your God is love, I see no evidence of that attribute in creation. All the death, disease, pain and suffering seems to be out of place if this God of yours is love. Surely an all-powerful God could, and a loving God would, eliminate all evil. Since evil exists, then no such God exists."
To answer this objection we need to examine some principles of logic, the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of love and the nature of evil.
Evil and Moral Law
When someone states that they do not believe in God because a good God would not allow evil, they make a fatal error in logic. First, the recognition of evil is the recognition that certain actions are "right" and certain actions are "wrong." But how do we determine what actions are morally right and morally wrong? We discern this on the basis of a moral law: a universal sense that certain states of affairs are right and others are wrong. Even most atheists will admit that certain actions are universally wrong and, conversely, universally right.
For example, no one could seriously argue with the statement that it is better to love a child than to torture it. The point is that there is an innate, universal sense of right and wrong within all of us. What is the basis of this moral sense? Some would argue that it is based on cultural customs or traditions. But can this be so?
The famous atheist Bertrand Russell once debated a Christian who asked him if he believed in right and wrong. Russell replied "of course." Then he asked him how he determined what is right and wrong. Russell replied that he determined right and wrong on the basis of his feelings. His opponent replied, "Well, in some cultures they feel it is okay to eat you, and in others they don't. Which do you prefer." The point is that social customs, attitudes, traditions or feelings cannot determine a universal sense of right and wrong.
A universal sense of moral right and wrong can only come from a source outside of ourselves: a transcendent source, a moral Lawgiver. So the recognition of moral law is by default the recognition of a moral Lawgiver. To argue that the existence of evil proves that there is no God is equivalent to stating that the existence of moral law proves that there is no Lawgiver! It's like declaring that the Chrysler automobile that I drive proves without a doubt that there is no Chrysler Motor Company!
Atheists often present the problem of evil to theists as if it is a fatal argument for the existence of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, it is an absolutely unsolvable problem for the atheist. How does the atheist explain evil-the sense of moral right and wrong-in the absence of a moral Lawgiver? They can't! If there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no way to explain the sense of moral wrong and moral right we all possess. C.S. Lewis said that evil is God's megaphone to a non-believing world. Evil speaks of moral law. Moral law demands a moral Lawgiver, and it is He that we call God!
Evil Often Begets Good
A second principle of logic we need to consider is the fact that an apparently evil state of affairs will often bring about an even better state of affairs. The problem is that we often do not recognize this fact until we have the advantage of hindsight. In my own field of medicine I see this on a daily basis: the process of childbirth, surgical intervention, and many medical therapies often present physical pain (an evil state of affairs according to non-theists), and yet they bring about an even better state of affairs: improved health. Physical pain is often highly beneficial as well. When a child touches a hot stove, the nervous system sends a neurological signal to the brain which is perceived as pain (a form of evil). Yet without that sense of pain, an even worse state of affairs would arise: the destruction of the limb.
The skeptic might object that while this provides a partial answer to the problem of evil, it does not address some of the most disturbing forms of evil: war, murder, rape, incest and the senseless death of the innocent.
God, Freedom, and Evil
The problem of human evil is rooted in the nature of God and the nature of love and the nature of mankind. I argued in last month's Personal UPDATE that God is a personal being because an impersonal force is an insufficient agent to create personal beings.2 What is the greatest passion of personal beings? I would argue that, above all else, personal beings desire personal relationships with other personal beings. So it makes sense that God, as a personal being, would desire to create us in such a way that He could have a meaningful, personal, and loving relationship with us. But this has a severe price.
Let us consider the nature of love and its consequences. I cannot experience love from you unless you have the capacity to do otherwise. If you have the capacity to not love me, and you choose instead to love me, then that choice has validity. It has meaning. You cannot have a love relationship with a computer. It is pre-programmed to serve you. Love requires choice: unencumbered choice. And that's where the problem lies.
When God created mankind, He too had a choice. If He created us as beings that were pre-programmed to follow and serve Him, there could be no love. But, if He created us with the capacity of choice, the capacity to love and serve Him, and the capacity not to do so, then there is the possibility of relationship: the possibility of real love. As a personal being with the capability of creating us in the first place, it makes sense that He would want to create us as personal beings with the capability of choice (free will) and, thus, the capability of love. But where there is choice and the capability of love, there is also the capability to choose wrong and to do great evil.
But the skeptic says, "why did God do this when he knew in advance that the result of free will would be so disastrous? Did this God of love not care that war, murder, rape and so much senseless violence would be the result of his choice to give us free will?" A real life illustration will help us to understand.
The Love of a Mother
During my 15 years as a physician I have seen an enormous amount of physical suffering. During that time I have had five children in my practice die by disease and injury. All of these children came from Christian families. Several months after the death of one of these children, the child's mother was in my office and was very distraught over her loss. She asked me, "Why did God allow this? I love God. Why did this happen?"
What could I say in this situation? Rather than providing an answer I asked her this question. "You have three children. One of them has died. If you could go back to the time before you had any children, with the knowledge that one of them would die this horrible death, would you have children again?"
After a long pause, with many tears in her eyes and a broken heart she said, "Oh yes. Oh yes. yes I would. Because, you see, the love and the joy and the happiness I have received from my children far outweighs the pain, suffering and misery I experienced from the loss of that one child. Oh yes. Oh yes. I would have children again."
In this tragic story we see an incredible insight as to why God allows evil to exist. As discussed earlier, a loving God can allow an evil state of affairs to exist if, in allowing it to occur, it brings about an even better state of affairs. For this woman, the loss of her child was an unequalled and tragic evil. But, with the advantage of hindsight, she said she would do it all again because the love she received as a result of being a mother outweighed the evil state of affairs in the death of her child.
In the hypothetical scenario I presented to this woman, with the advantage of hindsight (foreknowledge in this case) she was in a position comparable to God's before He created humankind. Because He is outside time and knows all things, He knew that there would be tremendous pain and suffering as a result of His decision to create a people with the capacity of choice and, consequently, the capacity to sin (moral evil).
But God, like this mother, knew that the love He and his human creatures would experience would outweigh the pain and suffering that would result from His decision to create us as He did. But the consequences of God's decision were not unforeseen. They were foreknown!
The Incredible Answer
The skeptic that emailed me stated, in effect, that if an all-powerful God did not eliminate evil, then He was a devil! The implication is that the removal of all evil would permit a better, more loving world. A truly loving God, the skeptics assert, would have desired and created such a world because it is clearly superior to the one we have. Any God that did not follow this logic was not a God of love, but an evil tyrant.
As we have seen, this logic crumbles under its own weight. The existence of evil is the "side effect" of creating a world with love. But as we have seen, there are compelling arguments that a world possessing both evil and love is superior to a world where neither is possible. For God to eliminate evil, He would have to eliminate our capacity of choice and thus our capacity to do both evil and good. And such a world is inferior to the one we have: one where love is possible, despite its inherent evil. What kind of God would do this? Only one kind. A God of love.
Why does a God of love allow evil? Because He is a God of LOVE.
So Great a Salvation
So, how practical is Christianity? The Bible presents an infinite Creator with the very attributes we would expect when we examine the things that are made. And God, as a personal Being, in order that He might have a love relationship with us, gave us the capacity of choice. In order that we might have a practical revelation of His love, His wisdom, His power, His glory, He became one of us in the person of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
In order that we might not suffer the penalty of our evil choices (sin), He, like a loving father, paid the penalty for our sins. He allowed his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to be murdered on a Roman cross (arguably the most evil act in the history of the universe, if He is indeed God's Son). But this act of great evil gave rise to an even better state of affairs, and the greatest act of love in the universe: paying the penalty for the wrong choices we make, which were the result of the way He created us in the first place! In the cross of Christ He has provided a full pardon from the consequences of the evil in our lives. Consequently, we cannot look to God and declare that He is unfair. Far from being a devil, in this examination of the problem of evil, God becomes the hero of the plot and the solution to the problem of evil. And it all hinges on LOVE. Indeed, God is love.3 What must we do to receive this pardon?
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
* * *
This article was originally published in the
June 1999 Personal Update NewsJournal.
Notes:
I should really get to bed now. G'night. ;)
My two cents: Jesus was alive in the Spirit while He was also “in” the physical realm. In a like fashion, this is the transcendent feeling I experience from being born again (John 3). But Jesus was, of course, much much more than this. His memory was instant, knowing the Father, their experiences, and from whence He came and where He would return and why. Although Christ is the first and through Him everything that was made, was made (John 1) and although He and the Father are One (John 17) – and although Christ is the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person (Hebrews 1:2) - Jesus also makes it clear that all that He is and all that He knows is according to the Father’s discretion (John 5) Therefore, it does not surprise me that there are certain things the Father has chosen to keep to Himself.
One other point, Jesus said it was necessary for Him to return to the Father in order for the Comforter to be sent to us. (John 16:7) I’m still praying and meditating on why this was so.
The Grammarian: Thank you so much for the url! Sleep well!
The anchoring of a ship at sea is, to me, a decent allegory for "my two cents" on the relationship between the spiritual realm and the physical realm.
The vessel is a metaphor for a being, a soul - the sea is the upper boundary of the firmament which separates the spiritual realm from the physical, the ocean floor is the physical realm and the anchor is our physical existence. The anchoring limits the movement of the ship to a small, surface-like area in the spiritual realm. Hence, the length of the anchor chain limits a mortal's spiritual awareness and sense of freedom.
IOW, I see Jesus taking on such anchor through physical birth though fully aware of the sea and His existence and freedom "beyond". In like fashion, Adam was anchored (grounded) for disobedience with a very short anchor chain, so short perhaps that the vessel would have difficulty surfacing at all.
As a believer grows in his faith and love for God, that anchor chain is lengthened and when his physical life is ended the chain is cut entirely.
The allegory falls short in one important respect. In "my two cents" the vessel is not merely ocean-going but is utterly free.
If you think the allegory only muddies the picture, then please ignore it. LOL!
Perhaps. Actually, the philosophers have said that all we know of the ideal is in time. And Plato tended to think that only the ideal is real.
Exhibit #1 - Bill Clinton.
Exhibit B - Jimmuh Carter.
Another step would be at least to understand as much as we can what the best minds have understood so far and that that what has been understood so far has not been entirely consistent usage, not least because they have not always talked about the same thing. If undertaken honestly, that step would likewise show how the terms subject and object have been flipped. What was once considered object has become subject and vice versa. Likewise the terms real or ideal.
Another step would recognize that we are not talking of just two things whenever we try to distinguish the usage of real and ideal. Since the Enlightenment, epistemology itself has been confused with the ideal and this as given the illusion that the distinction between the ideal $100 in your mind and the real $100 in your pocket is pretty near zilch. Kant said existence adds nothing to the concept.
Well, that's a start.
How a person answers that question reveals much of his worldview, his moral and political compass, his attitude towards math and science and his likely response to philosophy and Christ's offer of redemption.
LOL, A-G! Guess I really did unload on those guys. :^) Hey, what can I say -- I just think they're both "intellectual swindlers," "black magicians...." For whatever that's worth!
Guess I need to clarify! The Unknown Tetragrammatical God (i.e., the Father) is not in time; but certainly the Son of God entered time and history with the Incarnation. Then He was crucified, died, and was buried; yet on the third day, he rose from the dead; and soon thereafter ascended into Heaven -- i.e., he left space/time. But then the Comforter, the Holy Spirit (the third Person of the divine Trinity) entered the world, and has never left it since. But in any case, with respect to the Holy Spirit, we might be able truly to say that even He isn't "in time"; for He abides with us, in the souls of men, in their consciousness -- and strictly speaking, these are not "in time" themselves; rather, they are participations in eternity.... FWIW.
With all due respect, this is still incomplete. What has been left undealt with is the OT theophanies and the Spirit coming upon the prophets.
"Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me." (Psalms 51:11)
IMHO, a scientist who arrives at a strong determinist conclusion from the limitations of his discipline (or ignorance) is one thing, but these two (and Singer) have let their political agenda and evangelistic atheism overtake their science. And it shows...
Responding to the question, "In other words, except for science, we haven’t really gotten much further than Descartes when it comes to grounding meaning and existence?" .... Yes, in some sense. But what’s the alternative? It’s not as if there is some coherent alternative that we’re abandoning. It’s not as if God decreed on the day of creation that this is the meaning of life. The same curiosity that leads you to step outside yourself to ask, "Why do we have moral intuitions?" also makes you step outside God’s world and ask, "Well, what told God to create that as the meaning of our existence?" So you still have that gnawing existential anxiety. But let me go back to the question of whether seeing morality as a product of the brain licenses amorality. In practice, it is less dangerous than the idea that morality is ultimately vested in the commands of a religious authority. 9/11 is only the most recent example of a case where morality derived from religion leads to horrible atrocities. - Pinker Reason Interview
Responding to the question, “You are an atheist, although less strident about it than your fellow evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins. Do you ever worry that by pitting Darwin vs. God, mano a mano, evolutionists are encouraging Creationism, since an awful lot of Americans would pick God if forced to choose?” …My criticism of religion in "The Blank Slate" was defensive, meant to counter the argument that morality can only come from a belief in a soul that accepts God's purpose and is rewarded or punished in an afterlife. I think the evidence suggests that this doctrine is false both logically and factually. I don't make a point of criticizing religion in general. Some hard-headed biologists and evolutionary theorists believe that an abstract conception of a divine power is consistent with conventional Darwinism. - Singer UPI Interview
BTW, on the subject of the Holy Spirit being active (in a limited sense) in Old Testament times v. Christ having to return to heaven so that the Comforter might come - I don't yet have a definitive understanding, but I am drawn to these passages:
And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. - Revelation 4:5
I met Alamo-girl at the MFJ.
You are right. We deny the notion of predestination all day long in the very way that we live, and so do they. The idea that we are without free will is a way of excusing the otherwise difficult to excuse.
Nevertheless, there is an element of truth. As organisms we are designed to respond a certain way to certain stimuli in our hardwired motor responses, and you could say that our firmware is designed such that we will tend to react a certain way to certain situations.
We are afterall rather well designed creatures who can be predicted to do certain things under certain circumstances, and even if individuals vary, in the agregate we are very predictable.
But proving that we operate according to design does not eliminate free will, because that is also a part of the design. Its part of the distributed intelligence built into the design. Each part of the system must have the capability of judging the unique situation it finds itself in and acting on its own initiative. To say that free will is part of the design doesn't eliminate free will, obviously.
There is a risk in this approach of allowing individual initiative at the point of the spear, so to speak, but it is in many ways self-correcting. The autonomous actors have the ability to recognize error and correct for it, and they have the ability to recognize error in their fellows and help them to correct themselves, and even to destroy those who have become toxic to the whole.
And they have the ability to absorb higher truths which are broadcast to the whole by means of individuals who either self-select for that, from their fellows, from their families, and we of course believe from the Creator himself. These higher truths go a long way toward assuring that the free actors out at the edges will generally tend to go where they ought. But although much in their internal design and much in reality itself will tend to direct them where they need to go, they nonetheless can and do apply themselves as they see fit, or fail to do so as they see fit.
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.