On the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth: The Problem of Evil…
Before we begin I think it would be important to clarify that the answer that I give to this problem may not be satisfactory to you and I'm not necessarily aiming to persuade you with my answer, this is just the conclusion I have to come and an answer that satisfies me. You'll often here there are two parts to the problem of evil, the emotional and the logical. I am going to answer the logical problem but I am aware of the child who has stage 4 cancer and is suffering immense physical pain, any answer I give to the father or mother of such a child will probably not be enough to satisfy their heartache or turmoil and so I would at least like to address the emotional aspect of this problem through the lens of Christianity and atheism. Since we are examining the claim of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, if it can be shown that evil is incompatible with the God as defined by the Bible we can decrease the likelihood of the resurrection. A deistic God has no skin in the game to resurrect anyone from the dead nor probably cares about the sayings of some unknown carpenter from Nazareth and so if the problem of evil can rule out the existence of a Theistic God who cares about His creation, the whole point of sin and atonement doesn't make a difference anymore and if there are no sins to atone for, there's no reason for God to take on flesh and die for us or vindicate Himself by raising Himself from the dead. With that out of the way let's examine a few issues of evil from a Christian lens and an atheistic lens, more so in terms of the emotional impact.
“Worldwide, 100,000 children lose their lives every year to cancer. Children with cancer in low and middle-income countries are four times more likely to die of the disease than children in high-income countries.”
https://www.childrenscancercause.org/facts
Imagine you are a parent hearing the news that your precious child has developed brain cancer and after a long hard and painful battle with the disease they die at the age of six years old.
For now we are not going to assess the truth value but simply feel the emotional weight of each worldview.
What would atheism have to offer us about such a scenario?
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic including A Free Man's Worship
“The point is this: If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.”
William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision
The atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell seem to be in agreement with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig in that if there is no God, all we are left with is despair and agony. I agree with their conclusions, if we were to find that atheism is true then the reality is natural selection wiped out the poor seven year old and that they are simply unlucky. The child is nothing more than an animal anyway and when you really think about it, ultimately just a collection of nerve fibers having chemical reactions in a meat sack built for nothing more than survival that has no more value than a cockroach who simply has the illusion of conscious, a mental trick created by the brain to survive in the world (see atheist philosopher Daniel Dennet, I happen to believe his conclusions are logically consistent with his worldview though absurd). So what can we say in this case? What would you think if your child died of cancer and I said the following?
“Well, there is no real good reason to get upset over a dead sack of chemicals. In fact, you too are just a molecular machine and your grief response really boils down to the release of some neurotransmitters binding to receptors in your brain, it may have appeared your child was suffering but there is no ghost in the machine and all that happened ultimately is natural selection. It's just a brute fact that your child has no inherent worth and in fact, we should be thankful they are cleansed from the gene pool by natural selection. Just take some prozac buddy, it'll fix the pain.”
In other words,
“Tough luck kid, sucks to be you.”
It's horrific to think of such an awful subject in this manner but I am simply doing my best to stay consistent within atheism to the best of my ability and unfortunately this seems to be the brute fact of that worldview but I don't want to stop there. Consider horrendous evils such as child abduction, rape and murder. What are we to say about such a thing if atheism is true? Natural selection? Animals being animals? The truth is there is nothing to say, if we are the products of mindless, chaotic and irrational processes built for survival then what becomes of morality? Can morality even exist within atheism? We will look into that question in a moment (but atheists can be moral, even more so than professed Christians so please don't misunderstand me) but just think in terms of the emotional appeal of both world views.
If Christianity is true, every kid with cancer is in heaven with Jesus, where there is no more pain or suffering and they will have a completely restored body and never be sick again.
“Hey, I don't understand God's plan here but your child is in the arms of Jesus now and you will see them again if you trust in Him as Savior and Lord.”
If Christianity is true every child rapist, even the ones who were never caught on this earth will have to stand before God and give an account and justice will be done. The child will be with Christ and nothing evil will ever come near them again and will have every tear wiped from their eye.
No tough lucks here kid, everything will be set right and so if you are going to reject Christianity based on an emotional reason because God allows evil in this world then just realize your alternative.
Atheism is just a world where evil things happen and there is no point to any of it.
Christianity is a world where evil things happen but where God promises to make it all right and do away with all suffering and evil forever.
If you are going to reject a worldview because of the emotional sting then reject atheism as what is more tragic than a 3 year dying of malaria and that's it? I'd rather pick the one where the 3 year old loves forever in bliss personally…
The reason I wanted to start here is because this objection to the existence of God hinges on the emotional side of the argument (understandably so, I'm not saying the problem isn't difficult for the Christian worldview), my goal here is to remove the emotions entirely from the discussion.
I think anyone would prefer children to be in the arms of Jesus, forever comforted after being raped brutally murdered than just raped and brutally murdered and that's it. If those were the only two options we have then Christianity surely wins the emotional argument but the problem still glares at us as to why God would even allow such horrendous things to happen in the first place? We will talk about that shortly too but in my mind Christianity always took home the emotional appeal for me.
I can accept the world as it is and if atheism were true, I would not care as I find this life in general ultimately pointless and meaningless and with all the suffering in the world what's the point of really doing anything at all? It doesn't matter if we become physicists or janitors, whether we were homeless or had a mansion as in a billion years from now who is going to remember you or anything you have done? It's simply a quiet void, dark and cold without a trace of any remembrance of you or I and I'd happily live out my pointless existence marveling at people and their problems and the meaningless things they put so much importance on but when you start to think of all the tragic evil in the world and man's inhumanity to man it becomes too tragic to bear. I don't know if I would really care if God brought me back to life and gave me a happy eternity but a child that had their life ripped away by a tragic disaster? Or was eaten by a crocodile (this really happened)? Or buried alive holding a toy dolphin after being abducted from her home and raped for three days (this also really happened)? I would want them to have a second chance, I would want them to have another life but if that's all they have in this life why on earth would any of us want to live it? To me, a couple bullets to the brain would be far more of a heaven than to come to terms with such a world as this where all of this evil happens and there is no point to any of it. If there is a God I would want to know and if He promises to make things right I'd want to know but I simply can't force myself to believe a delusion. As much as Christianity sounds nice to the ears, that there is a God out there who loves us and cares about us and this is somehow apart of His plan and it'll all make sense when we cross over to the over side, if there is no evidence for it I do not want it. Personally, I'd rather deal with reality as it is, do not sugar coat anything, tell me the truth, blunt, plain, simple and honest and we will be good friends as for reasons unknown to me, I am just simply not equipped to believe things just because someone told me so and if I need an answer to something I have to find it. It's personally not good enough for me that Christianity wins the emotional battle with atheism and I hope if you feel the same as I do in this regard that it isn't good enough for you either, I just simply wanted to point out from the very beginning that atheism itself has it own emotional baggage in regards to the problem of evil and so if you are using emotions to determine which worldview you like better, why on earth you would favor a world of pointless suffering and evil in a godless universe that has no happy ending I do not know.
I know if I had the power to make either Christianity or atheism true, I know I would choose Christianity in a heartbeat simply for the hope that it offers humanity and the promise of a restored creation and an eradication of all evil and suffering. Now that I hope to have removed the barrier that causes a lot of people to reject Christianity sorry based on an emotion and not a careful evaluation of the problem of evil in its theological context we can begin to start evaluating the problem.
See you in the next one friend and as always God Bless you
On the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth: The Problem of evil part 2
In our investigation I want to remind us that we are not starting with the assumption that God exists and then analyzing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ simply because we could posit other explanations for the resurrection that involve no Deity at all (though they may be ridiculous like aliens, God still needs to be shown to exist) but the problem of evil requires to believe in the existence of good which implies a moral standard that we are subjecting His actions to. Whatever our moral standard is, we are going to first have to justify that standard and then show why God is bound and subject to our sense of right and wrong. If we are assuming that God does not exist, then we are forced only with natural explanations for our origins and our morality. I want to demonstrate the problem of morality in an atheistic universe with the following thought experiment, but first let's ground our premises.
Morality stems from the nature of moral agents (good and evil are defined by the individual and flow outwardly from their inward nature).
Moral agents (people) have disagreements on some moral issues.
For morality to be treated as objective, one moral group must have the ability to enforce and impose their concept of right and wrong onto the individuals that disagree with them.
Now let's take a divisive moral issue of our time, pro-life versus pro-choice (I'm not going to go into an in depth analysis of my views in this discussion but using the topic to demonstrate my point, I will write about this in the future but remain silent in this article to not detract). Imagine there are two types of emperors that come into power over different eras of time.
Emperor type A is pro-life and emperor type B is pro-choice.
Suppose emperor A is in power right now and destroys all abortion clinics, punishes all women that have had abortions (as well as the men) by imprisoning them and rewrites educational curriculum sharing the sanctity of life and the science against abortion. He dies.
Emperor B is in power now and he rebuilds all of the abortion clinics, releases all the men and women that were imprisoned for abortion and rewrites educational material sharing the importance of a woman's bodily autonomy and right to choose. He dies.
Another type A emperor rises to power and she does the exact thing as the first emperor to reign and destroys all the clinics, puts the men and women in prison for abortions and rewrites all of the educational material sharing the sanctity of life and the science against abortion. She does.
Another type B emperor rises to power and the cycle continues until they die.
Emperor type A rises to power and abortion is illegal and they die.
Another emperor type A rises to power and nothing changes.
Another emperor type A rises to power and nothing changes.
2 type B emperors arise after this and abortion is legal again and everything changes.
Now the question I have is how do we tell which emperor is correct? Both of the moral claims are coming from within the moral agents and so at least one truth seems to be ascertained from this thought experiment.
Morality stems from the nature of the moral agent.
This will be crucial for understanding any moral objection against the Creator a little further in the discussion but I want to add another thought experiment into the mix for a little more clarity.
Now you don't have to be a chess player to understand what I am about to say, nor do you have to be a particularly good one (I'm certainly not but I do enjoy the game) but it will certainly help if you are at least familiar with how the pieces move. In the game, each piece has a particular set of moves that is allowed and the goal is to position your pieces against your opponent in such a way that the king is cornered into what is known as checkmate, meaning that whatever piece the king is moved to after being threatened by a chess piece, he has nowhere else to go where another piece won't capture him. In short, there is a particular way in which the game must be played but let's suppose that we took the game and dropped it off into a population of humans who have no idea the rules of the game or how to play. Now let's suppose by some miracle they manage to figure out every piece except the knight. Instead of moving him in a an L shape they believe that the knight can jump five spaces forward, backwards and horizontally. This small adjustment would radically change the way the game is played but imagine the chess champion from this tribe plays someone who is playing the game properly. It wouldn't be very long before mass confusion and arguing broke out because of both assumptions about the correct way to play chess but why is there a correct way to play chess to begin with? Is there a universal law that dictates how the pieces must be moved or are the rules of chess simply a human construct? If they are a human construct and we all agreed that knights should jump 5 spaces and not move in L shapes, are we doing anything wrong by altering the rules as long as we are playing fairly?
Here seems to be the crux of the two emperor's moral dilemma, the universal principle is rooted in objective fairness, one believes it's not fair to take away a woman's bodily autonomy and the other is saying that in giving a woman the right to choose you violate the rights of the unborn and are not fair to them.
What it seems like to me is in the realm of “moral chess” some are saying knights can not jump 5 spaces forward (pro choice) and only in L shapes (pro life) but neither opinion can be considered wrong unless there is someone powerful enough to enforce how the game is to be played but as we've shown, if the enforcer of moral principles has a different morality, then the game of moral chess changes every time a new moral authority is in power but does that then mean might equals right?
I don't believe so but it seems to me if God does not exist then the answer must be an obvious yes. So here is the first problem I find myself in when bringing a moral objection to anything I find that God does that I don't particularly like.
One, morality is a human construct enforced onto others by those in power from the principles that flow from their nature but are in no way objective or binding on others and thus good and evil become social constructs and so whatever moral objection I bring against God is just my human opinion. This is also affirmed by atheists.
If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. Nevertheless, the bee, or any other social animal, would in our supposed case gain, as it appears to me, some feeling of right and wrong, or a conscience.
Charles Darwin Descent of Man
[t]he Darwinian argues that morality simply does not work (from a biological perspective), unless we believe that it is objective. Darwinian theory shows that, in fact, morality is a function of (subjective) feelings; but it shows also that we have (and must have) the illusion of objectivity. (Ruse 1998, 253; emphasis mine)
Michael Ruse, The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics (Cambridge Handbooks in Philosophy)
...the nonexistence of God makes more difference to some of us than to others. To me, it means that there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of social conventions devised by humans to satisfy their needs.
Bertrand Russell
Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong”….I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any Seecase, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.
A statement by Ted Bundy, paraphrased and rewritten by Harry V. Jaffa, Homosexuality and the National Law (Claremont Institute of the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990), 3–4.
Second, just what are my reasoning processes built on? If God does not exist it's all random, blind, mindless processes that brought forth our universe and as absurd it is to think order came from disorder (I'd accept it, the universe is just really, REALLY stupid if that's the case) if my mind is a product of evolution with the primary emphasis on reproduction and survival, why should I trust them?
“The principle chore of brains is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing [the world] is advantageous so long as it... enhances an organism's chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost.”
― Patricia Churchland
Our logical, mathematical and physical intuitions have not been designed by natural selection to track truth
Sam Harris Moral Landscape Page 66.
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.
Charles Darwin Letter to William Graham July 3, 1881
So if I am to raise a moral objection to God I have two assumptions that atheism can not ground rationally.
Reliable cognitive faculties that can reach accurate moral judgements.
Objective mortality
The moment I raise any objection at all, I am assuming there is a standard of morality God must be bound to and that I am capable of discerning that moral standard but for any moral objection to hold any weight philosophically depends on the very existence of God. In other words, if some things are truly evil, independent of human opinion, if there are some moral chess moves that are wrong in all circumstances that should never be made, then God exists.
Consider the classic theological argument for the existence of God.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Now consider the case of what happened to Jessica Lunsford at the hands of the hideous monster John Couey…
“When Jessica was in the trailer, police were searching that same area and even knocked at the very trailer she was being held in at least twice but it was not searched. Jessica suffered a barbaric and brutal few days. The little girl was subjected to a horrific ordeal which included being raped multiple times. John even forced her to stay in his closet while he went to work which was undoubtedly a terrifying experience for her. Then three days later, as it became clear to John that it was only a matter of time before the trailer would be searched, he told Jessica he wanted to take her home. He said that he didn't want her to be seen and she would have to hide. He ordered her to get into a garbage bag and he put another one over her head, he then put her into a hole he had dug and threw dirt on top of her. John buried Jessica alive.”
https://www.chillingcrimes.com/blogs/news/jessica-lunsford
I personally am not able to look at this story and accept the premises of moral relativism, that morality is subjective in the eye of the beholder and that good and evil are just social constructs. I can't shake the intuition that what happened to Jessica Lunsford was nothing more than an objective case of pure evil. In other words, it does not matter what anyone says, it is an objective fact that such a heinous crime is evil but if this is truly evil (and I can't make myself believe it is relative no matter how hard I try) then what is the standard I am using with which to judge it? If there is a standard then it must be objective, independent of human opinion, eternal and unchanging, grounded in the nature of a Being that has the power to enforce that standard onto all creatures. The Christian God fits this bill.
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
Romans 2:14-15
This however leads me to a huge problem I have with the concept of the Christian God however, one that I am sure is obvious to any honest seeker of truth but before I identify it I want to lay out where my conclusions are at this point.
I accept the existence of an objective good and evil and thus believe in the existence of God.
This God has put a sense of morality into humans to guide us to know the difference between right and wrong.
It doesn't follow it's the Christian God yet, there could be a generic God (or gods, but occam razor reduces to one for now) who gave us this morality and Christians, like all religious groups are projecting their concept of what this God is like on to Him (saying Him for simplicity's sake at the moment) and so Yahweh could be an invention of the Hebrews based on this generic God and our moral intuitions are valid in regards to criticism if Yahweh's behavior as the moral standard of the generic God is what we subjecting Yahweh to (Yahweh could also be God as well, my point is just at this point in investigation we can't say one way or the other, just that there has to be a Moral Law Giver of some sort).
What John Couey was evil and I can't say otherwise, my conscience is bound and the only way I can believe that logically is if some sort of Moral Law Giver exists and the only way I can believe my conclusion is rationally valid is if that Moral Law Giver gave me reliable cognitive faculties which I can trust with which to come to a valid conclusion of Couey's behavior.
With that in mind, whether it is a generic God or Christ who is the King and Ruler of this universe there is a major problem.
Imagine for a moment if the Lunsford's neighbor saw Couey kidnap Jessica and had the power to stop him but simply turned a blind eye and did nothing to stop it. Her ending is tragic (remember the last blog, the emotional power of Christianity is Couey has a court date with Yahweh and a fiery hell waiting and Jessica is now forever comforted in the arms of Christ, safe from all evil forever with no more pain or sadness) but what do we say if such a neighbor who had the ability to stop it but chose not to do anything to stop it? Would he not be morally responsible for her death as well?
If an officer on duty was at a coffee shop that was being robbed and had the ability to apprehend the thug but did nothing and your mother was shot and killed as a result, would you be angry at the police officer for not doing his job?
If God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving how is He not morally responsible for Jessica's death? Certainly the God that created the heavens and the earth, the God whose angel killed over a 185,000 Assyrian soldiers by themselves (2 Kings 19:35), who can split the red sea (Exodus 14:21-23), shut the mouths of lions (Daniel 6:22) and strike Ananias and Sapphira dead cold instantly (Acts 5:1-11) surely could have stopped Couey with no difficulty and spared that precious little girls life and prevented such misery but He didn't.
If we don't let people free from the moral responsibility of not intervening for evil why should God have a free pass? At this point I am annoyingly stuck with the existence of a Moral Law Giver but isn't it hypocritical to expect me to intervene and stop evil and yet He does nothing? Does not God have a moral responsibility to stop and prevent all of this senseless evil?
We will explore these q
uestions in the next blog, as always thank you for reading my friend, God Bless you and see you in the next one!
On the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth: The Problem of Evil part 4
“Come forward Marcus.”
The voice was a booming thunder, calm but completely terrifying at the same time, full of power and yet gentle.
“Where, where am I?”
You could feel the terror in Marcus's voice but we're relieved that he asked the question that was on all of your minds. After all, you had no conception of who you are or where you come from and no memory of anything but this moment.
“You are at the judgment throne of God my dear Marcus, I am God and I am Your Creator, I understand you are confused My child but all will be clear soon son. I have created you in my image. You will be going into heaven today based on the life you would have lived.”
“The voice of God huh?” you think to yourself. “Interesting.”
You watch as Marcus' “would be” life is projected onto the screen. You see all of the mistakes he made, the failures and then a Man who also is God by the name of Jesus Christ intervenes in Marcus life and he saves him from something that the Creator calls sin. It's all very interesting and you were surprised when God told Marcus,
“Well done my good and faithful servant.”
Perplexed you wonder how God could say well done to someone for a life he didn't live but would have lived and on the basis of what he would have done, allow him into heaven but you think to yourself what do you know anyway? Apparently it seems like you haven't existed more than 30 minutes ago and God clearly exists so of course He has to be smarter and more intelligent than you right? As you contemplate these things your heart drops when the Almighty One on the throne looks at you and angrily calls your name to step forward.
You approach the throne with weak knees, full of fear and trembling. “Yes… yes Lord. I'm here.”
God's voice boomed with a ferocity that nothing could ever have prepared you for, terrifying you to your core. “Why do you call Me Lord, Lord when you don't do what I say?”
“What… what do you mean Lord?” You could barely get the words out. “I haven't ever disobeyed You.”
God's voice beemes with even more anger. “But you would have! Let me show you the life you would have lived!”
You are horrified to learn that you would have been a church goer but secretly lived a double life. On the outside looking in you appeared to be a wonderful person, you spent time on soup kitchens feeding the poor but we're cheating on your spouse behind the scenes. You gave money to the poor but cheated on your taxes. You graduated top in your seminary class but mocked the Bible in your heart, believing it a useful fiction but calling it a work of barbaric and uncivilized men. You realize and understand that such a person as this deserves to go to hell but nothing could prepare you for what was next. You stood in horror as a portal opened up next to the Almighty and something like a black fire was emanating from it and you wondered how you knew what any of this was but it seemed to you God must have imbued you with this knowledge at your creation.
“Because if the life you would have lived if I had allowed you to live it and your hypocrisy I sentence you to an eternity of conscious torment where you will suffer for the sins and blasphemies against My name if you would have lived. Depart from me you worker of iniqu-.”
Before God could finish His sentence you interupt with a loud protest. “That is not fair! I didn't do anything, you can't send me to hell for sins I would have committed! What kind of just judge would send a person to prison for a crime they didn't commit?! How can you be the Just Judge of the Universe by sending me to hell without letting me have the freedom to actual live my life?”
“Who are you to talk back to Me?!” God bellowed. Does not the Potter have complete rights over the clay? Can I not create one vessel for honor and the other for destruction? Why should I allow you to cause suffering to people like Marcus who truly would follow me based on your would be hypocrisy? You have no idea of all the rapes, murders, wars and genocides that would have taken place if I allowed you the free will to carry them out? My foreknowledge is perfect, I don't need you to carry out the action to know what you would do if you were given the choice to carry it or not. I have chosen to spare the children who would die of cancer because of the decision I made to take My loving hand off of creation and let nature take it's course so people would cry to Me for salvation and be saved. If I know the answer and where every soul will end up anyway, why should I give sadistic pedophile killers the pleasure when I can just send them to hell?”
“But God, couldn't you just not create me then?!” You could hardly keep yourself from breaking out into tears at God's next reply.
“How else would the vessels of mercy such as Marcus know the depths of my love and compassion if they are not able to look upon vessels of wrath such as yourself? What if I not only want to display my love, but also my wrath? Your suffering and torment will glorify Me for all eternity.”
In horror you feel your body being raised from the ground as God forcefully throws you into the lake of fire after hearing the last words you will ever hear from Him again, “Depart from me you worker of iniquity, I never knew you.”
You couldn't tell what was worse, the flames that began to consume your body or your inability to understand the justice of this Being you just meant who sent you here without even giving you the chance to fail…
Tim: “Oh hey brain, how are you?”
Brain: “Tim… are you okay? Some pretty heavy stuff that we are talking about, it's okay to take a break.”
Tim: “Yeah I know but it's a topic I believe that is worth addressing, it's the main reason people usually have a problem with God. It wasn't mine originally, God can do what He wants, I just didn't want a relationship with Him, it was too painful, there's a lot of hurt for me I mean, I'm talking to myself right now literally. You are real, sure but ultimately just a way for myself to give the illusion of social contact.”
Brain: “No one knows you better than yourself right?”
Tim: “I doubt that, how could I know myself beyond doubt?”
Brain: “I see what you are thinking…”
Tim: “Yeah, I've struggled with that, what if Christianity were just an opioid? We create a mythos with a happy ending based on a historical figure to cope with the darkness of this world. I wonder if the greater the darkness you are in, the more tightly you cling to the light. I have wondered if my reasons for believing this were simply for psychological stability. How much worse would I be off if I didn't believe this was true?”
Brain: “It's a dark world Tim, we all try to grasp on to any meaning we can, we have to tell ourselves some story, some narrative to make it through and you know, Christianity seems to be the best. It puts everyone on equal footing, it calls all who follow Christ to take care of people and love their neighbors, it leaves no room for moral superiority when properly understood and deters undesirable behaviors, even if it weren't true why would anyone want to get rid of it?”
Tim: “And that's the thing, even if it weren't true, even if I were an atheist I wouldn't seek to remove it sheerly for the potential of the good it could do for the world. Plus, who cares if a group of people believe in an imaginary sky daddy who loves them? I wouldn't be near close to spending my life trying to disprove the existence of someone's imaginary friend…”
Brain: “Well to the atheists point, there may be some tenets that might interfere with their sex lives if someone like you were to vote.”
Tim: “Yeah but are such logically consistent? I don't see how you lead to anything but nihilism. It's all pointless yet they act as if morality is real. Are you ready to begin, brain?”
Brain: “Yeah but do you realize your little imagined story was kind of absurdly terrifying right?”
Tim: “It was meant to be, it's meant to answer a question with the story. Why does God allow all of this evil? I believe the answer lies in something Frank Turek had said.”
Brain: “Oh yeah, atheists hate that guy.”
Tim: “Yeah, doesn't make him wrong though, he gave that analogy of God's foreknowledge with a football analogy.”
Brain: “We hate football.”
Tim: “Yeah I know, grown men throwing a dead pig around and crashing their dura matter into each other and jiggling cerebral spinal fluid around isn't really appealing to me and the amount of dedication and worship over moving an object across a field back and forth?”
Brain: “Yeah it just shows that man will make a religion out of anything but go on with the football thing.”
Tim: “Right, so he says if you didn't see the football game but someone told you who won, your knowledge of the ending does not change the free choices they made. I just expanded in the idea, if God knows all future football games, then He knows all future events and ultimately where each individual goes for eternity, but given all of the suffering in this world, why even create it all? Imagine an omniscient football coach, knowing his team wins the Superbowl and just takes the trophy and not allowing the game to be played. Do you think the other team would accept that?”
Brain: “Maybe if it was God.”
Tim: “But would it be fair though? That's the issue because it wouldn't be, it seems to me that for God to legitimately send someone to hell, they have to live their live and in a sense, “play the game” to determine if they get the crown of eternal life in much the same way that in order to legitimately recurve the football trophy, the team must win the game. If there is no game to reference back to, there is no proof they deserve they trophy even if you know who would win or lose regardless if they played.”
Brain: “I can feel your annoyance that you have to actually talk about football.”
Tim: “Yeah, it's a really, really stupid sport and I don't see how people can stand watching it. I mean, when we have diagrams of the human brain and quantum physics, who cares about sports? It amazes me the things dedicate their lives to.”
Brain: “Did you really have to take a shot at Calvinsim though Tim? Our reformed brothers and sisters in Christ make take offence.”
Tim: “Hey I'm just drawing their conclusions to their logical end, that's all, if God is going to make vessels of mercy and wrath, why not just be more efficient and bypass this whole life thing. It's not like I have the free will to decide where I spend eternity anyway right? This whole life exercise is pointless if I can't control where I end up right?”
Brain: “Another article?”
Tim: “Another article.”
Brain: “Oh boy, they are about to be mad.”
I hope that you enjoyed this article, the next article will be a wrap up of the problem of evil before looking into the evidence for God's existence but there is one take away from this article I want to make sure is evident.
I have asked myself the question, why allow all of this suffering to begin with at all? Part of the answer is in the story.
God could have easily just created people to be in heaven and some to be in hell but it seems to me from my reading of scripture that He wants willing people to be in heaven with Him, not forced, however if He knows the outcome of our free choices why not just put us where we should be based on His foreknowledge and spare the little girls the horror of being raped and buried alive. Why allow all of this if you know the child rapist is going to reject you and be in hell anyway?
Part of the answer is fairness. If God has given us free will and truly created a universe where we have the full freedom to follow Him or reject Him, then that comes as a consequence. True freedom means the ability to do truly great things and truly evil things.
For God to truly justly sentence someone to hell, they have to have the ability to choose evil but also must be able to carry it out.
Anyone in hell will be able to look at the life they lived and the choices they made and understand that they truly belong there and will have no ability to talk back to God understanding they are receiving the just end of their actions.
If God didn't allow us to do evil and carry it out and just sent us to hell on the basis of what we would do, then He is unjust and it seems the only way to be Just is to give us free will with the cost of truly evil things being carried out by moral agents that abuse it.
Part of the answer to the problem of evil is man's free will and part of the answer for that evil is that God must allow us to prove who we are and where we belong by living our lives with or without Him and thus we are proving where we belong by how we live our lives in relation to Jesus.
If God did not do that, we end up with an absurd story like the one above and you would certainly be able to accuse Him if unfairness of sending you to hell for crimes He knew you would commit but didn't actually commit.
To summarize, moral evil is allowed to have a basis for judgment for justly condemning those who reject Christ to hell and the only way to justly condemn is if they actually carry out that evil.
What of natural evil a
nd animal suffering however?
See you in the next one friend and as always God Bless you and thank you for reading.
On the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth: The Problem of Evil Finale part 1
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9
“Doctor, we are losing him!” It was another hard day for Sally in the Neonatal intensive care unit but despite the stress, she learned to cope most days, but watching a tiny child struggle and fight for his life just never seemed to get easier.
“Administer the Adenocor now! We need to see if we can restart his heart!” Sally never understood how doctor Demetri could hold himself so well in these situations and with such calm, but she was extremely thankful for such an experienced cardiologist as himself. “His heart rate is beating way too fast and is out of sync!”
“Yes sir!” Sally immediately administered the drug glancing at the father of the little boy periodically with concern about the lack of emotion on his face while staring blankly at the commotion his son was going through but you were thankful to see the social worker standing nearby to comfort him as at least twenty more doctors started coming in.
“His heart is failing, administer one more dose in 3, 2, 1!” Demetri's face said it all as he rushed to perform mouth to mouth resuscitation but it wasn't long before the dreaded sound of a flat lining machine filled the room.
Demetri stood in silence and his vocal tone told the entire story, an echo of what the entire room was feeling. “Time of death, 3:03 p.m. April 20th, 1998.”
Sally looked over to watch the father, who she later learned to be named Alois, fall to the floor and black out. She watched in sadness as they escorted him to a room but was moved to tears seeing Demetri as she knew it never became easier for him.
“You okay doctor?” Sally asked.
“Yes, of course.” Demetri said calmly with a slight shake in his voice. “Please go check on the father when you have a moment.”
Sally walked into room 1633, nodding politely at her coworker John on the way, to see her fellow nurse breaking the news to the mother of the child, whose name was Klara, who after hearing, broke into hysterical tears.
“My poor baby! No, no please God why!?” Klara’s hysterical voice nearly made Sally to the floor hearing the horrible sobbing as a response to such brokenness and pain. After many tears she eventually managed to approach the mother to embrace her but the cold, unsettling thought could not escape her mind.
“Why would a good and loving God allow this?” she thought to herself. “Why would God allow this happen to the Hitler family?”
Imagine you are a famous painter with exceptional skill, capable of producing the most elegantly detailed, awe inspiring creations and have been invited to submit your work to a competition held by a prestigious art museum where it will be displayed for all of the world to see. You work tirelessly and it is evident that your heart and soul have been poured into this piece, the mountains, the sunset, the deer off in the distance, down to the green eyes of the little children playing off in the distance, this is fantastic but you were never really concerned about winning. As long as your work brings joy to those who admire it then that is enough for you. You happily bring in your masterpiece and are overjoyed to see the looks of awe and wonder from the spectators as they hang your submission on to the wall. About halfway into the competition, right before the judges begin to admire your work some teenagers run through the gallery throwing black tar all over the exhibit and unfortunately right on to your beautiful masterpiece. It's not long before security tackles the offenders and apprehends them for the police but the damage is done, your work is ruined and now tarnished with the stain of tar…
My question to you is, if you had known that your artwork was going to be ruined the next day would you have placed as much effort into the painting as you would not knowing? If I personally knew that my work was in vain I would not bother placing an enormous amount of effort into the endeavor but let's change the narrative a bit.
Let's suppose the day before you started working on your painting an angel visits you in a dream and warns you about the teenagers who will ruin your art and that there is no way around it, whatever you paint they will destroy. Please accept for sake of argument this angel has talked to you before and has 100 percent accuracy in its predictions since it's from God and so you are completely confident what it says will come to pass. Now imagine that in the competition you are required to submit some form of artwork, you won't be able to progress to the finals without some sort of submission into the festiva (the judges don't know what will happen and it's simply a matter of checking the boxes for you, if you submit nothing you'll be disqualified, but if you submit something that is destroyed, you'll still at least be able to participate moving forward since the judges will see that you did enter and fulfilled the requirements). What would be the most logical course of action?
Make the best possible painting possible knowing that it will be destroyed, wasting your time and effort.
Make a painting that fulfills the function of the art gallery to make it the finals since it's going to be destroyed anyway.
To me, it seems much more rational to make a sufficient painting that fulfills the function of making it to the finals versus spending extra time in vain on something that will be destroyed and thus in this case, with the divine foreknowledge of the teenagers, opting for a painting that fulfills a functional purpose rather than the best you could do seems more efficient.
When I look at God’s creation (His painting for our analogy) I see the work of His hands and I marvel at the beauty of His work but it's not hard for me to imagine a better world. One without death, one without suffering, one where wolves don't tear gazelles apart into a thousand bits or children who die slowly of cancer or worms that bury deep into their eyes. I don't think this world is the best of all possible worlds, but I do believe this is the best possible world for the maximization of the salvation of the souls of humanity. Let's unpack that.
First, God knew in His omniscience that Adam and Eve would fall into sin and make a mess of his beautiful creation. They are like the teenagers that God knew were about to throw the tar of sin all over His beautiful creation (analogous to the painting in the above scenario) and when you examine Genesis 1, throughout it says God saw His creation and “it was good” ending in Genesis 1:31 when He saw all He had made as “very good” but notice how it does not say it was perfect. I think it's reasonable to wonder why God opted to make something very good when He could have just as easily made something perfect, but once you reach Genesis 3 it's not hard to speculate why. I believe that since God knew that we, His creation we're going to inevitably disobey and ruin His creation, He opted to create a world that fulfills a functional purpose rather than a perfect one.
If you and I would not waste our time creating a magnificent piece for the art gallery because we knew it would be destroyed, then I don't think God is unreasonable for creating a less than perfect world (though it is certainly very good) and saving His best work for a later date when His creation will not ruin it. With that explained, let's look at Leibniz 'argument for the best possible world.
1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent;
2. God created the existing world;
3. God could have created a different world or none at all (i.e., there are other possible worlds);
4. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew which possible world was the best and was able to create it, and, because he is omnibenevolent, he chose to create that world;
5. Therefore, the existing world, the one that God created, is the best of all possible worlds.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/best-of-all-possible-worlds
Let's simplify the argument for our understanding. Imagine there is a world where your parents die when you are age 7 and another where they die when you are age 60. If God wants to opt to create a world where there are no children who live without their parents growing up, then of course the second world is going to be the world that He would create and so Leibniz argument hinges on the assumption of God's goodness, to create the best possible world from the many that could be created. I do find this argument enormously powerful, however the
Bible itself promises us a better possible world in the future.
He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.”
Revelation 21:4
[22] I saw no temple in the city, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. [23] And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light. [24] The nations will walk in its light, and the kings of the world will enter the city in all their glory. [25] Its gates will never be closed at the end of day because there is no night there. [26] And all the nations will bring their glory and honor into the city. [27] Nothing evil will be allowed to enter, nor anyone who practices shameful idolatry and dishonesty—but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Revelation 21:22-27
[5] He will wear righteousness like a belt and truth like an undergarment. [6] In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together; the leopard will lie down with the baby goat. The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion, and a little child will lead them all. [7] The cow will graze near the bear. The cub and the calf will lie down together. The lion will eat hay like a cow. [8] The baby will play safely near the hole of a cobra. Yes, a little child will put its hand in a nest of deadly snakes without harm. [9] Nothing will hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for as the waters fill the sea, so the earth will be filled with people who know the Lord.
Isaiah 11:5-9
A world without death or sorrow already seems like a vast improvement over the seemingly needless pain in this present world and if this world had just one less child with cancer, it seems to be an overall improvement but the power of the argument lies in God knowing just the right amount of evil to permit to create the best possible world. Still, since there is going to be a new world that is devoid of suffering then this world can not be the best possible world and so this begs the question, why would God decide to create a less than perfect world?
What is the main message of Christianity?
What is God trying to achieve most of all in this present world we find ourselves in?
The Bible declares that all humanity has fallen short of the glory of God and has sinned against Him and that we need a Savior to reconcile us back to Him (Romans 6:23). God sent His Son into the world to redeem us from our sin and that by repenting of sin and trusting in Him for salvation, believing that His death, burial and resurrection reconciles us to God we will be saved (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-13 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
“Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign LORD. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live.
Ezekiel 18:33
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:1-4
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
Romans 5:12
So it seems to me that because God promises a better world to come (Isaiah 11:5-9, Revelation 21:4 and Revelation 21:22-27), then this is not the best possible world that could be made but notice in Isaiah 11:9 it says, “so the earth will be filled with people who know the Lord.” Clearly not everyone on this earth follows Jesus and it seems God's mission right now is to save as many people from hell as possible.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Matthew 28:19-20
8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
Luke 19:8-10
[16] For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. [17] For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. [18] “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. [21] But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
John 3:16-21
If God's primary purpose right now is to bring as many people into the best possible world, then I believe the present world must be then the best possible world for the maximization of souls. Think about it, if God could create a world where 10,000 souls are saved by arranging the circumstances where they accept the gospel (for instance in world A, if they don't get a particular job they freely choose to be saved later but in world B where they do get the job, they never freely choose), but could also tweak the circumstances with just the right amount of suffering to save 100,000,000 which one would a loving God choose to create? Surely the world with more souls that experience Him for eternity so let's readjust Leibniz’s argument slightly.
1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and desires as many people to be saved and enjoy Him forever.
2. God created the existing world;
3. God could have created any world or none at all (i.e., there are other possible worlds) where there is more or less suffering and any particular combination of events He wanted.
4. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew which possible world was the best for saving the maximal amount of souls and was able to create it, and, because he is omnibenevolent, he chose to create that world;
This answer seems a lot more satisfying to me as it doesn't ignore suffering and provides a reason for it as most people don't begin to seek out God unless something tragic happens or they are going through some sort of suffering (which I find to be a curious thing). I've wrestled with the idea of humanly speaking, “good people” being hit with seemingly unfair suffering (like Job) and my best way of expressing this thought is through the following.
Imagine two worlds, one where a person does not have cancer and ends up in hell and a second world where they do receive cancer, however in the world where they have cancer they seek out God for answers and as a result come to Christ and receive salvation.
This leads to a few insights thinking upon this.
If this were me, I would prefer God to give me cancer if it ultimately saved me from hell. A small amount of suffering is better than an eternity full of it separated from God.
God would be unloving to not allow me to have cancer in this scenario and I could accuse Him of not loving me for creating a world where I did not suffer in this way precisely because it would lead to the salvation of my soul.
However, could an all powerful and all knowing God find another way to save me without cancer? Personally I think it's possible but it depends on the rules and conditions God has placed upon the universe (and ultimately God can do what He wants, who am I to talk back?). If God has granted me free will and the ability to choose or reject Him, then suffering may be the only plausible way to lead a soul to contemplate the meaning of their existence without affecting their free will but one thing seems clear to me.
If such horrendous evils like the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust are able to be carried out in this world (and they obviously have, it's more of a rhetorical point) then God has given man an unprecedented amount of freedom to do an extraordinary amount of evil… Of course this also implies an extraordinary amount of good as well, the point is simply to point out the implications of such freedom. God did not create a nerf world where evil is 100 percent prevented, He could just have easily created a world where all guns jam when someone tries to murder, a world where rapists are not able to perform, a world where hammers turn into foam when they are used to try and harm someone but such a world would not be a moral universe and one where good and evil could not exist and thus a world where there would be no free will. God, in His love and wisdom, seems to believe that true freedom of will is such a high good that the consequence of evil is worth it as to truly be able to love, we must also be truly able to hate. To use a tired analogy (still, it is a good one) would you prefer a robot spouse who must love you no matter what or a partner that freely chooses to love you?
Now, the problem of evil still holds immense emotional weight and makes me wonder how God can simply look on at the vast amount of suffering in this world and not intervene more? The answer may not be palatable to us but I believe that whether we like it or not, God does not want to send anyone to hell, including us. If God knows that if He waits seven more years a soul will be saved and if He has chosen not to affect their freedom, then in that seven year period He must allow them to freely choose evil. Ending their life means an eternal hell for them which is why I believe God does not intervene and always stop evil, one because if He allows people to live out their evil, He has a basis to fairly condemn someone to hell and two, they have more time to repent. I believe partly the reason Stalin and Hitler were able to do as much damage as they have done is partly in regard to God's unwillingness to have to send them to hell. If He desires the repentance of all sinners unto salvation through Christ and if He is completely loving, then even the salvation of the worst of the worst among us is still desired by Him. This leads to an inescapable question however in that why does God allow Hitler to live so long and do such atrocities but an innocent 9 year old is buried alive after experiencing a torturous 3 days of rape?
I don't know, part of the introduction story is a play on God's complete knowledge of all events and our
No comments:
Post a Comment