technorati profile
|
 |
Sunday, 17 June 07 - 02:11 AM (GMT) By brent next in General |
| ||
Technorati Profile
Do Evil And Suffering Disprove the Existence of God? Part Three
|
|
|
Saturday, 16 June 07 - 05:21 AM (GMT) By brent next in Existence of God |
| ||
Relative to the full scope of the evidence God's existence has not been shown to be improbable.
God's existence may be improbable with respect to just evil but probable with respect to something else. Seeing only one square inch of a masterpiece may look ugly, but seeing it in the context of the whole picture changes our perspective.
Probabilities are relative to what background information you consider. For example, suppose Bill is a University of British Columbia student. Now suppose that we are informed that 95% of University of British Columbia students ski. Relative to this information it is highly probable that Bill skis. But then suppose we also learn that Bill is an amputee and that 95% of amputees at the University of British Columbia do not ski. Suddenly the probability of Bill's being a skier has diminished drastically!
Similarly, if all you consider for background information is the evil in the world, then it's hardly surprising that God's existence appears improbable relative to that. But the real question is whether God's existence is improbable relative to the total evidence available. I'm persuaded that when you consider the total evidence, then God's existence is quite probable.
Therefore, to be a successful case against God's existence a probabilistic argument would have to outweigh the cumulative effect of all the arguments for God's existence.
For most people the problem of evil is not an intellectual problem, but an emotional one. They want to know why God allows evil and suffering, and when they can't get a satisfactory answer, they become angry. They just don't like a God who would permit them or others to suffer. This is not an atheism of refutation, but of rejection.
A child who is hurting needs, not an intellectual explanation, but reassurance. Atheism cannot supply this reassurance. It does not reduce suffering one bit; it just removes hope. In an atheistic universe there is no ultimate accountability or justice. Evil people will get away with what they've done.
But in the Christian worldview, God has done something about evil in the person of Jesus Christ. He did not just stay in heaven and say, "OK you suckers , suffer!" He has given us a clue, a deposit, a down payment that he does have good reasons for allowing evil and that he does have a greater good in store. He showed us that we could trust him by appearing in human form. And what did he do when he was here? HE SUFFERED!
Jesus endured a suffering beyond all comprehension. He took upon himself and bore the just punishment of the sins of the whole world! For all the evil that everyone of us from the beginning of our species has perpetrated, he paid the just penalty. None of us can comprehend that suffering. Though he was innocent, he voluntarily took upon himself the punishment that we deserve. And why? Because he loves us. It is like he is saying, "I know you don't understand why I permit every evil. It's not possible for you to understand yet. But just to show you that you can trust me, I'm going to suffer with you."
When we comprehend his sacrifice and love for us, it puts the problem of evil in an entirely different perspective. For now we see clearly that the true problem of evil is the problem of our evil. Filled with sin and morally guilty before God, the question we face is not how God can justify himself to us, but how we can be justified before him. And it is through Christ's payment for our evil by his death on the cross that we can be justified before God. Through him we have forgiveness.
In addition, many Christians will testify that Christ provides inner resources to cope, as well as joy in the midst of difficulties and suffering when we trust him. And he promises that he causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.
Ultimately he promises victory over death, the ultimate evil. Those who genuinely choose to accept and receive his forgiveness and a personal relationship with him will rise from the dead with a transformed, immortal, imperishable body to be with him forever. Death, pain and suffering have been dealt a fatal blow; they have suffered a crucial defeat. Death has died!
So paradoxically, God is not banished because of the problem of evil, rather God himself is the solution.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the intellectual problem of evil is solved in both the logical and probabilistic formulations. The existence of evil suffering does not constitute a deductively certain disproof of God's existence, because there is no premise that is necessarily true that produces a contradiction between the existence of God and existence of evil. Furthermore, God and evil are shown to be completely consistent, because it is at least possible that God has a good reason for permitting evil. Moreover, we are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God's existence has not been shown to be improbable.
At the emotional level God has done something about evil by sharing in our suffering in Jesus Christ, thereby showing us we can trust that he has an morally sufficient reason. He has provided forgiveness, coping resources, joy and ultimately victory over death and evil. So not only does evil not disprove God's existence, but Christianity is our best hope as a solution to the problem of evil.
Further Reading: Does God Exist?
Do Evil And Suffering Disprove the Existence of God? Part Two
|
|
|
Saturday, 16 June 07 - 05:13 AM (GMT) By brent next in Existence of God |
| ||
Not only are we unable to prove a contradiction, or inconsistency between the existence of God and evil, but we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent.
The atheist presupposes that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil, but that is not necessarily true. As long as it is even possible that God has a morally sufficient reason then God and evil are consistent. It is easy to see this when one reads the three premises together.
G - God exists
E - Evil exists
R - God has a good reason for allowing evil
The atheist must prove that it is logically impossible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil, a daunting task indeed.
Therefore, it is widely recognized that the logical problem is solved - the co-existence of G & E is logically possible. (Please note we are not asking anyone to believe that God exists because G & E are consistent we are merely showing that there are no rational grounds for disbelieving.)
B. Probabilistic argument - Concedes it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason but not probable given the amount of evil.
For example, imagine a fellow named Rocky strolling along a beach and coming across a little girl who is clearly drowning in a couple of feet of water. All he has to do is step into the water a few feet and pull her out. But he doesn't, he just stands there and watches her drown. On a bluff overlooking the beach a crowd of onlookers, who are too far away to save the child themselves, yell at Rocky to save the child.
Rocky, however, simply continues to watch and the girl drowns. An investigation determines that Rocky was in good health, knew what was happening and could have easily saved the child's life. When asked why he did not save the girl, Rocky is either silent or claims he had a good reason, but will not tell us what it was. He won't even tell us why he will not tell us his reason. We fail in our best attempts to discover what his reason could have been. We cannot even conceive of what possible reason Rocky could have had. Would it not follow that we would be rationally justified in concluding that Rocky had no good reason and thus was blameworthy? And in like manner are we not justified in concluding that God is not all good when we see some evils in the world and He doesn't seem to tell us why and when we can't even conceive of a morally sufficient reason that God might have.
1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason.
The Rocky analogy is emotionally powerful. However, it breaks down upon closer scrutiny.
First, in Rocky's situation, the fact that we are not able to conceive of a morally sufficient reason counts as evidence that Rocky has no good reason, simply because we assume Rocky is a finite human being with approximately the same access to knowledge as the rest of us.
In God's case, though, the fact that we are not able to conceive of a good reason is not evidence that God does not have one. This is because God's epistemic access is infinitely greater than Rocky's or ours. He knows all possible cause and effect connections between good and evil. He knows the future -- how all things will turn out in the end.
We, as finite intellects, cannot justifiably make the assumption that we should be able to know and understand God's reasons. It may be too complicated, or, more than likely, we are lacking crucial information that is available to an all knowing God. Therefore, merely because we can't think of a good reason why a particular evil should be allowed, it does not follow that God does not have a good reason, nor does it follow that we are irrational in believing God has a good reason. We often confuse, "We know of no good reason." with "God knows of no good reason."
If we can't find an morally sufficient reason we assume there probably isn't one, but this doesn't follow. Our inability to come up with an morally sufficient reason in no way entails nor even makes it probable that there isn't one. Our not knowing the morally sufficient reason could only count as evidence against one existing, if we assume that we should know the reason. But why should we assume that we should know God's reasons? We are finite persons, limited in our knowledge.
The problem with this thinking can be strongly illustrated. We are to God as a small child is to his parents, only infinitely more removed from Him in our understanding than the child is from his parents. Suppose the child needs a painful operation to save his life. He's taken to the hospital by his parents.
The doctors perform painful surgery as the parents stand by. "Why do they not prevent this doctor from hurting me?" the child thinks. "Why do they not defeat this evil?" But the child's understanding is too limited to see why his parents allow his suffering. Our understanding is also far too limited to see why God allows our sufferings and other evils. Just as the child is in no position to judge his parents, so too we are in no position to judge God.
We are finite persons limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent, sovereign God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that his purposes are ultimately achieved through free human decisions.
In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with certain evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within God's wider framework.
A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting this might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When we think of God's providence over the whole of history, I think we can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We're just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.
Do Evil And Suffering Disprove the Existence of God?
|
|
|
Saturday, 16 June 07 - 05:10 AM (GMT) By brent next in Existence of God |
| ||
Questions of Life: Frequently Asked Questions about Life and God
Why would a loving God allow such horrific evil and suffering as the recent attacks on the USA? Couldn't an all-powerful God stop them, if he existed? Doesn't this show that such a God cannot exist?
For many people the existence of evil and suffering is their number one objection to the existence of God. Sometimes it is communicated in terms of a refutation of God's existence. Many other times it is stated as an emotional rejection of a God who would allow such evil and suffering.
In order to deal with this issue it will be helpful to draw a distinction between the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. The intellectual problem concerns how to give a rational explanation for how God and evil can co-exist. The emotional problem concerns how to dissolve people's emotional dislike for a God who would permit suffering.
I. THE INTELLECTUAL PROBLEM
There are two versions of the intellectual problem - the logical problem and the probabilistic problem.
a. the logical problem - According to the logical problem it is impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist. Only a defense needed is needed here. The theist does not have to answer why God allows evil, only show that God and evil are not incompatible.
1. The problem with this argument is that there is no inconsistency between God's existence and evil's existence. There is no explicit contradiction, logically. In order to get an implicit contradiction one needs a hidden assumption or assumptions that are necessarily true to produce the contradiction, and no philosopher has been able to come up with such premises. Possibly the best premise that has been tried would go as follows:
A - "An all-loving God would eliminate every evil and an all-powerful God could eliminate every evil."
This assumption is essential to the atheistic argument and must be necessarily true.
Would an all-loving God eliminate every evil? Not necessarily. There are times when eliminating an evil would bring about a greater evil or eliminate a greater good that outweighs the evil. In such cases even an all good being would not eliminate the evil.
eg. 1 - amputate a scraped knee
eg. 2 - sterilize people to eliminate the pain of childbirth
Could an all-powerful God eliminate every evil? Not necessarily. Even an all-powerful God cannot do the logically impossible like create a square circle. It is logically impossible to make someone freely do good. If he makes them, they are not free. If they are free, he can't make them. So God cannot guarantee that a world of free persons will not commit evil.
Second, and more to the point, it is just not the case that an omnipotent God can create all logically possible worlds. In a world of truly free agents, God's power to actualize depends, in part, on what in fact a free agent would freely choose to do. If a free agent (P) would choose to do X in a given situation, God cannot actualize the possible world where, given the same conditions, P would choose 'not X'. This latter world may be theoretically possible but not actually achievable.
As the atheist philosopher Evan Fales admits, "Alvin Plantinga has convinced most of us - if indeed, we were not already convinced - that the free will defense exonerates God from the imputation of a certain kind of incapacity. Not even an omnipotent being can guarantee the best of all possible worlds, for if such a world must contain created free beings, it will be partly up to them what transpires."
Consider whether God could actualize the possible world where Adolph Hitler never started the Second World War. We know what Adolph Hitler's free decision was, given the exact conditions leading up to his decision. God cannot actualize the world where given those same conditions, Hitler would choose not to start the war. Even though it is a logically possible world, God's power to actualize is limited by what in fact Hitler would choose to do. Thus, God cannot actualize any other world where Hitler would not start the war unless he did not allow Hitler his free will with respect to that decision or did not create Hitler at all.
Some might suggest those latter two options would be preferred. Possibly, but that misses the point of the example. I could just as easily have used a more innocuous example, say whether God could actualize the possible world where Michael Horner eats an apple at 3:00 p.m., March 29, 1994. What Michael Horner would freely chose to do in that situation determines what is in God's power to actualize. If Michael would choose to eat the apple God cannot actualize the world where given the same situation Michael would not eat the apple. It is up to God whether to give Michael freedom or whether to create him at all, but it is not within the power of even an omnipotent God to actualize the possible world where Michael does not eat the apple.
Therefore, it is just not true that an omnipotent God can do anything, like create any possible world. It is entirely possible that it is not within God's power to create a world containing moral good without that world also containing moral evil. When free moral agents are involved it is entirely possible that a good end could not be achieved in any other way.
Thus the assumption "A" that was needed to produce a contradiction between God and evil, that an all-good, all-powerful God could and would eliminate every evil is not necessarily true. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between God and evil.
If God is good, why is there evil and suffering?
|
|
|
Saturday, 16 June 07 - 05:06 AM (GMT) By brent next in God and Suffering |
| ||
Questions of Life: If God is good, why is there evil and suffering?
There is no question that the world is filled with an appalling amount of evil and suffering. We are impacted by this reality every day on all levels: emotional, intellectual and practical. As such, it is not surprising that people have a difficult time reconciling this harsh reality with the idea of an all good, all powerful God.
According to Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli's Handbook of Christian Apologetics, the problem can be summed up by the apparent contradiction between the following four propositions: 1) God exists 2) God is all good 3) God is all powerful 4) Evil exists (Kreeft and Tacelli 1994: 129). If we affirm any three of these propositions, it seems we must reject the fourth. For example, if we accept that God exists, is all good and that evil exists, we must reject the idea that God is all powerful, otherwise He would put a stop to evil. Or, if God exists and is all powerful and yet evil also exists, then God must not be all good, because He wills or allows evil to exist.
Kreeft and Tacelli suggest five possible responses to this problem.
o Atheism solves the problem by denying proposition one, that God exists.
o Pantheism, the belief that God is everything and that everything is God, denies proposition two and allows that God could be both good and evil.
o Polytheism, the belief in many gods, denies proposition three, and reduces God to just one of many gods.
o Idealism, the belief that reality is a product of the mind, rejects proposition four and states that evil is just an illusion.
o Christianity, on the other hand, affirms all four principles and denies that there is any inherent contradiction between them.
How is the Christian solution possible? Because it is always feasible that God could have a good reason for permitting evil; a reason of which we are not aware. And as long as this is logically possible, there is no contradiction between the existence of an all good, all powerful God and the existence of evil. Just because we may not be able to figure out what that reason is does not mean it does not exist.
However, God has not left us completely in the dark. This world is clearly not the best of all logically possible worlds, but it is the best world God could create given His commitment to create genuinely free creatures like us. Free creatures are the only beings who can love and experience love. Since one of God's main purposes in creating us was to have a reciprocal love relationship with us, God created the best of all actually achievable worlds. God cannot make people freely choose to good or freely love Him. If He makes them do it, they are not free. If they are genuinely free, then He can't make them do it. That would be a contradiction. Therefore, the possibility of free creatures choosing evil is not something God can control without eliminating free will. And a free will is not just a nice addendum on human nature, it is an integral part of who we are. This being the case, if God were to eliminate evil, He would also be eliminating free will. And in doing so, God would be perpetrating the most horrendous evil of all: the annihilation of the human race.
Moreover, God has done something about the problem of evil and suffering.
For most people the problem of evil is not an intellectual problem, but an emotional one. They want to know why God allows evil and suffering. When they can't get a satisfactory answer, they become angry. They don't like a God who would permit them or others to suffer. This is not an atheism of refutation, but of rejection. A child who is hurting needs reassurance, not an intellectual explanation. Atheism cannot supply this reassurance. It does not reduce suffering one bit-it just removes hope. In an atheistic universe, there is no ultimate accountability or justice. Evil people will get away with what they've done. But in the Christian worldview, God has done something about evil in the person of Jesus Christ. He does not just say, "Okay, I created you. Now prepare to suffer!" He has given us a clue, a deposit, a down payment that He does have good reasons for allowing evil and that He does have a greater good in store. By appearing in human form, He showed us that we could trust Him. And what did He do while He was here? He suffered!
Jesus endured a suffering beyond all comprehension. He bore the punishment for the sins of the entire world! For all the evil that everyone of us from the beginning of our species has perpetrated, He paid the penalty. None of us can comprehend that suffering. Though he was innocent, He voluntarily took upon Himself the punishment we deserve. And why? Because He loves us. It is like He was saying, "I know you don't understand why I permit every evil. It's not possible for you to understand yet. But just to show you that you can trust me, I'm going to suffer with you."
When we comprehend his sacrifice and love for us, it puts the problem of evil in an entirely different perspective. We see clearly that the true problem of evil is the problem of our evil. Filled with sin and guilt before God, the question we face is not how God can justify himself to us, but how we can be justified before Him. And it is through Christ's payment for our evil by his death on the cross that we can be justified before God. Through Him we have forgiveness.
Many Christians will also testify that Christ provides inner resources to cope in the midst of difficulty and suffering. He promises that He causes all things to work together for good to those who love God (Romans 8:28).
Ultimately, He promises victory over death, the ultimate evil. Those who genuinely choose to accept and receive his forgiveness will rise from the dead with a transformed, immortal, imperishable body to be with him forever (1 Corinthians 15:42, 52). Death, pain and suffering have been dealt a fatal blow; they have suffered a crucial defeat.
So paradoxically, God is not banished because of the problem of evil, rather God himself is the solution.
Got other "why God" questions?
questions of life
Blog Launches about Why Does God Allow Pain and Suffering, Illness, Cancer
|
|
|
Saturday, 16 June 07 - 04:59 AM (GMT) in General |
| ||
Why Does God Allow Pain and Suffering, Illness, powered by Terapad.com (http://www.terapad.com/) was launched today featuring blog, forums, image gallery, online shop, event calendar and more.
Why Does God Allow Pain and Suffering, Illness can be accessed at http://godandsuffering.terapad.com/.
questions of life 
god and suffering
... More items are available in our News Archive
