In working my through J. Warner Wallace's 'Cold-Case Christianity', which is a
fascinating new take on apologetics from a legal and logical viewpoint, I came
across this fascinating and succinct theodicy.
Theodicy, for those who are interested, is the theological discipline of
explaining how the existence of evil can be reconciled with the justice and
goodness inherent in God's nature.
Allow me, then, a brief quotation on this deep subject from J. Warner Wallace,
and also to strongly encourage you to pick up a copy of this book.
It is recent, it is well thought out, and it is powerfully convincing.
"Ask yourself this question: Which is more loving,
a God who creates a world in which love is possible or a God who
creates a world in which love is impossible.
It seems reasonable that a loving God would create a world where love
is possible and can be experienced by creatures who are designed
"in His image."
But a world in which love is possible can be a dangerous place.
Love requires freedom. True love requires that humans have the ability to
freely choose; love cannot be forced if it is to be heartfelt and real.
The problem, of course, is that people who have the freedom to love
often choose to hate.
That's why freedom of this nature is so costly.
A world in which people have the freedom to love and perform great acts
of kindness is also a world in which people have the freedom to hate and commit
great acts of evil. You cannot have one without the other.
In addition to this, from a Christian perspective, we are all eternal creatures
who will live beyond the grave. If this is true, then questions about why God
might not stop evil are a bit premature.
At best, we can say that God hasn't stopped evil yet.
But God has all eternity to act in this regard.
Our eternal life provides the context for God to justly deal with those who
choose hate and perform acts of evil. God is powerful enough to stop evil
completely, and He does care about justice.
But as an eternal Being, He may choose to take care of it on an eternal timeline.
Compared to eternity, this mortal existence is but a vapor, created by God
to be a wonderful place where love is possible for those who choose it.
If there are good reasons why God might permit evil in this life
(such as the preservation of free will and the ability to love genuinely),
concerns about His failure to act are simply unreasonable.
Doubt about God's existence based on the problem of evil may have emotional
appeal, but they lack rational foundation because reasonable explanations do, in fact, exist.
While one can imagine possible doubts related to the problem of evil,
careful consideration of the nature of objective evil reveals that these doubts
are not reasonable. We ought to be able to move beyond our reservations
here because the problem of evil does not present us with a reasonable doubt."
In his reference to 'reasonable doubt' here, J. Warner Wallace is referring
to the context of the chapter from which this quotation is taken, regarding
how jurors perceive when a cumulative-case inference to the best possible
explanation has attained a degree of certainty that can adequately provide
a conviction. Once again, I strongly encourage anyone who is interested to
check out this book. It has a unique perspective.
I just wanted to say that I was going to reply, and I typed out a rather lengthy reply, then I decided that I probably shouldn't so I saved it in case I decide to later.
ReplyDeleteI will say this though, which was not in my original reply:
I think that some people choose to hate and commit acts of evil because they have chosen to love, and commit acts of kindness previously and had their efforts rejected or abused.
So maybe they decide that being good and kind isn't worth the emotional turmoil associated with it, and they turn to being cold and evil, or complacent, or indifferent being neither good or evil. Chaotic neutral if you will.
Thanks for taking the time to think through an answer.
ReplyDeleteObviously you took a great deal of time thinking about it because you only posted this instead of your original document.
Your response, rather than answer any questions, it would seem,
only creates more questions to be answered.
You state that some people choose to hate and commit acts of evil
because their efforts to do good have been rejected or abused.
And therefore rather than face the turmoil associated with
doing good they become evil or indifferent.
First, I tend to shrink from the idea of equating indifference
with neutrality. Indifference by itself is fairly meaningless.
The context is important.
If someone were to propose to me that I should read a book, for instance,
and I responded indifferently, I might be the worse off for not having
read the volume in question, but no egregious evil would have been
committed.
However, if I were sharing dinner with a friend in a restaurant,
and a man with a gun came in and threatened to kill my friend in cold
blood. If I had a way to stop him, and failed to do so being motivated
by nothing short of apathy, my indifference (whatever the root
cause of it may have been) would then have resulted in the murder
of a human being. That is evil.
Indifference becomes an exercise of selfishness.
Further, I would posit that if we can agree
(and your own comments would certainly make it seem that we can)
that certain things in this universe are objectively evil,
then it matters little why they are so. They simply are or
are not evil in nature.
Tomorrow if I throttle a child to death for no
apparent reason, I might suggest that my doing so had something
to do with my not being held enough as a baby, and indeed I might
be on to something substantial.
But that fact does little to negate the fact that my
actions toward the child I choked had something of evil in them.
I don't believe there's such a position as neutrality in this
world. My beliefs and feelings stem from more fundamental beliefs
that the God I serve is the immutable source of all truth and
objective morality in the universe. A moral law demands a moral
lawgiver.
Since this is a separate topic, and I have blabbered on
enough, I'll digress for the moment and allow you a shot at
your own rebuttal if you choose. Thanks for taking the time
to converse with me.
Evil is a real phenomena in human society. If we dismiss God altogether and proclaim there is no such thing, still evil remains. So, if we have no God, and evil is still here, who is to blame? Therefore evil must be from and in humans. If evil is in and perpetrated by us, then why blame a God whom we don't believe exists?
ReplyDeleteFirst, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter.
DeleteIt would seem that we are in agreement on your first
statement, that evil is a real phenomena in human society.
However, since we both agree that evil is a real phenomena,
we must now ask from where does the concept of evil stem?
Your belief is that evil must be from human beings.
But this argument has some inherent weaknesses in my opinion.
If evil comes from human beings, how do we define evil?
In a naturalistic, atheistic world what does evil even mean?
It becomes a word devoid of value.
As a human being, it might be the highest ideal of most
to be as free as possible and experience the most enjoyment
from living and the least pain and suffering possible.
But why should the universe have any concern about that.
It is a blind engine of oblivion winding its way down to
an eventual heat-death where all matter and energy becomes
a soup at a base temperature of absolute zero.
The universe cares not one whit about our enjoyment or lack
of suffering.
I believe that moral absolutes exist.
Like the truths of math, science and logic we discover
them and we do not invent them.
These laws are true whether anyone chooses to believe in them or not.
During the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1949), the accused
Nazis had a telling defense: "that they had simply followed
orders and made decisions within the framework of their own
legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they
therefore could not rightly be condemned because they deviated
from the alien value system of their conquerors."
The Chief Counsel of the United States, Robert Jackson,
came up with an answer. The only way to judge any culture
was to appeal to a 'law above the law', which transcends
culture and applies to both the winners and losers of the war.
When we violate these objective moral laws, such as 'do
not kill', we feel intense guilt and shame.
It is not a natural response to feel guilt and shame before
an abstract moral law which is unconscious and impersonal.
But it makes perfect sense to feel guilt and shame before
the eternal, immutable, and very conscious moral Lawgiver
of the universe. So if objective moral values stem from
God and His immutable character, then these things make perfect sense.
Am I saying that God created evil? Indirectly, I suppose
the answer would be that He did, because He created the
possibility for it. Evil is antithesis to His nature, which is
good. But in the absence of good, dwells evil.
I suppose I have to agree with Augustine on that notion.
Being a believer, I acknowledge God's rights, His holiness, His truth, His mercy. Still, when confronted not only with the fact that there is evil in the world, but the extent to which evil is allowed to go, that is the problem.
ReplyDeleteWhy is a small child allowed to be beaten and live in constant fear for years on end? Why is a small child allowed to be raped repeatedly for years, or so violently they die? Why are the very parents who are supposed to provide love and security allowed either brutalize them over an entire lifetime, so that their lives become a hell on earth? Why are men allowed to torture without mercy their victims for their own delights? They cry out for help, and there is none. Some despairing of life and choosing suicide over their existence.
No, it is not just that there is evil, but, the extent and the degree to which it is allowed. How is it tolerated while it is repeated day and night over an entire planet, not for a moment but in a never ending cry of horror and dispair spanning generations?
I believe in God, but I don't have answers for these things, and I personally don't think man is capable of giving an adequate answer.
Thanks for your thoughts.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteFocusing on the fact of evil and suffering is in a way seeing the glass as half empty rather than half full. It is like complaining about what you don't have instead of being grateful for what you do have.
ReplyDeleteI may not understand why, for a time, God is tolerating these things, but, thinking He does not care for His creation is a deception. The entire universe demonstrates the meticulous care he has given to all things.
What is far more astonishing than evil in the world is comprehending why a being who is eternal and all powerful would give it up, empty Himself, and dwell among the rebels who defy Him. If that was not enough, he gave His life in an attempt to rescue all who will return.
Anyone who really is upset about the evil and suffering in the world should do something about it! Instead of blaming someone else, do what you can, then pray to the One who not only can, but "will" do something about it.
LB
I believe you're right.
Delete