Part of the problem is that so many Christians are ill-equipped to answer it. They try a variety of illegitimate responses. "Oh," they assure us, "it isn't God's fault. It's Adam's fault. He brought sin into this world." Okay ... so why did God allow Adam to do that? (By the way, most don't realize it, but God certainly did create creatures with the ability to make choices without the ability to sin. We call them "animals" and they make choices every day ... except they never violate God's law. He obviously could have done it with Adam.) "No, no," another group argues, "it wasn't Adam's fault. It was Satan! He's the one." So how does that help? Didn't God know that Satan would fall? Couldn't He have prevented that? And the problem is back in God's lap. Others have tried other methods of keeping God's hands clean, so to speak. One attempt is what is known as "process theology". In this one, God is "in process." The more He does, the better He gets at being God, but He hasn't arrived yet. He's getting better and better and some day, well, He'll be awesome! Or there is "openness theology" that argues that God cannot know the future because, well, it hasn't happened yet. So what happens in the future isn't God's fault. These, of course, simply strip off the basic nature of God and we're still left with the problem.
The answer, actually, is quite simple ... even if it's unpleasant to some. It's a simple, logical process:
1. Evil is. (Evil, in fact, is dominant.)
2. God is.
3. Therefore, evil is because God intended it.
In other words, to the question, "If God is good, why does He allow such suffering and evil?", the answer is "because He wants to."
"Oh, yeah, that's better," those others argue. "You've just placed all this in God's lap." Well, yeah, but it's not because I'm willing to do so; it's because God is willing to do so. While we're busy down here trying to save God's good name, He's busy writing down stuff that denies our efforts.
Thine, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Thine is the dominion, O LORD, and Thou dost exalt Thyself as head over all (1 Chron 29:11).And, oh, there is so much more like this.
See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me. It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded, and it is I who heal; and there is no one who can deliver from My hand (Deut 32:39).
And the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD" (Exo 4:11)?
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth (Lam 3:38)?
I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these (Isa 45:6-7).
"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker — an earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth!
Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands'" (Isa 45:9)?
Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use (Rom 9:20-21)?
I suppose if we were God's lawyers, we'd be shushing Him. "Don't say a word!" we'd advise Him. "This kind of stuff is too incriminating." It appears that God has no interest in worming out of the question. Instead, it appears that He is agreeing. "I am God ... and I allow evil." In fact, the last several chapters of the book of Job are God speaking in response to Job who has, in essence, asked, "If God is good, why does He allow such suffering and evil?" His reply, essentially, is, "What makes you think I have to answer to you?" And Job's reply, when it is all done, is "I know that Thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted ... Therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:2,6).
In Scripture, God takes the responsibility for allowing evil to exist. It is for His reasons. We can know this because He says so. We can also know this by the circumstances in the Bible. For instance, the single, supreme evil committed by human beings was the crucifixion of God's Son. That, my friends, was God's plan. They meant it for evil; He meant it for good. And there are explanations as to what His reasons are or might be. Romans 3:5, for instance, points out that our unrighteousness demonstrates God's righteousness. Romans 9:22 says that He intended to show His power and wrath.
So the problem, you see, is not with God. Our "American experiment" of personal independence is good, but it hasn't served us well when it comes to thinking of a sovereign God. And our sin nature has elevated us to the "most high" when we needed to remember we are "creatures." God doesn't have a problem with His responsibilities. It looks like the problem is on our end.
10 comments:
Stan: Skeptics often see it as the "proof" that there can be no God.
A point of clarification that is important. This would be proof there is no solely moral God. Not that there isn’t any god. (I use the term “moral” as compared to “good” because “good” has too many other definitions.)
There could be a god who commits both moral and immoral (and non-moral) actions. The Problem of Evil would not say a single thing about the existence of such a god.
In fact, one could argue there is a solely immoral god, and instead of the Problem of Evil, we would have the Problem of Morality. How would it be possible, in the face of a solely immoral God, that generous, charitable, unselfish and moral decisions are made?
I am not following this argument. (And I looked at the link.) Sure it demonstrates God created, allowed and uses immorality and suffering to exist. The difficulty is maintaining God as solely moral in the face of it. To say God is partly moral would be fine. But how do we get to “solely”?
I find the defense that God allows suffering such as polio, bubonic plague, earthquakes, and genocides because it makes him appear so much more glorious when he frees humanity to be…well…barbaric. Remember, this is a claim God allows it.
Imagine I knew my daughter was being molested by a neighbor. Do I allow it to continue for a month but then stop it so I look like a really REALLY big hero? How ridiculous—yet we skeptics are to accept that is why God allows young children to be molested—because we will be soooo thankful and appreciative when (and if) he makes it stop?
Honestly, this answer would only sell to those who already presume God is solely moral.
Daagoods: "A point of clarification ..."
Well ... skeptics do often see this as "proof," which simply demonstrates that skeptics can be wrong, eh? :) And even if it doesn't "prove" the non-existence of God, your explanation would still say that it is the total invalidation of Christianity. Back to square one.
Dagoods: "I am not following this argument."
Well, first, you missed an important point. God doesn't allow calamity; He causes it. Yeah, I know, like your clarification, that doesn't help me at all, does it?
The problem is three-fold. First, you are assuming nothing about God (except, of course, that He is a non-existent, human-made creature). Assuming that God is good is out of the question. This brings up the second problem. Define "good" (or "moral" or whatever term upon which we can agree to understand). In essence you are saying "No suffering can be considered 'good' (or 'moral' or ... that term again), so if it exists, a 'good' God cannot." That God would define "good" is unacceptable. On the other hand, that you get to define it is assumed. Why? The third problem is a plain misunderstanding. You seem to think that the argument is "God is glorified by sweeping in and saving us from our problems." No. That's not the argument. God is glorified by the contrast.
Bottom line, it is not possible in your view that Man would be simply a "creature" and God a "Maker." It's a problem of types. No one, for instance, complains when I pull out my can of spray and wipe out an entire ant colony. No one (well, except maybe PETA) says, "That's evil!" In contrast, they typically equate God with Man. You did it here: "Imagine I knew my daughter was being molested ..." The correlation between "I" and "my daughter" is "human" to "human," "father" to "daughter," "like kind" to "like kind." God and Man are not "like kind." It is an invalid comparison. Going to my ant hill, if you knew that an anteater was visiting an anthill outside your house every day and destroying ants at will, would you be somehow immoral for not leaping in and saving them? But God, who is not human, is? That's a problem of types.
There is, of course, the other problem. It's what you consider my "pessimism," my "negativity." It's the old "what did we ever do to deserve this" problem.
The Bible claims that humans have made themselves His enemy, that they hate God. The Bible claims that all have sinned and deserve eternal damnation. The notion that God should be nice to us is misguided from this perception. The question should be, "Why do we still exist?" not "Why isn't God nicer?"
Why does God allow suffering and evil? The Bible claims that God is willing to display His power and wrath. The Bible says we deserve it. That's just not often on the top of Man's list of things to include in his evaluation of God. No, no! God must answer to us! And we prove the claim that we have made Him our enemy.
Addressing our threefold problem.
1) The thing I assume about a god is that the only thing we can know about it, we must extrapolate from the observable universe. We can’t “see” into the supernatural. We may see something supernaturally caused—such as a miracle—but the result, the observable data points, the thing I must make my determination upon is here in the natural. In our world.
Jesus may be a deity come in flesh—but the only way we know that is seeing the flesh. The Bible may be divinely inspired, but it was written by natural, human authors, on natural, human-made materials, with natural, human-made writing implements. It was copied by humans. It was transported by humans.
Any philosophical determination of what a god is/is not must come from our naturally observable universe.
This is commonly employed, of course. “Because the universe appears designed…” [the observable natural world] “…there is a designer.” [the extrapolated point beyond the natural world. “Because Jesus did this…he is a God.” “Because a miracle occurred…there is supernatural.” And so on.
I see suffering. I see horrendous acts of immorality done by individuals and done by communities. I see natural disasters (flood, earthquakes, hurricanes, epidemics) that kill humans, animals and plants alike. I also see wonderful acts of charity and community performed individually and by society alike. I see beautiful sunsets on calm seas. Rainbows after storms. Pristine snow-covered landscapes.
And I see people eating sandwiches. And blasé days of neither too hot nor too cold. In a sentence—I observe in the natural world moral, immoral and non-moral. Bad weather, good weather and neutral weather. Immune systems, deadly diseases and colds.
If I am to extrapolate a designer from the design in the universe, it seems consistent to me to equally extrapolate an immorality-doer from the immoral in the universe. And, as well, a moral-doer from the morality in the universe. To me, it seems more consistent to say if we see all these things occurring—this is what a god is like. To “cut off” or “dissect” those items we don’t like in the supernatural, even though we see them in the natural, appears to be…favoritism.
2) My definition of moral. Well, I believe it is moral to treat the other person how they want to be treated, absent causing harm to third parties. I hold to social contract theory, as well as avoidance learning. (If someone burns me with a hot-poker, I recognize I would “avoid” that situation. From that, I can learn what others would want to avoid, and refrain from doing it myself.)
I am not saying ‘NO” suffering can be considered “good”—I am questioning how some suffering is considered “good.” We know the tired analogy of giving one’s child a shot of medicine. I get that some pain and suffering produces good results. The question comes from why we would need the shot in the first place.
Stan: That God would define "good" is unacceptable. (emphasis in original)
Ahh…but that is not our situation, is it? Remember, we are in the natural world. What we have are humans claiming a God is moral, and attempting to justify why there is immorality and why there are natural disasters in light of our understanding of morality. “God” is not defining “good.” Humans are claiming what God is defining. Now you may believe these humans; you may not. (Don’t forget, there are other humans claiming what God defines as “good” and you disagree with such human statements.)
Yet in the end it is a human discussion.
Of course we, as humans, get to define “moral.” It is the way we communicate, and the only way we can communicate about what a God is like! If our “morality” is nothing like God’s morality—we are wasting our time even discussing it, true?
Think of the statement, “God is ____.” Whatever you fill in that blank, you are attempting to state something that we, as humans can relate to. If you say, “God is love;” then presumably you are attempting to communicate God exhibits a characteristic similar in nature to what we understand “love” to be. It may not be complete; it may not be totally sufficient. But it is a way in which we can attempt to briefly describe a God.
“God is a designer.” Is this statement intended to imply God inadvertently threw some material together and the universe was a mistaken by-product? Of course not!—it is intended to describe God along the lines of what we humans understand a “designer” to be.
I saw this illustration once, and have used it repeatedly. It seems this conversation often appears in theistic conversations:
Theist: God is a square.
Non-Theist: So God has four equal sides?
Theist: No! God’s “squareness” is nothing like our “squareness.”
Non-Theist: Why, then, did you bother calling God “square”—what was it meant to convey if it is nothing like our “square”?
Now plug that into this discussion.
Theist: God is solely moral.
Non-Theist: So God does not torture babies for fun?
Theist: What? God’s “morality” is not like our “morality.”
Stan, if we can’t use human concepts of “moral” or “good”—what value is it to claim God is those things? What are we bothering to talk about? Why would Christians feel they must come up with a solution to this problem if it is no problem?
3) Perhaps I misunderstood the resolution being proposed. I got it from:
John MacArthur: God appears infinitely more glorious because of the existence of evil. We praise Him all the more because of what He has done to overcome evil.
Now you are saying it is because of the “contrast”? Not to be rude, but since your God is causing both the immorality and the morality; the good and the bad; the suffering and the restoration—does this kinda make him schizophrenic? The more suffering and immorality he causes, the greater the contrast, the greater the glory. So if he kills 7 million people, it is not as “glorious” as if he kills 8 million people?
If God can do anything he wants with different “types”—why does anyone care about calling him “moral” or “good”? If it is the most evil, horrendous, immoral thing for God to do—to kill a human—who cares? You seem to be claiming he has the right, as creator, to do so. Whether it is moral, non-moral or immoral.
Look at your argument. Comparing humans to ants and killing and morality. Your statement would appear as follows:
“It is non-moral (neither moral nor immoral) for humans to kill ants.”
If we plug in God in this equation we have:
“It is non-moral (neither moral nor immoral) for God to kill humans.”
So what do you care whether God is moral or not? He could be moral, or immoral, or both, and STILL have the ability to kill humans. What gain is there for claiming God is moral?
Stan: The notion that God should be nice to us is misguided from this perception.
Nope. The “notion” comes from our understanding of what it means to be “moral.” If a person is going to claim God is moral, we are going to look at the world about us, and based upon what we see, and what we understand “moral” means—we are going to ask how those match up.
Think about how silly the idea we can anger God is. The God who makes the universe. The God who made Time, Space, Mass. The God who created life. The God who could snuff out the universe with a thought.
And little ol’ me can manipulate this God by what I think or do, to the point it decides to kill me? That I am the enemy? Quite frankly, it is not the skeptic who elevates humans to the point of being a god—rather it is the theist who claims a human could have such a devastating impact on a god.
Those ants you are killing. Do you consider them “the enemy”? Do you think the “hate” you? Do you think their very existence entitles them to death by spray? Are you killing them to display your power and wrath? Or are you killing them out of necessity?
Worse, if the idea is that God is glorified in contrast, I would think the thing that would most anger God is to not have contrast—to not be glorified. The more evil I am; the better. More contrast; more glory. The more moral I am; the better. More contrast; more glory.
No longer would it be morality is better than immorality, rather it would be extreme acts of each are better than moderate acts of each. If “contrast” is our goal, then Ghandi and Hitler would be of equal glory to your God.
No, Stan, I have no interest in “God must answer to me.” I am interested in humans who make claims about god and how these humans answer my questions, and seeing if they stay consistent.
Dagoods: “The thing I assume about a god is that the only thing we can know about it, we must extrapolate from the observable universe.”
That would certainly be the case … if the “god” character didn’t actually expend any effort to be known. If, on the other hand, God wanted to be known, then He could do so by what might be termed “revelation.” But, on the other hand, I’m not wholly disagreeing with you. A God who would be known in any way would have to be known in human terms. However, (you know … back on the other hand), if a God wanted to be known and did so by means of revelation, it wouldn’t need to be “extrapolated.” You, for instance, would observe the world and come to a conclusion about God (or the lack thereof) while I might see what He has to say about Himself and interpret observations in the world through that.
Dagoods: “’God’ is not defining ‘good.’ Humans are claiming what God is defining. ”
So you see, that works if you only allow extrapolated information -- “All information about God must come from natural means.” If, on the other hand, information about God came by supernatural means, we could still be back at “God defining good.”
Dagoods: “Of course we, as humans, get to define ‘moral.’”
Here’s the problem. If we define “moral,” then on what basis is it binding? How does your definition place any obligation on me? You might say, “It’s wrong to work for a university” (which I do) and I’d have to ask, “So? How does that bear any weight for me?” If, on the other hand, a Creator determines for His creation what is right and wrong, well, then, that would carry moral obligation.
Dagoods: “Theist: God is solely moral.
Non-Theist: So God does not torture babies for fun?
Theist: What? God’s ‘morality’ is not like our ‘morality.’”
I’m really hoping that you’re using that as an intentionally silly illustration because I would never agree that God tortures babies for fun by any definition.
Dagoods: “’It is non-moral (neither moral nor immoral) for God to kill humans.’”
You do recognize a leap there, right? I didn’t say it was “non-moral” to kill ants. I said it wasn’t automatically defined as immoral.
I’ve tried this illustration before. Let’s see if it will help my point here. Imagine an artist. He is a well-known artist whose work is highly valued. He has a showing at a gallery. While the showing is going on, a man walks into the gallery, snatches a painting off the wall, and slices it into pieces. Then he throws it away and walks out. The patrons are aghast. “Why,” they ask the gallery owner, “did you let that guy do that?” “That was the artist,” he replies. You see, people who don’t own the art don’t have the right to do with it as they please. That would be vandalism -- immoral. But for the owner and maker to do with it as he pleases is perfectly acceptable because it is his to do with as he pleases. We don’t get to kill humans (immoral) because they are not ours to kill. But to say that God cannot do so would suggest that He has no ownership rights.
Dagoods: “Nope. The ‘notion’ comes from our understanding of what it means to be ‘moral.’”
We’ll have to differ here. Apparently, in your definition of “moral,” God is obligated to be nice to His creation. Or, let’s shorten that. God is obligated … to His creation. His creation has rebelled. His creation has ignored Him. His creation shakes its fist in His face. “I will be like the Most High.” Poor God. Can’t do a thing. He’s obligated to be nice to His creation because that is required by some ethereal “moral” that we, apparently, have devised (“Of course we, as humans, get to define ‘moral.’”) and then have the perfectly right ability to impose on Him. You see it that way. I can’t.
One other thing – a misunderstanding, I think.
Dagoods: “ Think about how silly the idea we can anger God is.”
I suppose it’s an understandable thought, but the “wrath of God” isn’t directed at His creation so much as at rebellion. It isn’t directed at the ants, but at their refusal to do what they ought. And it isn’t some sort of “manipulation,” some clever thing whereby the creature has angered the Creator. God has, from all time, hated evil. Nor is it about God making a problem so He can swoop in and fix things. It is about God demonstrating His love and mercy and grace … which cannot be observed without evil. It is our failure to be righteous that demonstrates His righteousness.
If you find some inconsistency there (genuine inconsistency versus perceived inconsistency -- you know, "That's not consistent with how I see it" is perceived, not genuine), please let me know. I don't want to be inconsistent.
Stan,
Yes, a god could communicate directly. Supernaturally. Absent such experience, I am left extrapolating. And look how many times humans have claimed supernatural encounters, and I suspect you do not agree with the accuracy of their claimed encounter. Mohammed, Joseph Smith and Todd Bentley come to mind. Mary’s face on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Unless you are saying God has communicated directly to you, then every single “communication” from God has been given to you by humans. Some human claims you accept; some you do not. It is still human claims, natural world and extrapolation of those claims. Nothing has changed here.
Stan: If, on the other hand, information about God came by supernatural means, we could still be back at “God defining good.”
Yeah—but instead we are left with humans claiming God is defining something. (By the way, there is an additional problem here, but I don’t want to tangent too much. If your God has the right to treat his creation as he wills—what is to prevent him from lying to you about the definition of morality? Secondly, how could one confirm this actually came from God, rather than a deceitful other supernatural entity?)
O.K., let’s talk about torturing babies for fun. While you did not specifically say it was moral for God to do so; how can you say it is not? You have made the following statements:
1) Bottom line, it is not possible inyour view that Man would be simply a "creature" and God a "Maker."
2) The notion that God should be nice to us is misguided from this perception. The question should be, "Why do we still exist?"…
3) Why does God allow suffering and evil? The Bible claims that God is willing to display His power and wrath. The Bible says we deserve it.
4) But for the owner and maker to do with it as he pleases is perfectly acceptable because it is his to do with as he pleases. We don’t get to kill humans (immoral) because they are not ours to kill. But to say that God cannot do so would suggest that He has no ownership rights.
O.K. so He has made humans. And (in your words) can “do with it as he pleases.” This is perfectly acceptable. So why can’t God torture babies for fun? If you want to stay consistent, and say it is acceptable for God to “do as he pleases” and you are perfectly happy with God killing humans—what is the difference between God torturing a few as well? Or maiming some? Or raping others. Or lying to you?
If God is entitled, as creator, to do anything with his creation, then torturing babies for fun is perfectly acceptable for him to do so. I will leave it to those who claim God is solely moral, as to how it would be moral for him to do so.
The instant you say “God cannot _____ in his relationship with humans” (and here we have filled the blank with “torturing babies for fun”) you have created some obligation God would have with humans. And, as you said:
Stan: Poor God. Can’t do a thing. He’s obligated to be nice to His creation because that is required by some ethereal “moral” that we, apparently, have devised (“Of course we, as humans, get to define ‘moral.’”) and then have the perfectly right ability to impose on Him. You see it that way. I can’t.
Stan, WHAT is the obligation upon a creator that can do anything with his creation to prevent him from torturing babies for fun? You can’t have it both ways, either there is some obligation upon God in his interaction with humans, or there is not. If there is, then we have to compare that morality with what God does.
If he fails (i.e. genocide, slavery)—can we then say he is immoral? Or will we hop back on to the foot, “he can do anything he wants to humans.”
If there is no obligation upon God in his interaction with humans, why are you repulsed by the idea of God torturing babies for fun?
Stan: You do recognize a leap there, right? I didn’t say it was “non-moral” to kill ants. I said it wasn’t automatically defined as immoral.
Well, it may have been a leap, but it was warranted. Look, in our understanding every action is moral, immoral, non-moral or amoral.
1) Moral – action society has determined conforms to the laws of the society. E.g. giving to charity, helping little old ladies cross the street.
2) Immoral – action society has determined does not conform. E.g. striking someone, stealing.
3) Non-Moral – action society has made no determination. E.g. the color of socks you wear, the food you eat at lunch.
4) Amoral – action in which in the actor has no moral compass to gauge his/her actions. E.g. a sociopath or mentally impaired individual.
Now, I presumed you were killing ants because they were invading your home. You already answered the question:
1) Is it immoral? No.
So now our question would be:
2) Is it moral?
It is possible you could claim it was moral, but knowing you hold to absolute morality, I doubted you would claim it was a moral imposed on all persons at all times to always kill ants. This leaves us with:
1) Is it immoral? No.
2) Is it moral? No.
Since amoral really doesn’t apply, the only choice left is that it was a non-moral decision. Like mowing your yard, or killing the invading moles. Am I wrong? Do you see it an item of morality imposed that we kill ants?
Stan: God has, from all time, hated evil. Nor is it about God making a problem so He can swoop in and fix things. It is about God demonstrating His love and mercy and grace … which cannot be observed without evil.
God kills 10 million people, so the 4 people he allows to live can appreciate his “love” in not including them in the 10 million? Have you absolutely no empathy whatsoever, Stan? I would be aghast at a father who killed 10 of his family members to allow the one living to appreciate his “love.” Or the king who killed 1 million of his subjects so the 2 that live could appreciate his “mercy.” Or the dictator that killed every animal, every human, every thing creeping on the ground, allowing a miniscule to live to appreciate his “grace.”
But you find this acceptable in a God? Because we are different “types”? Why would you cough at such a god torturing babies for fun? Doesn’t this show the other babies how loving, merciful and gracious he is?
By the way, the question is not whether God “likes it.” The question is whether God does it. If God hates performing immoral acts, but does them anyway, he is not a solely moral God.
Stan: Here’s the problem. If we define “moral,” then on what basis is it binding? How does your definition place any obligation on me? You might say, “It’s wrong to work for a university” (which I do) and I’d have to ask, “So? How does that bear any weight for me?”
Yep. That is why we have moral conflicts, and have had for as long as recorded history. Because individual and sets of humans disagree on what is moral, immoral and non-moral.
Stan: If, on the other hand, a Creator determines for His creation what is right and wrong, well, then, that would carry moral obligation.
Right. Which is why long, long, LONG ago, humans figured out saying “I say you cannot eat shrimp” is not compelling to bind other humans. But saying “GOD said you cannot eat shrimp” appears far more imposing.
Think of how many other religions have people claiming “God said _____” when it comes to morals, and you are not convinced it was a God who said it, but rather a human making a claim God said it. Yet those religions can have millions and millions of followers.
Obviously, the question turns back to you. And this is completely rhetorical. But what makes your religion’s claim of what certain humans say God says about morality any different than theirs?
You and I are obviously operating from different bases (the plural for "basis"). You operate from "It cannot be considered true until proven otherwise" while I operate from "Based on my experiences, the logic I find, and the things I read (among other things), I can assume some things to be true without absolute proof." (Understand that both positions are generalizations. The positions are not the point. The difference in starting places is.)
Example: For you, if comes via human hands, it cannot be supernatural. For me, God is fully capable of using human hands to transmit information to humans. (And, wait … are you actually arguing that the face of Mary on the grilled cheese sandwich was not real???) (Kidding, just kidding.) (You know, Dagoods, I suspect that if we spoke face to face or had real-life interaction with each other (you know, neighbor or coworker or some such), we’d obviously not agree much, but I’m pretty sure we’d be friends.) Another example: For you, “Unless you are saying God has communicated directly to you” suggests “can’t happen.” To me … it has. (Arguing that point would be fruitless, of course, since that’s simply anecdotal evidence.)
Dagoods: “If your God has the right to treat his creation as he wills—what is to prevent him from lying to you about the definition of morality?”
See, apparently this is where a problem occurs quite often. “God has the right to treat His creation as He wills” means to me that He will do so consistent with His nature and means to you that He will do so … arbitrarily. It means to you that we cannot know anything at all about God while I believe we can. The question is about “as He wills,” or “as He pleases.” It also encompasses the “obligation” of which I spoke. The assumption is that God can certainly please to be evil. The assumption is that if God is “defining good,” He is doing so arbitrarily. “Let’s see … today it’s good to be nice to people. Oh, tomorrow it will be good to annihilate 6 million Jews. Oh, this is fun!”
I don’t see it that way (of course – different basis). I don’t see God as obligated to Man, but I certainly see Him as obligated to Himself. His nature defines good. We derive our definition of good from His nature. (That’s why there is such commonality in defining “good” in most places.)
The other thing here is that I don’t see a disparity between God’s “good” and ours. (Well, obviously some, but not all.) I see a problem, again, of type. You keep comparing father and daughter or parents and babies as if humans are simply little gods. It’s not the case. But, again, because of the vast difference in starting points, I don’t seem to be able to get that across to you.
You argue, for some odd reason, that if babies die, God is “torturing” them “for fun,” two value judgments with which I would disagree. As an example, (using a biblical basis) God says in the Bible, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” Do the wicked die? Yes. “Aha!” someone would then cry. “God enjoys torturing the wicked for fun!!” What a leap! It’s not there. But you’ve decided to load your question with emotional words to make a point.
Oh, and this ant thing is getting out of hand. I said that killing ants was not automatically defined as “evil.” You assume that I mean it is either moral or non-moral. I disagree. I, for instance, would think that a person who goes out and kills animals (ants included) for pleasure is evil (immoral). On the other hand, a person who is simply doing what is necessary to protect his home, while he may not enjoy it, is not immoral for killing ants.
The truth is I see most things in black and white. I like to call it “living black and white in a grayscale world.” I don’t think that all the same things are black and white for all people. Still, I think that most things actually do come down to some sense of good or bad, right or wrong, black or white. Generally it’s not on the surface – you know, motivation or the like – but I think it’s there someplace. So I don’t see killing ants as “non-moral” while I’m also not willing to automatically classify it as “immoral.”
The other primary difference in our bases (again, plural for “basis”) (I point that out because it’s easy to think of “bases” as military-type bases, the “point from which we launch our attacks” and I don’t want to think of this conversation that way) is that, for you, humans are all there is. We define good and bad. We decide right and wrong. If there is a God, He must align with a human understanding of these things. And me … I start from the position that there is a God, a holy (as in “other”) God who has similarities to us but not identical. In the points that we coincide we can comprehend Him. In the points that He explains we can understand Him. But He is not us. He is not “the universal father” like so many like to argue. He isn’t “daddy” to us. I think, in fact, that much of the problem is predicated on the American way of thinking: “I am the important person here. Independence and Equality are the two highest values. A ‘god’ who doesn’t recognize me, my importance, my independence, and my right to equality is not worth noticing himself.” I think, for instance, people who lived in the feudal system had no problem with the notion of a Sovereign who had the right to do as He pleased.
But, then, that’s just me.
Stan,
A few final points to clear up. Yes, we are coming at it from different viewpoints. Yet what I see is most theists utilize my viewpoint when viewing alternate theistic positions, but not their own. I will try to explain.
It is not so much that it cannot be supernatural if it comes from humans—it is how to tell the difference between:
1) human
2) human + supernatural
when both look human! Look at the phrase “for in Him we move and live and have our being.” Now when Euripides wrote it, we declare that human. But when the author of Acts writes it (17:28), it becomes human + supernatural. Why? It is the same words. It is the same language a human could write!
When the Book of Enoch says, “Behold the lord came with many thousands of his holy ones” it is human. When Jude 14 says it, it becomes human + supernatural. How am I, but a poor atheist, supposed to know when “Behold the lord came with many thousands of his holy ones” is human or human + supernatural?
When Christians view the Book of Mormon—they declare it human. Mormons: human + divine. For all the reasons Christians see it as solely a human enterprise; I see it as solely a human enterprise. Yet when I look at the Bible, using the same microscope, I see it equally as being fashioned by humans. There is nothing within that could not have been written by a human at the time. Nothing. Here, though Christians tell me it is human + supernatural. (Albeit, some Christians argue even over what parts within the Bible are human + supernatural. The story of the adulterous woman, for example, as been demoted back to just “human” after being “human + supernatural” for centuries.)
Stan: See, apparently this is where a problem occurs quite often. “God has the right to treat His creation as He wills” means to me that He will do so consistent with His nature and means to you that He will do so … arbitrarily. It means to you that we cannot know anything at all about God while I believe we can.
The second part is close (again, we can only know anything about a god what we can extrapolate from our universe) and the first part is not quite bang-on. It is not so much I find God’s character arbitrary—it is that we have no way of verifying it.
Is it really that remarkable to say “God acts consistent with his nature”? [not an exact quote of you]. Don’t all creatures act consistent with their nature? I may say my nature is one thing, but I will always act as my nature is.
Or put it this way—how would you know if God didn’t act as his nature? The simplest thing in the world, a small question, “Can God lie?” and we don’t have any way of verifying it! Imagine two very different gods—God A can lie; God B cannot. So we ask each of them the question:
“Can you lie?”
God A: [lying] No.
God B: [truthfully] No.
The same question; the same answer. Yet two very different gods, indeed! I don’t know if God is arbitrarily defining morality. I don’t know if God has morality dictated upon it. The Euthyphro Dilemma. That is the point—we can’t verify it either way.
But if I am told a God causes evil, and needs evil to demonstrate its love, and needs evil to demonstrate its glory—I am hard-pressed with everything I observe in this world, to make the leap it must be a solely moral God, because it is “acting within its nature.” Everything about that nature, upon what I understand of morality, says there is a part of it that is immoral.
I compare fathers and babies and daughters, because I am talking on a level we can both relate. I cannot talk about “gods” since we have so little to work with as to what “gods” are like. We both know what daughters are.
No, I am not saying when babies die it is “torture.” I am saying (springing off your painter/painting description) that if you are going to use the argument God can do “what he pleases” with his creation, because he created it, God can shove hot pokers in babies eyes, if it “pleases” him, and within this apologetical argument—that would be acceptable.
This is what I see, Stan. When we talk about how God kills people, I often hear this exact argument. How God, being the maker, is entitled to being the destroyer. How God has the “right” to look down and say, “Today I will order the genocide of the Midianites” and he is perfectly within his “right” to do so. (And be a moral God.)
All the Christians nod their head. (‘Course it is never about them being killed—they have their spot assured in heaven. Easy to grandly wipe out “the other guy.”) So I see how consistent they can stay with it. If God the maker can do what he pleases—he can torture as well as kill. (I could even bring up King David’s baby.)
If the justification for “God kills” is that “God can ‘cause he made ya” then equally God can torture cause he made the babies too. If we are to take certain actions “off the table” as something God cannot do when interacting with humans; I question the methodology by which we determine what those actions are. If killing is O.K.—why not torture?
I can’t win with you and the ants! *grin* First I take your word for it that the answer to “Is it immoral?” would be “No” and when I respond to it, now you want the answer to be “Sometimes.” I try to work within the analogy; I really do. As I said, I presumed you were doing it to eliminate pests. Not for sadistic reasons.
It is not so much God “must align” with our concept of right vs. wrong—rather, if we are going to talk about God, we must be able to use terms we understand. If I told you I thought God was “furiously green”—you probably wouldn’t have a clue what I am talking about, since “furiously green” doesn’t convey anything as we understand the words. In the same way, if we are going to talk about God’s system of morality—presumably to understand it—it must be similar to what we mean by our use of the term “morality.”
If I use the term “the laws of Portugal state…” while you may not know the laws of Portugal, you may recognize their laws are different and you may not agree with the laws of Portugal, the fact I used the term “the laws of…” conveys meaning you understand. In the same way, saying “God is moral,” while we may not know the exact terms of that morality, is an attempt to convey something we are supposed to understand.
As to our friendship—I have surprisingly discovered I can be friends with Christians who do not know me to be an atheist, and Christians who DO know me to be an atheist tend to shun me. I have given up analyzing why. If we met in real life, it is extremely doubtful you would ever know I am an atheist. Curious, eh?
Yeah, I suspect we've beaten this dead horse to death ... oh, wait, that doesn't make much sense, does it? Well, you know what I mean. Still, a few final points to clear up.
Why do I think that the Bible is God-breathed and the Book of Mormon (or Qur'an or ...) is not? (Leaving off, of course, the Tanakh.) I've examined them. One appears to be logically consistent and internally consistent. One appears to have prophecy that has been confirmed. Only one appears to operate, even though it has passed through human hands, as a divine book. I find incoherence in the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon (Note, by the way, that Mormons explain the differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon with "The Bible is wrong."). I don't in the Bible. To me, then, it puts the Bible in a place that the others don't stand. (I consider this a "closed case" because I said "to me" and don't require you to agree. ;) It's more of an explanation than an argument.)
And, no, I don't find it remarkable that God must act according to His nature. Everything does. The problem, in my view, occurs when we try to ascribe to God our nature. Your analysis that God could answer "No" to the question regarding lying is accurate, but a lie would show up elsewhere. A God who lies would demonstrate Himself as a liar because inconsistencies can be found by analysis. I don't find them.
And I know you're an atheist and it hasn't pushed me to run from interacting with you or created any negativity in my view of you. I've had several friends who were atheists over the years. Not a problem.
Thanks for the conversation. I don't think I have (or even intend to have) persuaded you. I do hope I have given you plausible (maybe not convincing or even acceptable) reasons why I believe what I do.
One final point. You've noted that a lot of what I write is to Christians. It is my firm belief that Apologetics, specifically the defense of our beliefs, is primarily for Christians. I am convinced that convincing arguments don't convince people in this arena. So it is not my goal when I write this stuff to persuade those who disagree, but to encourage those who already do. If God uses it for something else, well, good for Him. But to me it's still an "intramural" discussion, so I'm not surprised if you disagree ... even still ... despite the overwhelming logic of my position. (Okay, the last phrase was for fun.)
You might be interested in this online commentary "Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job" (http://www.bookofjob.org) as supplementary or background material for your study on the Book of Job. It is written by a Canadian criminal defense lawyer, now a Crown prosecutor, and it explores the legal and moral dynamics of the Book of Job with particular emphasis on the distinction between causal responsibility and moral blameworthiness embedded in Job’s Oath of Innocence. It is highly praised by Job scholars (Clines, Janzen, Habel) and the Review of Biblical Literature, all of whose reviews are on the website. The author is an evangelical Christian, denominationally Anglican. He is also the Canadian Director for the Mortimer J. Adler Centre for the Study of the Great Ideas, a Chicago-based think tank.
Post a Comment