I guess my "Ten Signs" post caught someone's attention because I've been having a discussion with a commenter who calls himself/herself (I can't really know, can I?) "Cobalt" about whether or not God actually owes us anything. He (I'll just assume gender) is quite sure the Creator does owe His Creation and assures me that human suffering is proof that God is not good (and, therefore, I assume, does not exist). One of the earliest questions he asks is this: "Is this world the best such a God could do?"
The question deserves attention, but I'm answering it here for Christians to read because there is a different angle from a Christian perspective. I mean, we Christians have some standard answers we might try. We might say that evil is necessary for the greater good. You know, "No pain, no gain." The response, of course, will be a demand to explain "the greater gain" in, say, the destruction of the twin towers or the famines of Somalia or the like. Our certainty that we can't know everything doesn't appear to be an answer here and we're at an impasse. We might try to absolve God by saying that evil is caused by Man's sin. That may cover some things, but what about natural events like hurricanes or earthquakes? Or we could say that this is the best of all possible worlds that God could have provided. Of course, that one won't solve anything because lots of people can imagine lots of "better worlds" (although proving that these are actually better is impossible).
There is, in all of this, a missed point. The question and its standard answers always revolve around human beings. The reason the question is even able to be asked is because human beings suffer. No one is asking, for instance, about animal suffering or plant extinction or the like. No, the problem is that humans suffer. Or, to put the question more correctly as it is asked, "Is this the best possible world for humans?" The question itself, then, elevates the importance of the creature and diminishes the importance and rights of the Creator. The only valid question here is not about what's best for creation. The only valid question is what's best for God. The only question here that has real value would be "Is this the best possible world for God to accomplish what He intends?" Let's ask that question, then, in reverse, with the proper focus. "Do you think that God, who can do anything, designed this world to be less than He intended to accomplish His own goals?"
Now, don't be confused. This is not a satisfactory answer to the skeptic. When all answers begin with the assumption of God, His existence, His character, His goodness, and so forth, no skeptic would stop, doff their cap, and say, "Thank you! I see it now." This answer only works for genuine theists, real Christians. But the next time you see the question raised by skeptics, look at the approach. The questions are always couched in, essentially, "What's in it for me?" "Can you explain how suffering is good for me? Can you explain in terms I accept how suffering is for the greater good? Can you give me answers that I find acceptable to defend God's use of hurricanes and the like?" And so it goes. In other words, these challenges start from the premise, "I will be like the Most High." (And never mind that dismissing the existence of God eliminates any rational basis for calling suffering "morally evil".) The real answer for Christians is "Is it possible that God could not do what's best?"
9 comments:
Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die.
Was it not man's sin that caused the Great Flood? Will it not be man's sin that will cause the wrath of God to be visited upon the whole earth? Perhaps it is man's sin that is causing the violence upon the earth as well.
Oh, I don't believe people in Oklahoma are more sinful than those in, say, Arizona causing tornadoes to demolish whole towns in Oklahoma. If that premise were true, then the Las Vegas strip or Reno would probably be holes in the ground. But, I do believe that man's cumulative sin causes violence because the original sin caused physical hardships.
"Perhaps it is man's sin that is causing the violence upon the earth as well."
While it is true that sin causes most of the suffering on the planet, the question is still, why would an omnipotent, loving God allow that? We can move toward "It's not His fault; it's sin's fault", but then we're suggesting that sin has foiled God's good intentions and something else (namely Satan) becomes sovereign.
Actually, God provided for the contention of sin, for He knew it would come through Adam, and Adam left the legacy to us.
What is wrong with blaming science for all the weather disasters? After all, we would never have known that all the blizzards of this hard winter were caused from global warming [note the tongue in cheek] if it were not for science.
I would think that blaming evil on science would be the same as blaming evil on Satan because, after all, science is the great Satan, isn't it? (Hope you caught the tongue in cheek, too.)
Seems that denying God has a hand in anything evil, that He somehow is unable to stop it, flies in the face of Proverbs 16:4, "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil."
There is really no acceptable answer to a non-Christian. Many fiction writers have made up stories about the "perfect" world, but anyone that reads that story knows that it can't be perfect because it's missing "a". There would be no way to make a perfect world tailored to every individual in they they would like the world to be perfect. But put God into the equation, who's goal is the demonstration of His glory, and this is the best possible world and EVERYTHING that happens in it is ordained by Him and shows His glory, power, and holiness. All the bad stuff doesn't flow from Man's sin, but God's wrath against that sin. This world isn't the "ideal" world, but it is the best possible world to glorify God, otherwise it would not exist.
Denying that God has a hand in anything evil is a denial of lots of Scripture ... including the basic definitions of who God is (such as Sovereign).
Stan,
It's a difficult question and obviously strecthes the follower of Christ to even try to comprehend. It seems to me the question really is was God wrong in creating man in His image because along with that came the ability to choose. Giving man the ability to make a choice meant the possibility of choosing to be disobedient which would lead to all the subsequent death and destruction. This also meant that He knew of the possibility of sending His Son to shed His blood for the remission of the sin of mankind.
We are told that God created man in His image. To ask questions like is this the best possible world or what part does God play in evil is something we cannot presume to answer because it flows from God's nature which we can only speak about analogically.
I believe you are right that the Sovereignty of God is key, and that no answer for a true skeptic will be possible because of the inability for man to speak to the nature of God. What we must do is focus on the way that God has made for an eternity of perfect existence with Him and what we must do personally to live in accordance with His will.
Possibly not a clean easy answer, but hopefully a cleary articulated and considerate one.
Blessings.
Jeremy,
More to come. In fact, I'm tackling the subject all week. Let's see if I can't come up with a more comprehensive answer.
Post a Comment