Why do bad things happen to good people? It's the Achilles heel of most religions. It's the nagging question of almost all skeptics and a good number of believers. If there is an omni-benevolent being with the power to make things happen, why do bad things happen? Why doesn't he do something about it?
There are answers from Christianity. Indeed, I think Christianity is the only religion with answers. Most religions end up with a deity that is either not loving enough to care or not powerful enough to act. He's shrugging his divine shoulders saying, "Yeah, I know, but what's a deity to do?" There are answers, but this article is not about those answers. This article is about the problems associated with the question.
Problem #1. The question is largely posed by skeptics -- atheists or agnostics who are trying to tell us that our belief in God is not rational.
Premise 1: Omni-benevolent, omnipotent God
Premise 2: Evil
Conclusion: The existence of evil is proof that your God is either not omni-benevolent or not omnipotent (or both) and, therefore, is not God. That is, Premise 1 does not exist. QED
And wise theists are quick to point out the problem with this kind of thinking. Eliminate a Universal Lawgiver and you eliminate any transpersonal means by which to demonstrate Premise 2. That is, if there is no God, you cannot define evil. This is pretty simple to demonstrate, and most rational atheists when faced with this claim are forced to agree. Some have posited some sort of "selfish gene" where we assume "good and evil" based on our self-concerns. Some have suggested social evolution where we have simply constructed our own morality based on "Can't we all just get along?". All of it boils down to a non-transpersonal approach based solely on pragmatism. (What do I mean by "transpersonal"? I mean that it applies to more than just one person. If "no God", then there are no moral absolutes, but simply personal pragmatic values.)
In this world, Ted operates under a "Thou shalt not steal" moral code, but Billy sees that he can get away with stealing and does so. No one can say that one is moral and the other not because there is no undergirding moral code to follow. Suzy may operate under a value system that gives away as much as she can to people in need and Kathy may use the more common system that says, "Get as much as you can!" Who's to say which is right? In a world where there is a God, God would. In a world without, no one has that right. It's an individual call. It is, then, not a matter of morality, but pragmatism -- what works. In a world with God, God sets the standard to meet. In a world without God, there is no standard except what is artificially constructed. So an atheist that declares God evil and therefore does not exist is doing so in a vacuum without a basis on which to declare God evil.
Problem #2. The first problem should illuminate the second. The question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is laden with further questions. How do we define "bad things" and "good people"? The atheist, as I've already demonstrated, will have to do so arbitrarily. "Well, I think that this person is good and I think that that event is bad, so ..." I know I've read enough stories that illustrate that we have a hard time both in determining who is good and bad and in determining what events are good or bad. Good luck with that.
It is not, however, limited to atheists. Even believers have to ask these two questions. How do we define "bad things" and "good people"? As it turns out, the standard definition for atheists and believers alike boils down to "to me". "Bad things" are bad if they are bad "to me" and good people are good if "to me" they are good. I decide. Take the easiest example you might find. Is it bad that Mrs. So-and-so got a divorce? Well, if Mr. So-and-so was a jerk, then it's a good thing, right? (I had this conversation with a woman once. "My divorce is final," she said. "Oh, I'm sorry," I answered. "No," she said, "it's a good thing.") We determine if an event is bad or good and we determine if the person to whom it happened is bad or good. Bad things happening to bad people is good. Good things happening to good people is good. Good things happening to bad people is not good, and bad things happening to good people is not good. We have spoken.
The problem in all this for the theist is that the premise is wrong. The premise, in fact, is wrong in the original question. The original question posits this notion: "If there is a God, He ought to be concerned about my welfare." Well, of course, we're not that petty. "He ought to be concerned about my welfare and the welfare of other people." What about animals? "No, maybe not. Well, a little, probably, but not as much as people." What about trees? "Yeah, I guess, but not as much as animals who are not as important as people. God's highest priority should be the welfare of people." That, dear readers, is the fundamental premise of the original question. And that is a faulty premise.
So look back at my two questions: How do we define "bad things" and "good people"? As in the case of the first problem, we are operating from the wrong standard. The atheist eliminates any overarching standard. But we theists who don't think this through are applying the wrong standard as well. "Good people" must be defined by God. "Bad things" must be defined by God. Let me put that another way. Here's how the original question should read: "Why do things that are bad for God happen to people that God considers good?"
I want to highlight in that question the word "for" first. You see, if creation is about the Creator rather than the creation, then the question is not about what's bad for the creation, but what is bad for the Creator. That's our first confusion. We think it's about us. It's not.
Then you have to consider who God considers good. Since the biblical statement is "There is none righteous, no, not one", that would pretty much eliminate everyone. Jesus said, "There is none good but God." That eliminates everyone but God. Simple.
From these two standards of measurement -- the "bad things" and the "good people" -- we can come to a pretty easy answer to the question. Why do bad things happen to good people? They don't. There are no good people, and God always does what is best. Next.
Our problem, of course, is our anthropocentrism. We see humans as the most important beings on the planet. Why doesn't God? And, of course, He ought to be judging what is good or bad and who is good or bad by our standards. When He fails to do that, we are offended. Perhaps, then, you can begin to see the problem of the question.
14 comments:
"The Existence of God and the Problem of Evil" presupposes four elements. One, that human nature itself has a limited, even corrupted moral conception and potential, therefore allowing evil to exists. Two, that there is a God, three, the Incarnation was intended to provide the remedy to defeat evil and four, that those religions, mainly the christian tradition that interprets and claims to represent that event are in some way true. The first is self evident, the next two may be true if yet unproved but if the last is false, and this unresolved theodicy question suggests as much, that would explain why evil has yet to be conquered.
Alvin Plantinga recently wrote in one of his many apologist rants: "You really can’t sensibly claim theistic belief is irrational without showing it isn’t true." But that is exactly what's happening as I type this comment.
The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will. Thus a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious claim, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of a religious revolution is getting under way. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk
http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/
You understand, of course, that negating the reality of Christianity while trying to maintain the reality of Christ is nonsense ... right? And suggesting that there is a correlation between Christianity and all other religions including this "new" one is a failure to grasp Christianity. Nice try, though.
G.K. Chesterton wrote dealing with the "problem of pleasure". He insisted that if the Christian must defend God, while evil exists, then the atheist must defend pleasure without the existence of God. Of course we already know that we will get a bunch of just-as-impossible-to-prove, just-so stories about why we experience pleasure.
As it turns out it is much easier to harmonize the existence of God with both pleasure AND evil. The atheist has the more difficult task. He must explain why man, which was created by chance, is any different than his car, which was, as a necessary consequence, was created by that same chance.
And let's not even ask on what basis "pleasure" is defined as "good".
I recently read Simon Winchester’s book on the Krakatoa eruption. He says:
“Modern tectonics accepts the undisputed existence of about a dozen major plates… What takes place when plates of different composition run into one another, as might be expected, is that the heavier of the two, the oceanic basalt plate, dips itself underneath the edge of the lighter continent-laden plate… The results of the plates’ meeting and the making of a subduction zone can be very dangerous indeed… The down-racing plate heads into the heat, dragged with its billions upon billions of tons of additional material—most crucially of all, water… It begins to melt… Fluid components begin to “sweat out”—suddenly bubbling and frothing and coursing and, because they are light and volatile, so rising back up again… The Promethean material searches ceaselessly for some weakened spot in the crust above it… It explodes out into the open air in a vicious cannonade of destruction.”
I feel it in my bones that the Krakatoa eruption would have ripped open the earth 129 years ago even if Homo sapiens did not exist. I would think a believer in a personal God might be tempted to feel the opposite, but since Stan says, “Our problem, of course, is our anthropocentrism. We see humans as the most important beings …” I could see Stan saying that the eruption may indeed have happened even without any humans present on this planet. So this might be an area of agreement between us, I don’t know.
From my churchgoing years I got the idea that the physical universe—every atom of it-- will wink out of existence once the End Times prophecies have been fulfilled, but I tend to think Stan would disagree, since Stan maintains that the human race isn’t that big of a deal to the Creator.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stan’s is the most interesting blog on the Net, in my opinion. I find myself wishing Stan would devote one day’s blog to revealing some personal things about him, such what music he likes, what TV shows he watches, what academic subjects he did well in, what kind of lady he went for in his bachelor days.
I just finished reading 1,600 pages of Isaac Asimov’s autobiography. As someone who has tried his hand at science fiction, Stan might enjoy that. Asimov did not hide his warts from the readers, for sure.
There is a conservative talk show hosted by Mike Broomhead on 550 AM weekdays at 4 PM that I think Stan would enjoy. Naum, on the other hand, would be appalled. :-}
A few blog topic possibilities for Stan to consider:
* On Christian radio yesterday Michael W. Smith said of Bible Answer Man Hank Hanegraaff (author of Christianity in Crisis), “He’s one of the major problems why Christianity is in crisis. He should have had a chapter on himself.” That may be the first time I have heard criticism of Hanegraaff coming from a minister. Any thoughts?
* What role does Satan play in a universe where God is absolutely sovereign?
* Is conscientious objector the moral way for Christians to go when there is a shooting war? Does it matter what nation the Christian is a citizen of? (Britain in 1941 and Germany in 1941, for instance.)
Perhaps you don't understand the word, "anthropocentrism". I guess that is the case because you say, "Stan maintains that the human race isn’t that big of a deal to the Creator." To call anthropocentrism a problem is not the same thing as saying "the human race isn't that big of a deal to the Creator." Not at all.
Awhile back I came up with a parable/fable to try to illustrate how this works. I'll trot it out now just for fun. Imagine that my wife loves rare orchids. And imagine (okay, this part is absolutely true) that I love my wife dearly. So, in the year before her next birthday, I find a rare orchid for her. I plant it, fertilize it, make sure it has the right soil and light and water and all, tend to it, do all that is required so that when her birthday comes around I will have the best possible orchid to give her. Why? Well, because I love her. Now, assume that one of the features of this particular rare orchid is that it is sentient. It can actually think. What do you suppose this orchid will be thinking during that year? "Wow! This guy really thinks I'm important. He really likes me. No, no, he really loves me. I mean, look at how he cares for me. He tends to my every need. He is attentive and careful and ... well, I must be the most important thing in his world!" The plant, of course, would be wrong, but it would be an understandable mistake. The plant would be valuable to me, but only insofar as it expresses my love for my wife. Who is ultimate in this scenario? My wife, of course. And it would be a mistake for the plant to conclude that it is the center of my world.
Before time began, God promised His Son a Bride. This Bride would be special, carefully tended to, personally groomed, the perfect love gift to His Son. Why? Because He loved His Son. The Bride is important, but only so far as she expresses His love for His Son. To think that she is the center of the universe because the Father is caring for her, grooming her, tending to her, would be a mistake on her part. She is important, but she is not the ultimate in importance.
Anonymous: "From my churchgoing years I got the idea that the physical universe—every atom of it-- will wink out of existence ..."
Either you went to a strange church or you didn't really pay much attention. The biblical account speaks of "a new heaven and a new earth", not the complete annihilation of the physical universe. Humans need a physical universe. Humans are the Bride. Therefore, humans will have what they need. Would Krakatoa have erupted without humans being present? The world wouldn't have existed without humans being present from a biblical perspective. Like saying, "What would become of the Bleenker cages at the zoo if there were no Bleenkers?" "But ... what's a Bleenker?" "Well, it's an animal I made up." "So ... how can we determine what would become of their cages if they never existed? Why would there be a cage for them? What would it look like? How would it be shaped? What would it require?"
To the skeptic, of course, the universe is its own entity, operating with or without humans. It has its beginning in ... nothing ... and it will continue regardless of humans. Odd that skeptics hold humans in such low regard and high regard at the same time.
Oh, quickly ...
... Michael W. Smith is a Christian musician. I don't think of him as "a minister".
... In a universe where God is Sovereign, everything operates on His behest, including Satan (e.g., he had to ask God if he could test Job). Including you. ;)
... I already wrote about the Church and the Military.
The Smith show was ‘Hardcore Christianity’ on 1010 KXXT yesterday. I just found a website:
http://hardcorechristianity.com/
I am thinking the singer is a different person.
Thanks for your link to your ‘Church and the Military’ blog. That answers my questions.
Just one more comment. Stan wrote, “The biblical account speaks of ‘a new heaven and a new earth’, not the complete annihilation of the physical universe.”
But Stan is open to the possibility of alien beings living far away from our own cozy little solar system. Have you tried to work out how the transformation to a new heaven and earth would affect them, if they exist? Do you see the transformation as only occurring in that bubble of space within a light year, say, of us? I realize this calls for speculation.
Oh, another "Michael W. Smith". Got it. Thanks for the link. It gives me a clear indication of who to avoid on 1010 KXXT. (I don't know about the station and don't listen, but still ...).
I know. "But he's a Christian minister!" Fine. Except when a "Christian minister" denies clear biblical teachings (as is necessary in the "deliverance ministries"), I have no reason to conclude he's a Christian minister. And it's not just me. "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:18-19). When "Christian ministers" depart from clear biblical truth, there is biblical reason to conclude "they were not of us."
As hard as I work at trying to get Scripture right, you think I'm going to spend much time speculating on things I cannot possibly know? How will this affect aliens? Really? And since I don't believe that anything exists without the direct effort of a Supreme Being, I see no reason that if such beings existed it would not have precisely the effect on them that the Supreme Being would intend. But when I think of "new heaven", I'm not thinking of "the universe as we know it". I'm thinking "the place where angels and the dead who have gone before us currently reside".
Stan wrote regarding skeptics’ anticipated end of the human race some day in the future, “Odd that skeptics hold humans in such low regard and high regard at the same time.”
But compare that to your belief that the essence of god-fearing Frank will live on eternally in a place of bliss, while the essence of unrepentant Nancy will live in eternal torment. Isn’t that an even more extreme high and low?
Stan wrote, “You think I'm going to spend much time speculating on things I cannot possibly know?”
You have written that God speaks to you supernaturally by putting information in your mind that you could not have come up with in a natural way. When I ask you difficult questions, I am putting you in a position to show me that process in action.
That reminds me--some years back when a prophet on Christian radio invited people to call in for a word from the Lord, a woman called to say, “There is a girl missing from our neighborhood. Would you tell us where she is?”
The radio prophet said, “Well now, we’re running low on time.”
Stan, would you go so far as to say that no modern Christian has such an excellent gift of hearing God’s voice that he can serve as a conduit to locate missing persons and stolen vehicles?
Stan wrote, “… Therefore we know that it is the last hour.”
I’m not sure if you have blogged explicitly on these being the last days, but it seems to me that you have implied that you believe that to be the case. (For instance, the wheat and tares passage that you draw upon can be taken as an End Time prophecy, though I don’t doubt for a second that there are Christians who would say otherwise.) Two or three weeks ago I tuned to Trinity Broadcasting TV. Paul Crouch was speaking on camera with his younger son. Paul said that the founding of Israel in 1948 “started the clock” counting down to the Second Coming. Paul said someone who was alive in 1948 will still be alive at the Second Coming. If I figure 120 years to be a maximal lifespan, that puts the Second Coming no later than 2068. Do you buy that? I presume Paul Crouch is referring to the Bible passage about “This generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled,” though I did not hear him give specific scriptural support during the brief time I was listening.
On January 18, 2012, Stan wrote, “The world wouldn't have existed without humans being present from a biblical perspective.”
But Stan also wrote back on October 13, 2010, “The problem, of course, according to the Bible is self-centeredness, and the notion that human beings are at the center of the Creator's world is the height of self-centeredness... Because, you see, we, not He, are the center. In biblical terms, that is the center ... of the problem. In my examinations, I've found that it is the center of every conflict with God… I'd like to point out that the Bible neither says nor intimates that human beings are the center of God's world. God is.”
Those two statements seem opposite to me, though I may well be misunderstanding one or the other of them.
[I tried to send this Thursday, but your site seemed to be blocking comments at that time.]
I'm sorry, but this continues to be pointless. Your "Frank" and "Nancy" presume that these two (types) are the ultimate. I have repeatedly argued that God is the ultimate. Thus, "Frank" and "Nancy" will both bring glory to God.
Is God going to fill me in on whether or not there are aliens and what happens to them when the universe ends? Why?! It serves no purpose. It offers nothing. It is pointless. It's like that age-old "Is God so powerful that He could make a rock He couldn't lift?" I ask, "Why??!! Would you think He would be that stupid?"
The outcome of aliens, the location of a missing vehicle, all of these things presume a higher priority of humans than God. Makes no sense.
I would suppose that viewing Paul Crouch as a good source for Christian info is a problem all on its own.
Look, let's say that God is the ultimate. Everything else is far below that. Now, in order to glorify Himself (to demonstrate His glory), He decides to create a universe peopled by folks created in His image to reflect His glory. These people would fail (certainly) so that God could demonstrate His wrath and power, and He would provide a solution to their failure so He could demonstrate His mercy and grace. So He created a habitat for this demonstration called "the universe" peopled by "folks created in His image". At what point in all of this did the creation become the ultimate concern? All of it was aimed at God's glory. On the other hand, if all of it serves to proclaim the glory of God, at what point would all of it be considered "useless" or "worthless"? All of it was aimed at God's glory. You see, all of your questions come from the position that God owes us. He owes us proof. He owes us pleasure. He owes us good things. He owes us information. He owes us a direct line of communication. We have to get past that.
Stan wrote, “All of your questions come from the position that God owes us. He owes us proof. He owes us pleasure. He owes us good things. He owes us information. He owes us a direct line of communication.”
The Bible tells us repeatedly that God loves us. That sets up an expectation for certain behavior on His part. I set the bar at one level; you set it at a much different level.
You can tell your wife over and over that you love her. But if your neighbor finds that you lie to her and beat her and you leave her on a capsized cruise ship while you hop into a lifeboat, he is justified in thinking that your actions are telling her that you really do not love her all that deeply.
That would be a "Yes, God owes us."
FYI, the Bible does not repeatedly tell us that God loves us. On the contrary, Jesus specified in what way God loves the world. It was in offering a means to avoid perishing. The whole "God loves everybody" thing is a misnomer, a distortion. There is a sense that God loves everybody when He allows rain to fall on the just and the unjust, when He allows sinful humans to continue living, and so on. But if there is a God and if that God is just, justice will prevail over "God loves everybody".
Post a Comment