I remember reading one atheist's argument that if God exists, He is evil. It went something like this.
A man is sitting by a pool, reading a book. A two-year-old comes into the pool area and falls into the pool. The man does nothing. He could put down his book, jump in, grab the child and haul her to safety. But he does nothing. Is that man good or bad?
You can feel the pull at the heart strings. Clearly this man is evil. And you can feel the pull against God. "Yeah, why doesn't God save us all?" So before our brains are ever engaged, our stronger emotions on the subject flood us with outrage.
Here's the problem. It's not true. Not one bit.
It's not true that God does nothing. Infinitely not true. As even the atheist knows, "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "Gave His only begotten Son" is not nothing.
"Oh," they object, "but He could save all and He doesn't." I find it fascinating that they're outraged that He doesn't eliminate free will in order to save everyone, but they're outraged that He would impinge on their free will to make moral demands. Can't make up their minds?
But that part was easy. The real error occurs much more subtly. You see, we are not little "two-year-old" gods. We are not in the same species as God. You see, the underlying error is precisely the problem: "I will be like the Most High." We make ourselves out to be gods.
Let's revise the illustration to more aptly fit the true situation. A man has built a nice pool in the backyard complete with safety fence to keep out trouble. He's enjoying the sun and water when a crowd of angry mosquitos attempt to fly over the fence to attack the man. Unfortunately, they lack the ability and all fall into the water, drowning. Now, what would a good man do? If he was to sacrifice his son on behalf of the mosquitos and deign to scoop out a few to save them, his neighbor might think he was daft. "Hey, why are you saving any?" "Because I wanted to," would be his gracious and sufficient reply.
We are not little gods. We are not innocents, accidently falling into a problem. God is not under any obligation to save us. To do anything to save us. If He chooses to do so, it is an act of sheer grace -- unmerited favor -- not the act of a grand humanitarian. And we are not ambivalent toward God. We are hostile to God (Rom 8:7). And it is only out of magnificent grace that He takes the absolutely necessary step of sending His Son to pay for our sin that would provide the slightest hope of salvation for even one of us. Because His imaginary neighbors would all be saying, "Hey, why are you saving any?" And His reply would not be "Because it's right" or "Because I ought to", but "Because I want to."
11 comments:
"I find it fascinating that they're outraged that He doesn't eliminate free will in order to save everyone, but they're outraged that He would impinge on their free will to make moral demands."
###########################################################################
I once heard a Christian broadcaster say, "God loves humans infinitely more than He loves the animals."
But there are cases of humans being mauled by the likes of sharks, alligators, and bears.
Would Stan make the case that "God loves the free will of all creatures with nervous systems more than He loves the lives of individual humans"?
Obviously Stan would not. But yours is an amazing short definition of "love", suggesting that "love never allows unpleasant things to happen to a loved one" and, even more, "as I understand it." That doesn't work in a non-religious line of thinking, let alone a Christian one.
I note, also, that this isn't a response to the quote listed. Thus, it apparently isn't an attempt at conversation. I'd call it more of a sniping attempt.
Are you really trying to say that animals have free will? And letting everyone live to a ripe old age without incident is a narrow idea of love.
I have never taken a class in philosophy, so Stan's son may assume complete ignorance of that topic on my part. He may be able to educate me here, if Stan doesn't mind the tangent.
Here's a hypothetical...
A collection of mammals of the same species--I'll call them "Group A"--are selected. One by one individuals from Group A are guided into a room where there is a plate loaded with four chocolate chip cookies. A hidden camera allows us to observe that some individuals eat all the cookies, while other individuals eat only some of the cookies. Yet other individuals sniff at the cookies and walk away without eating any.
This experiment is repeated with individuals from another collection of some mammal species--"Group B." The hidden camera allows their behaviour to also be tabulated, and just like with Group A, some eat cookies in various numbers, while others do not take any.
I don't show David the video, but I present David with a chart breaking down the cookie statistics for each group, and I ask David to tell me which (A or B) group's individuals are exercising free will, and inform David that one group is composed of humans while the other group is composed of badgers. Would David only be able to give a definitive answer to my question if he can first persuade me to tell him which group is the humans and which is the badgers?
Or is David's point that NO species--humans included--exercises free will? I'm not sure where David is going with this.
Further, if David claims that badgers lack free will, does that mean their behavior is entirely determined by Satan? Or maybe by God? Or both, in some sort of cosmic tussle?
In a post about the magnificence of God's grace you've managed to make it a sarcastic festival. Well done. And entirely without content! A bonus!
Mission accomplished. You can go now.
"... entirely without content."
#################################################################
Instead of asking David, "Operationally, how would you recognize an organism's behavior as exhibiting free will or not exhibiting free will?" I led off with a specific example for him to chew on.
I had follow-up questions for David, but I can tell you will not publish them, so I won't bother. Your insecurity is telling, Stan.
I'm sorry, Anonymous, it's not insecurity. It's boredom. Still no content.
Since eating cookies has no basis in the will of which we are talking, it is moot. As I understand it, the discussion of free will is about moral choices, not dietary. Animals live on instinct and make their choices based on that. We are able to overcome instinct and make choices based on will.
And the suggestion that humans and animals are the same shows there is no base on which to develop opposing ideas. If your standard is x and mine is y, then of course the outcome will be different, but will be reasoned from different angles.
Anonymous, David is commenting not about free will, but about morality. Not "Can animals make choices?" (which, of course, they do), but do animals make choices about morality. My post was not about free will, but about moral choices.
looks like a typical red herring argument
lets just forget about the Grace of God toward his creatures, and focus upon the dubious topic of freewill. does Anonymous agree with God's sovereign will with respect to salvation, or does he disagree, and why? but rather than answer the question, he performs a redirection.
Oh, "red herring". Good call. Quite sure that Anonymous is protesting my comment about atheists and "free will" and couldn't care less about what anyone believes about God's Sovereignty or grace. Red herring it is.
Post a Comment