The Problem of Evil and the Existence of God

Problem of EvilAtheists will argue that the evidence for the existence of God we’ve been discussing over the last several months is insufficient. However, if an atheist makes the statement that God does not exist, and I disagree, they need arguments to prove their point as well.  It’s not enough to say the arguments against your position are insufficient…you must have something to say to prove your own point as well.  Most atheists would prefer to sit back and say they are unconvinced by the deist’s arguments, but there are some who develop arguments of their own.  One such argument involves The Problem of Evil.

This is one of the best arguments for the non-existence of God.  It deals with the co-existence of a loving God and the horrific evils we see in the world around us.  Philosophers and theologians often use the term: The Problem of Evil…and it can not be denied that we live in a world where seemingly gratuitous and senseless evil occurs all the time.

Two Problems of Evil

In addressing this question, there are two main problems we have to consider.  Each of them must be approached in different ways.

  1. The intellectual problem of evil.
  2. The emotional problem of evil.

The intellectual problem of evil can be further broken down into two main areas:

  1. Coexistence of God and evil is illogical.
  2. Coexistence of God and evil is improbable.

The intellectual problem of evil is about whether or not it makes logical sense that God and suffering can and do coexist. Proving it’s illogical is very difficult.  Arguments to show it’s improbable are much easier for atheists to formulate.

The emotional problem of evil, however, is likely to be the real issue with most people.  Rather than a discussion about the logical co-existence of God and evil, this is about not wanting anything to do with a God who would permit the seemingly senseless suffering that occurs in the world.

The intellectual problem of evil and emotional problem of evil are different questions and can not be approached the same way.  One is about philosophical and logical arguments, and the other is about disliking a God who would let them suffer…and make no mistake, if God exists (as I believe He does) he does let people suffer.

The intellectual question addresses whether it is logical that he He has sufficient reason to allow suffering and still maintain His omnibenevolent (all-loving) and omnipotent (all-powerful) characteristics.  Even if someone believes that He does have sufficient moral reason, it doesn’t follow that they will necessarily come to accept Him.

Practical Responses to Suffering

The practical day to day response to someone who is suffering is not to show them dry textbook answers as to why it’s plausible that God would allow them to suffer…unless you want to appear to be a complete jerk.  There may be the odd person that finds comfort in intellectual conversations about evil in times of suffering, but they are rare.  More often than not, all you can do is be there and offer a shoulder to cry on.

If someone is suffering, answers to the intellectual problem of evil may give some comfort had they already studied the material before the event…but during a time of suffering is very poor timing to introduce the subject.  Knowledge of the doctrine of God and of Christ will also be very helpful to the suffering believer…Christian doctrine clearly teaches that God cares when we suffer and is there to comfort us…and that Christ can also relate to us in our suffering because we can experience nothing that Christ hasn’t already experienced as well.

So…in order for someone to come to grips with accepting a God who would let you suffer, first we have to discuss the logicality and plausibility of a loving God who still allows suffering to exist.

You may have heard the problem of evil put this way:

  • If God is all-loving (omnibenevolent), He would want to eliminate the problem of evil.
  • If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He would be able to eliminate the problem of  evil.
  • Evil exists.

Therefore God either:

  • Does not exist
  • Is not all-loving because he allows evil to exist when he could stop it.
  • Is not all-powerful and can not stop evil even if He wants to.

The dilemma attempts to show that the loving, powerful Christian God cannot logically exist.  However, this is a false dilemma.  The existence of evil does not require a God who doesn’t care or who can’t do anything about the presence of evil.

There’s a third option:

A God who cares and can (and will) put an end to evil, but has good reasons to allow evil and suffering to exist for a time.

Over the next few weeks we’ll be discussing these issues surrounding the problem of evil.  It should be interesting…and it will not be an exhaustive conversation by any means, so take a look at some of the sites in the resources section of Rational Faith Online and you’ll find lots of material on the subject.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

{ 0 comments }

Jesus Statue CuscoDefending Christianity…

Before we get into the discussion about “the most difficult question for Christians and the biggest, most legitimate reason non-Christians can give as to why they choose not to believe in the Christian God” that I mentioned last week, I want to take a few minutes to discuss something even more important.

While the Bible teaches that a Christian should be able to defend his or her faith and give reasonable and rational answers to anyone who asks them why they believe what they do (1 Peter 3:15)… this is not the main focus of the Christian faith Jesus is.

That’s not to say that rational answers are not important… Christians have many examples of how appealing to proofs and rational arguments in defending Christianity is clearly demonstrated in the New Testament:

  • The apostles and Gospel writers appealed to Jesus’ miracles, resurrection and fulfilled prophecy to prove He was the Messiah.
  • Paul appealed to natural theology, creation, and to witnesses of the resurrected Jesus.
  • Jesus Himself appealed to His own miracles and prophecy that was fulfilled in His own life.  He also appealed to His own resurrection before it even happened as future proof that He was who He claimed to be.

However…no matter how many rational arguments we use in defending Christianity from the critics or explaining to faith seekers why we believe what we do, the main focus of Christianity is still the person of Jesus and having a personal relationship with Him.  Whether you are a Christian defending your faith, or a seeker looking for truth, we all need to realize what Christianity really is all about: the person and life of Christ.

The Message of Jesus Christ

God created us in a perfect world…but with the freedom to choose to love and obey Him, or to reject and disobey.  The first humans decided to disobey, and since then every one of us is born with the inclination to do the same. Inclinations soon turn into sinful actions.  This rejection and disobedience breaks our relationship with God.

God is Holy and cannot tolerate sin, but He is loving and does not want anyone to be separated from Him, so He created a plan of reconciliation.  Because of His holiness, His plan required a sinless, blameless, voluntary sacrifice. One that could love even those that rejected and tortured Him.  Love them so much that he would be willing to take all of their sins on Himself and pay the price of their sin for them.  Then we would no longer have to pay the price and remain separated from God…we could be reconciled with Him.

Jesus Christ willingly died for us so we could be reconciled with God and fix our broken relationship with Him. God arranged all of history surrounding the birth, life, and crucifixion of Christ.  He is the the real message of Christianity…He is what all honest seekers are looking for…He is Truth.

I believe all of the other things I talk about in this blog are important in a lot of ways, or I wouldn’t take the time to write about them…but as a Christian, I have to remember that all of the logic and arguments in Defending Christianity, though important, should not be the focus of my faith.  Jesus should.

He should also be our focus of discussion with others about our faith.  Peter tells Christians to be ready to give reasons for their faith when they are asked…but the person doing the asking needs to know the gospel message before there is any real reason to defend it.

Christian Apologetics

Christian apologetics is about rational, historical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for the truth and validity of Christianity…it is about enabling a situation where the truth of Christianity is an intellectually acceptable idea amongst an increasingly skeptical culture…and we do have the tools to show that it is.

We just need to remember the reason why we want to show Christianity as a viable option: Because it leads to Jesus.

Soon we’ll start digging into ‘The Big Question’…if you haven’t figured it out, it’s what philosophers often call The Problem of Evil.  This will probably take several posts and will still leave a lot of questions, so I encourage you to read more on the subject than what you’ll be getting from me on this blog.  This will be one of the most common questions you get (and rightly so) if you are defending Christianity, and it’s probably one of the biggest questions you have if you are exploring the rationality of the Christian faith.

Until next time,

Rod MacKenzei

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

{ 0 comments }

Moral ExperienceWhat Do I Mean By Moral Experience?

Many people when they talk about moral experience are referring to all of the things that have happened to shape our morals over our lifetime…the experiences we have had.

That’s not what I’m talking about here.  When I say moral experience, I’m talking about the experience of knowing what is right and what is wrong…a sense of morality.  Whatever one believes about how moral knowledge came to be, there is no denying that we all have a sense of moral experience of some sort.  Those who don’t are called sociopaths and you frequently find them locked up because of the wrong things they have done to others.

Moral Experience vs. Physical Experience

Why should we think any differently about our sense of morality (moral experience) than we do of our sense of the physical world (physical experience)?  We have five senses with which we experience the physical world…sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. Most of us trust that these senses allow us to accurately experience the world in which we live.

Why should our moral experience be considered any differently? I know that abusing children is wrong, the same as I know that the sky is blue or that candy is sweet, or that my 10 month old can be really loud… Why should I think the fact that my moral experience, or what I intuitively know to be right and wrong, is different than how I intuitively experience the physical world?

Sociobiology and Moral Experience

The sociobiological account of how morality originated says that our moral beliefs came from evolution and social conditioning.  We’ve discussed why this isn’t a good explanation for morality in earlier posts, but that doesn’t mean how we understand morality is not affected by social conditioning.

The point here is, even if we have been conditioned to believe a certain way because of societal influence, that has nothing to do with whether or not the moral belief we have been conditioned to accept is true.

Moral values and duties may have always been the same, but you could accurately say that perceptions of some moral values and duties have evolved over time. Does this undermine the idea that God is necessary for morality?  No, it just shows that fallible humans have discovered more about God’s moral revelation over time.

Isn’t that what science does?  Pursue a  gradual discovery about our physical world that changes and evolves with more study and more discoveries?  As more is revealed, theories and perceptions change. Does this do anything to undermine the objectivity of the existence of our physical world?  Instead it gives a fuller understanding of the objective world that is already there.

Morality and the Genetic Fallacy

Some will say that if sociobiological factors are the source of your belief, it proves the belief must be false…actually it’s that idea that is false.

The genetic fallacy in philosophy is the attempt to discredit a view by showing how someone came to believe that view due to invalid sources…but this is a logical fallacy.  If I believe the world is round because I read it in a fortune cookie, it doesn’t mean that my belief is false.  The world actually is round, and there are other ways to corroborate that fact.

The same things goes for objective morality and the existence of God.  If I believe in objective morality because of social conditioning…and I believe in God exists because I grew up in a Christian home, that doesn’t mean that these beliefs are false.

Of course, some sources should be met with more skepticism than others, but how I come to believe in God and objective morality has nothing to do with whether or not  morality is actually objective or whether or not God actually exists. Any evidence to the contrary must come from elsewhere if it’s to be taken seriously.

Moral Experience: A No-Confidence Vote

Atheists may say that if moral beliefs have been shaped by evolutionary and sociobiological pressures, they can’t be trusted because evolution focuses on survival, not truth.

There are two problems with this:

1) It assumes there is no God…if there is a God, it makes sense that He would provide us with fundamental true moral beliefs…either instilling them in us or guiding our understanding of them through an evolving process.  As I already mentioned, we discussed in previous posts why the sociobiological explanation for morality is lacking.  The existence of a God whose nature is where moral values arise makes a lot more sense.

2) It is self defeating. If there is no God and evolutionary development of morality can not be trusted (because its only focus is survival, not right and wrong)…then none of our beliefs can be trusted.  On this view, all beliefs have developed from evolution and social conditioning so none of them could be trusted as true…which would include the very account of evolution and social conditioning we are discussing.  So the idea of evolution and social conditioning taken to it’s logical conclusion is undermined because the view states that it cannot be trusted as true itself!

In conclusion, our moral experience alone can allow us rationally believe that objective moral values and duties exist, and sociobiological explanations can not explain away objective morality.

I think that’s enough about moral values, moral duties, moral experience, and morality, so next time we’ll start something else…

…something that is the most difficult question for Christians and the biggest, most legitimate reason non-Christians can give as to why they choose not to believe in the Christian God.

See you next time!

Rod MacKenzei

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

{ 0 comments }

Plato’s Morality: It Just Exists

by Rod on July 4, 2010

Image borrowed from mattodegaard.wordpress.com, thanks!

Plato’s Morality: Self-Existent Moral Values

Plato, a student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle, did as much as anyone to lay the foundations of Western philosophy.  He wrote about many things, including the question of morality.

Plato’s morality can be described as ‘Atheistic Moral Platonism’.  It is basically the idea that moral attributes we would ascribe to a person just exist on their own.

On this view ‘the Good’ would be a self-existent thing, independent of God…without a foundation in God’s nature.  Early Christian theologians equated Plato’s ‘Good’ to God’s nature, but Plato thought it existed on its own, apart from God..  Similarly, justice, love, mercy…and also injustice and hatred…must exist on their own as separate abstract entities of some sort.

This is difficult to see as a logical explanation for morality…it seems unintelligible.  Kindness, for example, is more of a description of how a person is…they are kind or unkind.  It makes sense to say someone is kind, but how can kindness exist apart from persons if it is a property of persons to begin with?  If there is no subject for the kindness to be given to, where is it?  How can it exist on its own as an abstraction?

Moral values appear to be properties of persons, which makes their existence as an independent abstraction in Plato’s morality unlikely.

What About Moral Duties?

The other problem with this idea is that if moral values did actually exist as abstract entities, why would we be obligated to follow one and not the other.  If justice and injustice are both exist as abstract entities, what is it that makes us responsible to act justly rather than unjustly?  This isn’t a function of a impersonal abstraction.  Plato’s morality, without a moral lawgiver, gives no good reason why we would be obligated to follow the ‘just’ abstraction over the ‘injust’ one.  Who says we are obligated to be just?  Without a moral lawgiver, there are no grounds for moral duties or obligations.

If abstract moral values did exist, and there were no God, it is also unfathomably unlikely that creatures could randomly evolve into creatures that correspond to an abstract moral realm that was already in place…that would be quite a coincidence.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to conclude that nature and morality are both controlled by a God who gave us both of them?  A God whose perfect nature is the source of our morality.

Have a great week!

Rod MacKenzei

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

{ 0 comments }

The Euthyphro Dilemma: Splitting The Two Horned Monster

June 27, 2010

What is Euthyphro’s Dilemma? Euthyphro is a character in one of Plato’s works and ‘Euthyphro’s Dilemma’ is named after that character.  We’ll get into the specifics of Euthyphro in a minute, but first we need to discuss what a dilemma in philosophy actually is. A dilemma occurs when you have a limited number of choices [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Read the full article →

I Don’t Need God to Live a Moral Life!

June 20, 2010

Moral Lives: Can We Be Moral Without God? One could make an argument that to do as much good as someone like Mother Theresa, you do need to believe in God.  But what about the rest of us?  Can we live moral lives without God? When discussing the Christian perspective on Moral Argument for God’s [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Read the full article →

Do Objective Moral Duties Require God?

June 14, 2010

Can objective moral duties exist if there is no God? I would argue “No, they cannot.”  I would also argue that they actually do exist…therefore, there must be a God. If you recall, in “Moral Arguments for God’s Existence: Moral Values and Duties” we discussed the difference between Moral Values and Moral Duties. Moral values [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Read the full article →

Do Objective Moral Values Require God?

June 6, 2010

Can Objective Moral Values Exist if There is No God? This is the question behind our Moral Argument for God’s Existence, and the one we’ll be discussing today.  If you remember, it went like this: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Objective moral values and duties do exist. [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Read the full article →

Moral Argument For God’s Existence: Moral Values and Duties

May 30, 2010

Moral Values, Moral Duties, and The Moral Argument For God’s Existence I must apologize for slacking off on this blog lately…I have to work on not letting myself get caught up in my business and ignoring more important things!  Before we get started, my favorite apologist is Dr. William Lane Craig.  His new book, On [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Read the full article →

Moral Argument For God’s Existence: No Morality if No God

March 21, 2010

The moral argument is not a fight over what is right and what is wrong, but refers to the very existence of morals in the first place…the moral argument for God’s existence. With this argument for God’s existence we’re back into the philosophical realm  after a foray into a bit about science and religion.   A [...]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Blogosphere News
  • blogmarks
  • RSS
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Read the full article →