Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Combinations of Presuppositions

Gaining an Understanding)

In my last post I explained how I never understood the Problem of Evil, which is the common argument that the suffering that we see in the world is logically incompatible with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God. So, to comprehend this viewpoint better, I went to some online forums to discuss it with both atheists and Christians who see this argument as credible. It took a fair bit of time, and a lot of back and forth, but finally it made sense to me. I realized that the reason it never resonated with me, but did with others, was because we had a different set of presuppositions that entirely changed the context of how we view reality. Now, I still do not have those presuppositions, so the conclusion that the suffering of this world is incompatible with God still does not resonate with me, but I do understand why it would for others. I understand why it could very well resonate with me if I shared those same presuppositions.

As an aside, I think this is an important lesson in appreciating the different beliefs and struggles of others. Very often the conclusions that others draw seem so strange and incoherent to us, and by focusing on the conclusions, we usually just continue to confuse and frustrate one another. We have to get lower, down to the underlying premises that lead to those conclusions, the fundamental beliefs that make the position become sensible and rational.

But anyway, using the information I gained, I want to spell out exactly what the presuppositions are that would make suffering and God’s goodness hard to hold in the same mind, and in the next post I will show why a different set of presuppositions would not.

The Presuppositions)

The first presupposition we have already identified. It is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. He loves His children, He wants goodness and happiness in the world, and He has the power and knowledge to secure it.

But as we will see, this alone is not enough. There is one other necessary presupposition, and it is often overlooked. It is creation ex nihilo, the belief that God created the universe, all of its systems, and the human species, out of nothing. All of our reality is a closed box that God had full control over the designs of. All of the ways that this life is, are because God personally wanted them to be that way.

This second presupposition is key, because without it the obvious counterargument is that yes, God does want goodness and happiness, but in His infinite wisdom He knew that a fulness of joy could only be found in overcoming great trials. He did not only want His children to have peace, He wanted them to be heroes. He wanted them to choose righteousness even when it was hard. He wanted them to be driven by a love that could overcome any adversity.

But for the critic who believes that the existence of God assumes creation ex nihilo, this counterargument holds little weight. The critic can readily agree that yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that true depth of character is acquired only by suffering. Yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that greater good is obtained through temporary evil. But then…why is humanity of that nature? If the universe is a closed box that God designed every part of, then why design humanity to operate by those rules? Why not design a humanity that becomes heroic, and loving, and strong by just having nice things happen to them?

A Sensible Question)

With both of these presuppositions: an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God, combined with creation ex nihilo, I think that critique is very strong. I do not know that I can see any convincing argument against it. I have seen how other Christians try to refute it, and at the end of the day they seem to be trying to pry off one or the other of those presuppositions. And that’s fine if you don’t happen to agree entirely with them, but most of the Christians in these arguments do actually hold both as essential to their faith.

But not every Christian denomination does hold to these presuppositions, and certainly not every non-Christian denomination. There are faiths that are absent one or the other of these claims, including my own, and to us this Problem of Evil loses its power. We will examine that in more depth tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faith vs Works- The Problem

A Seeming Contradiction)

Jesus taught, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven,” (Matthew 7:21). Clearly, simply confessing Jesus as your savior and relying on faith is not sufficient to be saved. As Jesus says, we have to do the will of his Father. We must rely on good works.

Oh wait, but in the very next verses Jesus says, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity,” (Matthew 7:22-23). In these verses, the people are describing the good works that they did in his name, yet they too are rejected. So maybe the works aren’t that important?

It does occur to me, that Jesus might possibly be describing two different groups of people here. Perhaps he saw our very day, where we have people that claim salvation by faith alone, and other people who claim salvation by their works, and in these verses, he calls both out as hypocrites and refutes both their theologies.

It certainly does not seem a good thing how this faith vs works debate has divided believers for thousands of years. Could it be that Satan fosters divisions such as this between the believers, goading each side to entrench more firmly on their own false belief, while all the while there was a simple truth that could have unified both camps?

Both Essential)

In this study, I will consider the scriptures that have caused the most confusion and division on the matter, the insufficient attempts that have been made to reconcile them, and finally I will illustrate how the LDS practice of proxy ordinances for the dead fully accounts for both views. I should point out that not every reader will be able to accept that solution, due to theological differences. Even so, I do think it will still be instructive for those readers to dive into this conundrum and start to wonder whether it is possible for there to be some solution to it.

I do believe that God’s word is true, and that if Jesus and his disciples made two different assertions, then we should assume that both of those assertions are true. If the two assertions seem contradictory, then rather than assume that one of them is wrong, we should assume that it is our perspective and interpretation of them that is off. Perhaps we need to think bigger, or change our view, or look through a different lens, that we may properly see how the two truths align in one.

Posted on by Abe Austin

What We Are, Fundamentally- Chaotic Nature

Competing Nihilism)

I have already criticized the logic of the determinist in my previous posts. Today I will continue by introducing an alternative view that emerges from the same physical-materialist foundation, but which comes to an opposite conclusion.

The determinist, as already discussed, concludes that there is no free will or metaphysical reality because they assume that the environment, stimulus, and reaction are all part of a biochemical closed loop. Because every aspect is controlled, all behaviors are entirely predictable, if only one could measure all of the participating factors.

However there is another argument that also concludes that there is no free will, but by arguing that our material nature is nothing put pure, unpredictable chaos. This notion is based on the observation that our most fundamental components—protons, electrons, leptons, and quarks—seem to be subject to random quantum mechanics. If the lowest level of our material trembles between random states of reality, then how can we claim that everything built up from them, including ourselves, could act in a way that is deliberate, conscious, and chosen?

Both these viewpoints go to great lengths to deny the reality of human choice, but by totally opposite means. On the one hand humans are rigid, fixed machines that only act and react according to predictable programming, on the other hand humans are unpredictable, wild, and chaotic, whose behaviors have nothing to do with thought or reason.

Consistent Inconsistency)

As with determinism, this chaotic view once again defies our basic experience. Perhaps the chaotic view seems to provide a solution for why our behaviors are not totally ordered, but it raises an even bigger problem for why our behaviors aren’t totally chaotic either. Sometimes we do keep to plans, we do hold to our word, and we do follow through. And sometimes we maintain that reliability our whole lives long. How do we have these consistent streaks if at our beginnings is nothing but chaotic noise?

Our own experience balks at the idea that we are either totally predetermined or totally chaotic. These arguments sound intelligent because they take a long time to explain, but they are each childish in their lack of nuance. Their complexity does not bring life into sharper understanding, they try to flatten it into an over-simplistic single dimension.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools- Romans 1:22

Posted on by Abe Austin

Our Own Reality- Matthew 6:24, 1 Kings 18:21

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

COMMENTARY

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other
Previously we considered Pharaoh, who wanted the God of the Hebrews to give him reprieve, but also wanted to maintain his control over the Hebrew slaves in direct defiance to that God. As the famous saying goes, though, you cannot ride two horses. If you try, you will only tear yourself, which, tragically is exactly what happened to Pharaoh. By trying to have his cake and eat it, too, he lost his firstborn child.
Many men and women lose the most precious things by trying to clutch to two opposing realities at the same time. Powerful addictions, in fact, often stem from a division of the soul, one where a person genuinely believes in a greater good, and professes it loudly, yet secretly lives a lesser evil on the side. A wedge is gradually driven into the heart, pressing deeper and deeper, until eventually things start to break.

How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: if Baal, follow him.
Each of us only has room for one reality and one master. It is simply not in our nature to thrive so long as we are divided against ourselves. Thus each one of us must choose which reality we will embrace, and then embrace it with all our hearts, letting go of all the rest.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Evolving Your Beliefs- Logic

We use the word “logic” quite a good deal, it is something we strive to live in harmony with. In its original form, “logic” is simply the study of how to make correct inferences from known truths. If A is true, then so is B.

Logic has many different branches of study, including propositional calculus, predicate logic, and modal logic. It has applications to mathematics, computational problems, and even philosophy. Many of our technologies today, such as the modern database, are based upon its principles.

Another way to explain logic is that it is the study of relationships between truths. Take for example the statements “Adam is the father of Seth” and “Seth is the father of Enos.” By these two truths we may logically infer that “Adam is the grandfather of Enos.” In fact, by being given only a smattering of relationship facts, logic can be used to recompile entire family trees, defining numerous relationships between every member.

And all of this works…until a lie is introduced to the system. It has been proven that a single lie can totally break down any logical system. By process of elimination, one can prove or disprove anything. You could simultaneously prove that Adam is the father of Seth, that he is the mother of Seth, that he is no one to Seth, and that Seth is actually his father. And you can also disprove all of those statements, too. In a word, everything becomes “relative.” Where before you could go to a system of truth and find verifiable fact, now all that remains is a shrug of the shoulders and a “maybe.”

This happens to us in our lives as well. Each of us is born with a very simple model of truth. We inherently accept principles of love, faith, and goodness. It is a small core of truth, but it is sufficient. As we go through life we discover new facts, accepting those that seem to fit with our already-establish model, and rejecting those that do not.

However somewhere along the way, each of us will make a mistake. It is very easy to do. Perhaps a trusted authority figure gave us a notion that we accepted without a second thought. So we added a falsehood, but we believed it to be a truth. We may not realize that anything is amiss for a while, but over time, that lie will corrupt our previous associations. We’ll start to notice logical contradictions in our beliefs, and finally we’ll know that our system has become untenable.

Sadly, many will throw the entire thing out at this point. The work of pruning out the lies from the truth seems impossible. They will claim that there never really were any truths to begin with. It can be a hard thing to let go of a misconception about God without letting go of God entirely.

But that is not the only option. Sometimes evolving our beliefs is a matter of going back to basics. We realize that we went astray, so we return to what few facts we really do know: that we are a child of God, that He loves us, that there is such a thing as “good.” It might be a much smaller belief system, but it will be true again. Then, with utmost care, we add back in only the parts that fit with this core.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Evolving Your Beliefs- Jonah 4:4, 6-11

Then said the Lord, Doest thou well to be angry?
So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city,
And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.
But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.
And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to die than to live.
And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.
Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:
And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons?

COMMENTARY

Doest thou well to be angry?
So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city.
Yesterday we observed how Jonah became angry when God showed mercy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah wanted them to be destroyed instead. God challenges Jonah with the question “doest thou well to be angry?” but Jonah does not respond. He gets up and leaves instead.
Sometimes we get angry with God because we, too, disagree with His methods. We think we know how things should be, and are hurt to have Him tell us that we are wrong.

And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief
But God prepared a worm, and it smote the gourd that it withered
And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd?
When our pride has been stung we lash out. “Hey, don’t touch that! It hurts!” Which request God promptly ignores. He jabs His finger firmly into it! He isn’t going to just let this go. We have a festering blemish and He is going to lance it and it is going to hurt…. But He only does it so that we can finally heal.
So while Jonah is fuming under the gourd God reaches out and makes him even angrier! He kills the gourd, and when Jonah complains he brings back the still unanswered question: “doest thou well to be angry?”
This time Jonah answers “I do well to be angry, even unto death.”

Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured
And should not I spare Nineveh, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons?
And now the Lord shows Jonah the contradiction that he is making. Jonah is sorry, and rightfully so, for the death of a gourd. But he is unfeeling for the death of an entire city. Even the densest of people should be able to see the misaligned priorities here. The Lord is stressing to Jonah that there is no pleasure in destruction. It is tragic for a gourd to fall, and it is tragic for a people to die. Perhaps Jonah already knew these things in his head, but needed God to break him down so that he could feel them in his heart.
I certainly have been emotionally tied to my own misconceptions as well, and like Jonah I built up walls to protect them. I said I was being “righteously indignant,” but I wasn’t, I was just being obstinate.