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

The Problem of Evil- My Confusion

An Old Argument)

The Problem of Evil is a famous argument that the existence of evil causes a logical contradiction with the existence of God. The argument goes all the way back to the Epicurus, the Ancient Greek philosopher, and it goes as follows:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Clearly, this argument is specific to a certain popular conception of God, the “triple-omni” creator who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Critics who use this argument often say that it would therefore be possible to accept a God who is missing one of those characteristics, but not a God who has all three. Maybe He really is good but doesn’t have the power to totally eradicate evil? Maybe He really is all-powerful, but He isn’t totally good?

My Confusion)

I wanted to explore this concept more, because frankly this argument has never had any sway over me. People point to the existence of terrible suffering and evil in the world, and how it tries their faith, and I’ve never been able to sympathize with that conundrum. I simply didn’t see why the existence of one the precluded the existence of the other. To me it always felt like there was a premise missing:

Premise #1: God is all-powerful, all-caring, and all-good.
Premise #2: There is suffering in the world, including of innocent people.
Premise #3: ???
Conclusion: Therefore, premise number 1 and 2 are in contradiction. The existence of premise #2 is plainly observable, so premise #1 must be the falsehood.

Obviously, I can understand that because God is powerful and good people want the evidence of that to be a perfect, peaceful world…but isn’t that what He created? That describes the Garden of Eden exactly. He really did make a perfect world, and it was only when His children performed evil therein did it transform into a fallen world. It didn’t fall because God didn’t have the power to keep it there. It fell because He willingly handed the creation to man to “have dominion” over it, and man caused the fall. This was a choice, not a lack of power.

And now, one might say, since man did take that perfect creation and corrupt it, and now there is suffering, why wouldn’t a powerful and loving God save and redeem it? But once again…isn’t that exactly what He is doing? Isn’t the message of the gospel, that He sent His son to die for the sins of the world, unlocking the capacity to restore paradise from within our hearts, reclaiming us, one soul at a time? And obviously some may prefer that He would redeem it more immediately, not by this slow, gradual process, but I think we see in the story of Noah how that would not be an act of kindness. God did stamp out all evil on a large scale once before, and hardly anyone was able to survive it. Is that really the more immediate method that we would like Him to use on us today? It seems clear that the slow, deliberate method of winning souls is due to God’s mercy towards us, not due to a limitation of His power.

Learning From Others)

However, this Problem of Evil argument still bears real sway over many people in our society, atheists and Christians alike, and I decided I wanted to understand it better. I wanted to see if there was something that I was missing. A piece of the logical formula that I hadn’t appreciated before. So, I created a few posts online, both directed towards believers who struggle with this conundrum, and atheists who subscribe to it. I explained my inability to understand the validity of the argument and asked them to enlighten me.

I evaluated the logic of what they said and pushed back in many cases, because most arguments amounted to little more than an emotional desire for peace today. That is a totally understandable feeling, but hardly a logical contradiction of God.

To my delight, though, I was able to find some commentators who gradually led me to understand what I was missing. It took a bit, because these commentators had presumptions they didn’t even recognize, which were presumptions I didn’t even have. Recognizing what these were, and how if I did have those same presumptions, it would similarly test my faith, I finally felt like I understood the argument. I still didn’t agree with it personally, but I saw the valid points that it raised. In my next post I will explain what these critical presumptions are, and why they don’t apply to me.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Signs of Bad Faith Arguments

Different Approaches)

I have spent the last couple days denouncing the aggressive approach that some take towards my faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, how they seek to crush the good beliefs that I hold, how they make very apparent their anger and hatred; and I have also spoken in favor of establishing a relationship, of honoring the faith of one another, of having opening an honest dialogue over differences of belief.

We can have interfaith dialogue. We can strongly disagree. We can even say, “I believe that my church is the one, true church, and I hope you come to see that for yourself.” And we can do all of it in a manner of brotherlykindness.

For the rest of this series, I want to flesh out the definition of unproductive, un-Christlike “evangelism.” In the past two posts I tried to give some examples of both good and of bad, but now I want to call out specific attitudes and practices that I have only ever seen be used by those possessed with a destroying spirit. These approaches are wrong, whether employed by others towards my faith, by members of my faith towards others, or by me towards anyone.

What Are Your Intentions?)

Intent is what matters first. Even before considering the substance of what is said, why it is said is what actually determines whether a critic comes in good faith or not. Intent means the reason behind the approach. Everything good or bad that follows in the conversation will directly stem from that underlying reason. Determining the intent of a critic is the first thing that every person seeks to understand, evaluating it subconsciously and then changing their entire posture according to what they perceive.

Sadly, having a person tell you their intent is the least reliable method of knowing what it is, as everyone will of course profess a sincere and worthy one. Most deceptive of all, they might even believe their stated intent themselves, but then the following conversation can betray other motives. Because, at the end of the day, intent does not lie. Over time, it always manifests its true form, and that true form always shapes the overall conversation, whether to good or evil.

Every critic of another’s faith will say it is their intent is to bring back to the fold those who have gone astray. They love the lost sheep, and the idea of their eternal torment compels the critic to come and save who they can. Very well, but how do you intend to save the lost soul? As we explored in the last posts, not all approaches are conducive to the convincing of others. Do you intend to win souls through sacrifice and service, through establishing a relationship and being genuinely curious to know another’s heart, through speaking from the place of a friend? Or do you intend to save souls by crushing what beliefs they have so that all that remains are yours? Because if that is what you intend, then you do not intend to save anyone at all.

If you come to convert by dismantling, then it is a destroying spirit behind your intentions. You have deemed a belief as unworthy, and your intention is to purge it. You do not intend to save a brother; you intend to damn an enemy. You do not come to save the world, but that the world through your judgment might be condemned.

And as I said earlier, when those are your intentions, that shapes all the conversation that follows.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Criticizing Another’s Faith- Motives Behind Attack

Satanic Evangelism)

I think the most important question when one starts criticizing another’s faith is, “why are you doing this?” What compels one to just start going off with all the things they see as wrong in another religion? To disparage something that they know others hold as sacred?

The answer that I always hear is the same: “I’m trying to help you to see what that you’ve been misguided, so you can be saved. I’m doing this because I love you.”

Which is about as sensible as when a man strikes his wife and says he does so because of how much he loves her. Berating people for their sincerely held beliefs and insulting that which they hold sacred is abusive. It is not loving. It is not caring. It comes from a desire to tear down and not to build up. It does not seek to save. It seeks to condemn. It is not Christian. It is devilish.

Dabbling in the Dark)

I know this, because I participated in it on my mission. Back in 2009 I left on a two-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On that mission, I often came across evangelists from other faiths, and I am sorry to say that we would occasionally get into lively sparring sessions on why we believed in our church…and why they shouldn’t believe in theirs. “Bible bashing” is the common term.

Now, when we were trained as missionaries, the potential for these Bible bashes came up, and the guidance we were given for what to do in such situations was always consistent and clear: “just don’t.” Don’t look for scriptures to prove the other side wrong. Don’t criticize or demoralize. Don’t try to win. Just don’t.

Unfortunately, pride and ego are very strong, and at times I did enter into these verbal mud-wrestling matches. And from that experience, I can attest to the motives and the feelings that are behind the dismantling of another person’s faith. It is not love, it is not charity, and it is not a desire to help them. It is cruelty. It is wanting to beat them, to make them lose. It is hoping for their damnation and rubbing their faces in it.

It is evil, pure and simple, and I repent that I ever participated in it to any degree.

The Pleasure of Domination)

The instruction of our missionary trainers was absolutely correct. No one should ever descend into Bible bashing another person’s faith.

Does that mean to never discuss spiritual differences and never respond to attacks against your faith? No. I do think there is a place for defending oneself and clarifying one’s position. I do think one ought to correct the record when his faith is misrepresented in public forums. I do think there can even be value in structured and civil debate. But if one cannot see the difference between these and disparaging and insulting another’s faith, then they cannot see the difference between righteous defense and devilish destruction. Or he is willfully ignoring the distinction because he still wants the pleasure of breaking what another has.

Because, at the end of the day, insulting someone else’s beliefs does feel “good.” It feels powerful and addicting. It rewards the carnal sensibilities within. It both satisfies and deepens one’s hunger for contention.

A person who ridicules another for their sincere beliefs does not want to save that person. He wants to dominate that person and feel superior to them. He is lashing out from a place of insecurity. I know this because I sadly experimented with those behaviors myself. I know the genuine darkness that I felt in my heart when I gave in to this temptation, and now I recognize that same darkness in those who disparage my faith. I know the ill will that it is behind it, so I do not excuse it. Not in myself and not in them.

Not only is this sort of theological bullying evil, it is also ineffective. If a person actually did sincerely wish to save a brother or a sister, then this would never be the method that they should use. We’ll take a look at what that better method would look like next time, and even consider the example of a skeptic of the LDS faith who uses it correctly.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Justification for Evil

If you believe that your opponent is evil,
And you believe that it is acceptable to play as dirty as your opponent,
Then you have justified yourself in being evil.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Haggling With Good and Evil

Haggling With Good)

Back when I studied the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I noted how Abraham tried to plumb the depths of God’s mercy, seeing if He would spare the city for the sake of less and less righteous. But as I noted at the time, Abraham wasn’t willing to go so far in mercy as God was! Abraham tapped out at requesting that ten righteous be spared, but God went beyond that and had His angels draw Lot and his family to safety when they were the only redeemable people found.

So perhaps Abraham was trying to haggle with God, and that would suggest he had a misunderstanding of who he was dealing with. God doesn’t just have good qualities, such as mercy. God is the good. God is the mercy. As for us, we only have a part of those qualities, and so we cannot have more of a good and merciful nature than good and mercy itself. God’s goodness is affixed and we only move in relation to it, not the other way around.

Haggling With Evil)

But Abraham was not the only one to make this error. What just occurred to me this morning is that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has a counterpoint to Abraham haggling with good. It is Lot haggling with evil!

When the angels come to the city to assess the number of its righteous, Lot hurriedly brings them into his home, presumably afraid of what mischief might befall them on the street. But the people of the city witnessed this and demand that he turns the men out so that they can be raped. And here, in the face of evil, Lot tries to haggle with them, offering his daughters instead. But that doesn’t work, in fact it makes things worse, with the people now breaking into the house, insistent on their initial plans, and further promising that they will now “deal worse with Lot, than with the strangers.”

Good and Evil Are What They Are

So what was Abraham’s mistake? He was trying to get good to be more good, but good was already more good than he could he ever want. And what was Lot’s mistake? He was trying to get evil to be less evil, but evil would always be more evil than he could ever want. We have to recognize is that good is just good, and that evil is just evil. And they are so perfectly. They are immovable. They are constant.

It is not for man to try and define or shift what good and evil are. It is a vain exercise at best, and dangerous at worst. Good and evil have already been set for an eternity. They have been explained to us as they really are, and their nature will not change. All that remains is for us to decide how we wish to orient ourselves to them.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Threat of Good People- Patterns Big and Small

Pattern of Hate)

I’ve spent the past two days discussing the tendency of those that feel wrong to try and tear down those that seem right. The reason for this is that the very existence of the holy is a testament against the impure. The holy prove that moral living is possible, and that it is better, which means that the immoral are worse and deserving of blame.

This pattern is nothing new. To his friends Jesus foretold, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you,” (John 15:18-19).

To his enemies Jesus said, “Ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning,” (John 8:37, 44).

The children of the devil seek to destroy Jesus and also hate those he has chosen. Thus, the impulse of the wicked to destroy the righteous is nothing more than an extension of the devil’s desire to destroy God.

Woven Through All)

This animosity isn’t just political, and it isn’t isolated to one instance. What we see in our private lives is but a fractal strand of a war that is cosmic and universal. There are branches of this struggle that are relatively low stakes, such as when the awkward child tries to tear down his more successful peer, but it is the same spirit behind it that would murder a God.

The immoral want to destroy the moral because evil wants to destroy good. Meanwhile the good, if they are truly good, emulate the God at their root and seek to redeem the wicked.

Just as these cosmic, eternal forces have fractal strands woven into our society, so too, there are strands woven into our own selves as well. There is an agent of evil within us that seeks to tear down our good parts, because those good parts remind us that there is a better version of us inside, and that we are not meeting our full potential. And there is that agent of good in us that seeks to redeem the evil part and raise it to its holy potential. As we learn to find the right solution within ourselves, we will learn how to find it in our society, and our society will join God in His solution for the entire universe.

We are all part of one cosmic ritual or another, and the outcome that we support in the eternities is echoed in the outcome we seek in ourselves.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Threat of Good People- Justification for Evil

Yesterday I spoke about how children who are socially insecure can try to tear down those who are confident, because they hold up a mirror to the insecure children’s flaws. But as the years go by, what might be nothing more than teenage angst, gradually evolves into something deeper. Even, something evil.

Selfishness and Sin)

Most of us come into evil by simple selfishness. A neighbor is looking for help with some yardwork, and we discreetly make plans to be out of town that morning. Upon seeing a traffic lane slowing down, we might swerve into the next, cutting off the driver behind. We disparage the “other side” for their idiocy, enjoying the moral superiority that that brings. We want what they want, and we only deviate from our predetermined path when it serves our own interest.

And then, inevitably, that same selfishness leads to doing something objectively wrong. The commission of a mortal sin. Something truly damning, which far more than the teenage awkwardness discussed in yesterday’s post, is something that we tend to shrink from, to try and not face up to in our own heart.

And to soothe our conscience on the matter, we tell ourselves that everyone is “looking out for number one.” Everyone takes the advantage when it is presented to them. Everyone holds a grudge. Everyone is selfish. Everyone has a serious sin hidden inside. We become suspicious of those that appear to defy these universal assertions, assuming that the so-called good are really just hypocrites and liars, pretending to be holier-than-thou, but secretly just as selfish and compromised as the rest of us.

An Unbearable Reality)

Which then makes it very difficult when someone shows an undeniable act of kindness. When someone is doing good, even when they think no one else is looking. When someone is giving, with no possibility of return. When someone forgives another, even though they have every right to demand vengeance. When someone openly confesses and renounces their sins.

Moments like these threaten the wicked, because it holds up a mirror, showing us that we don’t have to be the way that we are. That person was willing to forgive his enemy, so why don’t I? That person gave with true charity, so why don’t I? That person admitted his sins and forsook them, so why don’t I? These questions remind the sinners that we do what we do because we choose to, not because it was inevitable. The sinners see what we really are, and how what we still cling to is inexcusable. We see that we are deserving of hell.

The good people therefore become hateful to us for no other reason than that they are sincerely good. They become an unbearable burden. They are a threat to the illusion that everyone is guilty, so we’re no worse than anyone else. They are a threat because they show us that change is necessary, but we are still unwilling to change.

Then, the good people have to be crushed so that there is no longer a standard to be measured against. Society redefines morality, so that even thinking or believing or speaking “incorrectly” is now deemed violence. Then the destruction of the good is considered justified and even called right.