Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Boundaries on God

Getting an Education)

I had long been aware that I felt different from many people, Christians included, in the fact that I did not struggle with the terrible suffering in this world combined with the belief in a powerful and loving God. Frankly, I was glad that I didn’t see a paradox in this and assumed that the paradox wasn’t even real. I assumed that people were distressed by this conundrum for purely emotional reasons, which would certainly be understandable, just not justifiable by logic or reason.

And, as I learned in my study of the matter, that assumption of mine is true for many individuals out there. Many don’t understand the very argument that they use, don’t recognize that it only applies in some contexts and not in others. There are also those who see that the Problem of Evil is only an argument against a very specific conception of God and reality, and I am very grateful to them for expanding my horizons so I could see what that conception was.

Yesterday I shared about faiths that bypass the argument entirely by not holding to the presuppositions that it depends on. Today I wanted to conclude by exploring some of the thoughts that came up when I imagined how it would be to live as one of those Christians to whom those presuppositions do still apply.

What Does All-Powerful Mean?)

At the root of everything, it comes down to just what we mean when we say that God is all-powerful and that He is sovereign over all. In most conversations, I find that even people who believe in the strongest conceptions of God’s power, still assume that to some degree He imposes restrictions upon Himself. They might say that God has the power to slam Jupiter into the Sun, causing a sudden burst of heat and energy that would consume the Earth and eradicate all life in an instant…but He doesn’t, because He is checked by His goodness and compassion. The fact that God does not do something, is not evidence that He cannot do something. It can merely be a sign that His nature bounds itself. God must wield all power, but not at the expense of being all-benevolent.

And then other attributes can be applied to that. Such as logic and truth. These are principles that exist on the same plane of existence as Him, and many Christians would argue are a part of Him, and as such He would operate according to their principles. Just as God would not show His power in a way that contradicts His benevolence, He would not show it in a way that contradicts His logic. If He did, He would be uncoupling His own parts and cease to be Himself.

Thus, could the suffering in this world be a logical necessity, even under the hands of an all-powerful and all-benevolent God?

Is God still all-powerful if that power is bounded by His benevolence and His logic? Is He still all-benevolent if that benevolence is bounded by His justice and His logic?

And if God does need to balance all of these criteria with one another, then perhaps there is space to say that a world of suffering, and a species of man who become heroic by overcoming great opposition, is a logical necessity. In our own lives we know that victory is only a virtue in the face of genuine possible defeat, and maybe that isn’t just an illusion of our reality, but an eternal principle, as true as the principles of mathematics. Perhaps life is the way that it is, because it was the only way that it could be.

This may not answer every concern found in the Problem of Evil, but I think it does open the door to deeper conversation.

In Conclusion)

In my last post I showed how certain faiths do not hold the same presuppositions that the Problem of Evil argument depends on, and which explains why I never found it to be a conundrum. Today I explored the experience of one who did assume those presuppositions, and what arguments could still allow for the existence of both suffering and God.

This brings me to the end of this study, and I have certainly learned a lot through the process. I now understand where the strength of the Problem of Evil argument resides, what presuppositions it depends on, and what my responses to it are, both with and without sharing those presuppositions. It has been helpful for me, and I hope it can be helpful for you, too.

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

Faulty Logic

There is a faulty logic that can lead some to abandon the faith that goes something like this:

1. My father believed in Christ.
2. My father hurt me.
3. The church believes in Christ.

Therefore, the church must want to hurt me.

This is not a surprising line of reasoning. It is in our nature to learn from our suffering and to try and avoid it repeating. We instinctively look at the qualities attached to those that hurt us and become suspect of others who carry the same. And in many cases, this can actually help us identify negative patterns and avoid risky associations.

But there is a difference between correlation and causation. Having been hurt by someone who professed Christ, but who did not emulate the teachings of Christ, is not the same as having been hurt by Christ, himself. It takes maturity to look at the harm we have received and ascribe its sources to the qualities that do apply, and not to the ones that don’t.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Bad Things Shouldn’t Happen

A Common Assumption)

Our culture struggles deeply with the idea of bad things happening to good people. It is often cited as an obstacle to having faith in God. To be honest, I have never struggled with this concept myself. I simply do not see why the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God is mutually exclusive to suffering in our world. I see it as a non-sequitur, requiring several subconscious assumptions to try and bring those two ideas together.

But as I have thought about it, I wonder if the connection is simply this: Bad things shouldn’t happen to good people because that is unjust. I certainly agree with the second part of this sentence, which states that it is unjust for the good to suffer, but I become a lot less confident about the first part that says it shouldn’t happen. That depends on what one means by “should.” After all, why shouldn’t things be unjust in an unjust world? Isn’t that exactly the pattern that you should see given our mortal context?

The Different Shoulds)

I think the difficulty that so many in our society wrestle with might come down to there being two different meanings of the word “should,” and we, having lost an appreciation for the nuance between those meanings conflate them into one and draw erroneous conclusions. The first use of “should” is a moral statement. It describes the world as it ought to be, in a way that would be just and fair. Spouses should have the loyalty of one another. A defenseless woman should be able to walk down a dark alley without fear. The guilty should be held accountable for their crimes. The world should behave according to moral principles.

The other “should,” however, simply means “appropriate to the context.” It describes the expected effects of a certain condition. The visible constellations should be different from different latitudes if the Earth is round. A species in a favorable environment should thrive. A patient with malaria should have an exceedingly high temperature.

With that last one, are we saying that it is “good” for the patient to have a dangerously high fever? Of course, not. But it is the natural and fitting state for that condition. The suffering is tragic, but it follows the proper order of the thing.

So, should the innocent suffer in a moral sense? Of course, not. But should we expect to see such injustices in a world that isn’t moral? Yes. The sad truth is we live in a fallen world that has largely rejected God and elevated selfishness and sin over love and virtue. What should such a world look like? Should it be the image of justice and fairness, or is the logical order that it would be a place of tragedy, unjust suffering, and a reality far removed from the moral ideal?

Posted on by Abe Austin

Inevitable Universal Truth

Universal truth is inevitable. If there was no universal truth, then that would be the universal truth.

Given that universal truth is inevitable, all that remains is for us to find out what it is and align ourselves to it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Offensively Faithful- Popular Morality

The State of the End)

In the last post we identified the likely moral landscape in the last days, based on the prophecies of Jesus and the prophets. We identified that there would be a minority of the good and faithful, and at least enough of the utterly depraved and murderous that they could have power over the good. I then theorized that the majority might be morally compromised, people who still think that they are morally good, but who justify their sin with twisted principles, and who provide justification for the ultimately depraved to murder the good.

I suppose that either this will be the makeup of humanity at the end of the world, or it will be a state along the way to a more depraved makeup. Perhaps at the end things will have progressed further, to where most of the self-justifying sinful have also reached the deepest levels of depravity, sharing that same murderous intent towards the righteous.

Personally, I consider the first social makeup to be more likely, where the majority of people are compromised but think themselves righteous in their own eyes. Otherwise, at the time of the second coming there would be a sharp line where almost everyone was killed, leaving only a very few righteous alive. I think it more likely that only the murderously wicked will be destroyed, and there will remain many morally compromised who will have to be ministered to by the righteous to finally convert them back to the Lord. At this time, the majority sinful will no longer have the power of government and moral certitude. They will know without any doubt that they are in transgression of their Creator, and that they cannot remake the world in their image, and that they must repent or they will be sinning against the light. This belief is in part due to the account of the partially evil Nephites who were spared at the coming of Jesus, and in part due to the account of Zechariah 13, which states that Jesus will appear at the second coming to Jews who do not yet believe on him.

Folly of the Masses)

Whatever the general state of depravity in the world in the last days, it at least seems certain that the majority of the people will believe things that are false and sinful. To some extent they will be deceived and led astray. They will justify evil. Many will eschew good and be antagonistic towards the righteous. To what degree is up for debate, but this much is certain.

Thus, if one lives in the last days and they hold the majority views, then even without examining what those views are, we already know that they are faulty and that that person has been misled. And, by extension, most people will be morally in the wrong. Only those that are willing to be unpopular, to be ridiculed, to be called “outdated” and “bigoted” will have any possibility of being in the right. Not necessarily all those with controversial beliefs will be correct, but all those that are correct will have controversial beliefs, and all those with the mainstream beliefs will not.

Now, does this apply to us in our situation today? Well, to answer that we must first answer this question: do we live in the last days or do we not? If the last days are far removed from us, then all that we have said is true of a time long distant and may or may not apply to us today. But if we truly do live in the end times, then modern popularity is a barometer for folly. Tomorrow I will examine the question of whether we live in the end times or not, and why I believe that we do. Then we can be more specific about what trends in the world seem most likely then to be misleading.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Premises- The Trend

A Recipe for Success)

Whenever people decide to push a social, political, or spiritual movement, they justify the changes that they seek by making certain truth claims. They try to get the world to accept that their core premises are true, or better yet get people to realize that they already agree with those premises. And then, if the premises are true, then the logical response must be to make the proposed social changes.

Every movement, whether its premises are true or not, depends on convincing people of them. Thus, the successful movements are the ones that identify what core premises most immediately lead to their desired outcomes and communicate them in a concise, memorable, and convincing way. When a movement is successful, the premise that was taught then becomes part of the societal fabric. It is now an assumed truth, an axiom for ethical and correct behavior, and future generations will be raised to trust it implicitly.

Unintended Consequences)

But that’s where these movements can start to unravel. The original evangelists of the movement may have only wanted to effect one, specific change, but the rising generations will always take things to their full logical conclusion. They will look at the premise and say, “well if this is true, and it justifies this first step, then surely it justifies the second and the third as well.” And so, they push the matter further than the original evangelists ever intended. Indeed, it is not uncommon for earlier-wave members of a movement to express shock and dismay at what their cause has become in the hands of the later generations. Some of them even express regret for having started the movement at all.

This is a pattern that should give us all pause as we consider the changes that we would wish to see in the world and the methods by which we would achieve them. Every one of us ought to give special consideration to the premises that precede those changes, and what their full potential effect could be, and whether they are even true to begin with.

Tomorrow we’ll look at a specific example of one movement that has gone off the rails, the premise that was indoctrinated in society to make it a success, and why that premise logically led to the unintended consequences we see today.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Evil in God’s World

A Common Argument)

I have frequently heard the argument that if we have an all-loving God, how are tragedies and disasters a part of this world? I have addressed this issue in part with previous posts, but today I wanted to point out a fundamental flaw in the argument itself.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave this argument in an interview where he said, “Every description of God that I’ve heard holds God to be all-powerful and all-good, and then I look around, and I see a tsunami that killed a quarter million people in Indonesia, an earthquake that killed a quarter million people in Haiti, and I see earthquakes, and tornadoes, and disease, childhood leukemia, and I see all of this and I say I do not see evidence of both of those being true simultaneously. If there is a God, the God is either not all-powerful or not all-good.”

I find it interesting that Tyson’s public persona is entirely based around having a scientific mind, yet his argument is entirely unscientific. He jumps to a conclusion that is not at all supported by the premises. Here are the premises that he establishes:

  1. God is all-powerful
  2. God is all-good
  3. ???
  4. There is great tragedy in this world

And from these he draws the conclusion that the last premise is incompatible with the first two. But as it stands, the statements of God’s character and the state of the world live in isolation from one another. There is a crucial premise missing, one that would establish what the relationship between God and the world even is!

This is the fundamental flaw in all of these criticisms. They speak of the nature of God, and the nature of the world, but never establish what one of those has to do with the other. It is quite a leap to say that if God is all-good that He is required to enforce only good things on the Earth of today. Where did that notion come from? Why can’t God be all-good and not puppeteering everything that plays out in humanity?

The Perfect Earth)

One thing that Tyson did not explicitly say, but which I believe is implied in his argument, is that the missing link between God’s goodness and the state of the earth is that God created the earth. If God is perfect, and the original author of our existence, then why isn’t that existence perfect also?

But even introducing this to the argument doesn’t make it any better. Because if one is going to question why a perfect God did not create a perfect world, the obvious answer is, “well, according to our records…He actually did.” In the first chapters of Genesis, we read that God created a world where everything was “good.” There was no death, no sickness, none of the great tragedies that so distress us today. Thus, the expectation actually fit the reality at the moment of creation. God did give us exactly the sort of world that we would have expected Him, too.

But states can change. And man, not God, chose to introduce sin into this world, corrupted its perfection, and gave birth to the fallen earth that we see all around us. This is all made clear in the first three chapters of the Christian canon, so it doesn’t make sense to state that the Christian conception of God does not account for the disparity between His goodness and the world’s evil.

If one does not believe in the biblical explanation, so be it, but don’t claim that there isn’t any explanation. Indeed, this is one of the unique and compelling aspects of Christianity, that it not only acknowledges the dual nature of our existence but also provides one of the clearest, most explicit explanations of that division’s origin.

Of course, one might still be troubled by the disparity between the professed perfection of the Christian God and the suffering in the world, and one might feel that if God really is all-powerful, then He ought to be able to reclaim that fallen world. And to that I say, brother, have I got some good news for you!

Posted on by Abe Austin

Is the Old Testament God Evil? – Mind vs Heart

I have spent the past several days reviewing the common defenses that are made for God having commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations. I found some of the arguments more compelling than others. However, even the ones that had strong points were not so convincing that I lost all discomfort for these passages. I find what remains for me is a sense that God was justified to have commanded these actions, but I still wish He wouldn’t have. The more that I delve into the details, the more I realize that the problem isn’t in the details.

I think this is a common mistake when raising and addressing issues related to God. We are dealing with a matter of spiritual unrest and are trying to resolve it in intellectual terms. We too often assume that our feelings are invalid if we cannot express it as a logical argument. Therefore, the critic will experience negative feelings towards these verses and will give logical arguments against them. The defender of these verses will respond in kind by providing logical rebuttals. Even if those rebuttals are sound, they will do nothing to convince the critic, because the logic wasn’t where the problem began. It isn’t the critic’s mind that needs to be converted, it is the heart.

Thus, my response to all of the defenses that we have covered thus far is, “yes, you have some good points, and maybe it all makes sense in my head…but I still just feel sad about it.” In my next post I will try to take a different approach to addressing these concerns. I think it is time we took the matter to a higher level of consciousness. I wish to make an appeal, not the to mind, but to the Spirit. We will see how that goes tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Too Much Certainty

As I observe all of the angry discourse in our society today, I am left with a sense that we are much too certain of ourselves.

If the other side is wrong, we are certain that then we must be right, even though in most cases that is not necessarily so.

We are certain that we know causation, when all that has been demonstrated is correlation.

In the domains of definite uncertainty, where neither God nor science has spoken, we are nonetheless certain that our opinion is ultimately right.

I do believe that some things we can be certain of, and should be certain of, and should live with passionate conviction to those certainties. But I think that those are only a few, core things, and we should be nuanced enough to call all the rest a hunch, a belief, and an assumption.