“How do you expect me to believe in God,” asked Woody Allen, “when only last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of my electric type-writer?”
For a while now, at least in the Western world, the existence of any form of pain, suffering, or evil has been regarded as evidence for the non-existence of God. If a good God existed, people reason, these things would not. But they do and, therefore, God does not.
My job takes me around many different parts of the world in order to answer people’s questions about the Christian faith. I find it fascinating that I have never been asked this question in India, a country that certainly knows a lot more about suffering than many of us in the West. I find it even more intriguing that Christians who write books in situations where they have known unspeakable torment because of the gospel do not normally raise this as an issue for themselves either. Why?
There are so many ways in which questions concerning pain can be raised. It can be raised because of personal loss and suffering or because of a personal interest in the issue of theodicy, to name but two. However, regardless of the way the question is raised, it normally comes down to a moral complaint against God. “How could you allow this to happen?” The complaint is against God’s moral character. “Can I really trust God if I see this happen?” But if you are sure that you can trust God, regardless of the pain you find yourself in, there is no temptation to turn you away, as you realize God is the only one who can help.
Firstly, let’s deal with the argument against God’s existence. Ravi Zacharias has dealt with this thoroughly in his book Can Man Live Without God. If you argue from the existence of evil to the non-existence of God, you are assuming the existence of an absolute moral law in order for your argument to work. But if there is such a law this would also mean that there is such a God, since God is the only one who could give us such a law. And if there is such a God to give us this law, then the argument itself is flawed, since you have had to assume the existence of God in order to argue that God doesn’t exist. It is an attempt to invoke the existence of an absolute moral law without invoking the existence of an absolute moral law giver, and it cannot be done.
Click HERE to continue reading
Nothing, in my humble opinion, is more unnecessarily complex than this ongoing issue of understanding evil, and how it keeps people away from God and Christ. Thus, I regretfully agree with the author's statement, "Evil has been regarded as evidence for the nonexistence (no hyphen is required)of God.
ReplyDeleteI'm perplexed that apologists (and this includes ALL of the big names) don't ever refer directly to what God says in Genesis, when trying to explain the "evil" problem. I asked you about this before, Pastor J, and you neglected to answer my concern.
Listen, at the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, Genesis, Chapter 2:17 reads, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." - KJV.
It is clear that God gave Adam and Eve a direct warning that if they defied his command, then they would gain the knowledge of evil, and then much worse. Yes?
If evil is therefore the payoff for disbelieving God, then how can anyone then use it for a reason not to believe in God? The question is self-defeating. In other words: We would have never experienced evil in the first place, had we not first disbelieved in God.
Listen, Pastor J, God clearly points this out once again in Genesis 3:22, "And the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.'" KJV.
I never hear apologists quote these verses as the reason for evil. Do apologists who say they are Christians believe Genesis? Well, of course they do - although the debate between a literal meaning and a figurative meaning rages on, needlessly.
And a good objection might be that Eve didn't know what evil was, so would could blame her? But not so fast, it was instruction from God, so it doesn't matter if she knew what it was or not.
I'm going to challenge you to address this question, Pastor J. Until apologists find a way to incorporate this explanation into their answers, then they will just keep barking at the moon, and I mean that in love.
Please tell me where I have gone wrong in my assessment of this, and I will gladly confront my mistake.
Dr. Craig likes to break this down into an overly cerebral explanation by explaining the difference between the "intellectual" and the "emotional" problem of pain, which is very sensitive of him, but if fails to directly confront the verses in Genesis. No one has more respect for Dr. Craig, and Ravi, and the others, including you, but I think this issue has to be included. I have never heard Ravi address it this way, either.
Please don't think me insensitive to the issue, I have - as with everyone - had my fair share of personal pain, and expect that I'm not yet done with it. I will eagerly await a response, and, again, if I have missed something, please, for my own edification, inform me.
Now, before I stop, I'm going to poke you in the ribs a bit. Some while ago, you asked me to send you any questions I had, and I did. Yet you never answered them. That left me with a little bit of a sinking feeling, but knowing how busy folks are, I soon got over it. This time I am going to formally ask you to respond.
And, please forgive me, but I'd like to share with you the English rule for writing the "Non" words, because I see a glaring mistake in how they are written, all the time.
"Non" - The rules of prefixes apply, but in general no hyphen when forming a compound that does not have special meaning, and can be understood if "not" is used before the base word. Use a hyphen, however, before proper nouns or in awkward combinations, such as non-nuclear. There you go, no reason for you to make this mistake. Smile.
As we continue learning and practicing apologetics, it's always important to keep in mind not only the group of people we're speaking with, but also our role in pre-evangelizing (as some would consider apologetics to be. On occasion, I get the chance to sit down with non-believers, usually atheists, who have no regard or belief in the God of scripture. Under such a circumstance, would quoting verses in any part of the bible truly help to reach them? Is it enough to simply say, "This is the answer because the bible says so"? For those who are passionately resistant to Christianity, this approach would not work, especially if they are of the intellectual sort with intellectual or emotional resistance to the Word of God. It would help to guide them toward a belief in God first (which can be a lengthy process in apologetics on it's own) before scripture could truly reach them.
DeleteThis is not to say that the bible can't get the job done. As we both know, it's the greatest book for apologetics there is, but you must remember that we need to speak the language in order to communicate with those who don't believe and aren't receptive. Articles such as this help us to achieve that goal. A goal not for our own intellectual victories, but a triumph for His kingdom. We must be examples of Christ first in humility, servitude and love. Once the heart is softened, Jesus will move in and do his work.
Throwing the bible at them (literally or figuratively) probably won't work off the bat.
Thank you for your response, it is lucid and hits the target directly as it relates to the big scheme of the sheer number of people who do not believe in God or Christ. And I'll move away from the issue of the true source of evil to make a broader point concerning apologetics.
DeleteAs a former police reporter, I once covered a homicide where a fellow reporter (from a different paper) said to me, "I bet she wasn't expecting this today." Amen. I think his statement actually defines, in one sentence, what I labor to express at length. But let me try, and I'll do my best to be as brief as I can.
It has been widely reported that D.L. Moody once gave a passionate appeal for the existence of God and Christ, at a large gathering in Chicago. He then, according to the story, asked the crowd to go home and consider accepting Christ as their savior. It was the same day that the "Great Chicago Fire" occurred, and many of those same people apparently lost their lives. It is further reported that Moody made a vow "never" to give another sermon without asking for an immediate decision. So, one can see the obvious implications of first evangelizing only to soften the heart.
Another important point is to refer to Dr. Craig's lectures on the proof for the resurrection of Christ. Dr. Craig stresses the eyewitness accounts given by Paul, as revealed in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15. So here we have an example when Scripture comes into play at the start.
What is one to do? Well, not to be caviler, but in the words of Clint Eastwood, concerning should folks gamble about how long they might live, "Well, do you feel lucky punk, or not?"
I still think, at the very least, some reference to the verses in Genesis concerning evil should be made, causal or not, in the beginning or at the end, in any lecture or general conversation concerning this complicated subject.
Thank you once again for your astute and throughful reply. I often comment when I think I have something useful to contribute, but membership silence (not Pastor J's fault) prevades this site. I regret that, because I would like to read what my brothers and sisters in Christ think about some of these subjects. I'm hopeful that this conversation and my own past contributions might help jumpstart further input. "Hope maketh not ashamed." - Romans 5:5. Finally: Let me offer a sincere invitation for you to join this site. We need Christians like you.