Some Questions About the Problem of Evil
November 23, 2010
Okay, fellow humans, help me out with my quandry. Here is a brief overview of the problem of evil, and then some questions.
First, it is an old question. It constitutes one of those objections to our experiences as human beings that require an answer form every generation of Christians. In other words, there is more than one conceptual image at work. Simultaneously, the “problem of evil” demonstrates what seems like inconsistencies in the truth claims inherent in Christianity (specifically) and theism (generally). However, there is some evidence to suggest that the problem is unduly complicated by misunderstanding the nature of those truth claims. For example, in its classic formulation the problem of evil reads like this, “If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.” Perhaps a less technical, but sufficiently succinct way to put it is, “If God (who is completely good and powerful) exists, then how can evil also exist?” Clearly, this creates a neat little problem for Christians and theists. If you deny that evil exists, you seem foolish. If you deny that God is ultimately good or utterly powerful, you seem to be denying the concept of God. Consequently, the argument is set up as an “either/or” – either evil is real or God (as conceptualized by theism, especially Christianity) is real, because they cannot co-exist. This is a decidedly deductive construction of the problem. There are also inductive forms of the problem. In terms of theism, though, the ontological defense of God’s existence is valid and true (and convincing) – therefore, for a theist, inductive forms of the problem of evil and facts about evil “cannot constitute even prima facie arguments against the existence of God,” and are a moot point.
So, briefly, what are the ways in which theists have sought to unravel the apparent contradiction between these two facts?
First, some authors have suggested that suffering and evil are part of God’s plan in “building the soul” of a person. In other words, suffering and evil build endurance, patience, and faith. If you suffer, you are better for it. This, of course, is only as satisfying as the extent to which your imagination allows you to be comfortable. Surely, the suffering that an athlete in training endures is beneficial. The suffering a mother in child-birth endures is beneficial. However, do you think that a small child that suffers through Leukemia receives a benefit commensurate to her suffering? Do you believe that innocent Jews that suffered through the Holocaust and died were benefited from their suffering? So, the extent of the argument may only be appealing to the extent you see a benefit. What if, then, the benefit were eternal?
Second, some theists have tried to posit that “evil” is not a thing or being. It is a result of free will, and so the existence of evil is the consequence of God allowing humanity to have free will. Consequently, God created humanity in his image, and the result as a free agent that may and does choose to act in morally evil ways. Thus, the real conflict exists between God’s desire for humanity to reflect his glory, and for his plan for creation to be executed as conceived. God could force humanity to behave, but he would be violating his own will in providing humanity with a will. In other words, “good” is only good because evil is an option.
Third, and finally, the “Need for Natural Laws” is summarized by Michael Tooley:
“first, it is important that events in the world take place in a regular way, since otherwise effective action would be impossible; secondly, events will exhibit regular patters only if they are governed by natural laws; thirdly, if events are governed by natural laws, the operation of those laws will give rise to events that harm individuals; so, fourthly, God’s allowing natural evils is justified because the existence of natural evils is entailed by natural laws, and a world without natural laws would be a much worse world.”
This touches on Christian notions of Original Sin. When humanity exercised its free will against God’s will, it brought about certain changes in God’s creation that resulted in natural laws and states of affair that created patterns of destruction, violence, and suffering. Consequently, evil is only a problem in the temporal sense. Once Christ returns and sets everything to rights, there will be no “problem of evil” of which to speak. There is an infinitely good, knowledgeable, and powerful God that will have dealt justly with all the suffering and evil caused by humanity’s exertion of free will.
There are others, but I find something interesting in this whole debate. It is the designation of things and events as either “good” or “evil.” The reason I find it interesting is because the very notion of a “problem of evil” is designed to express the contradiction between the existence of a Christian God and the events we experience in life. However, the very language used to conceptualize the problem are dependent on the existence of said “morally good God.” If God did not exist, then neither would the moral designation of the good over and against that of evil. If there is no good God, can there even be evil? Of course, we wonder about the issue of suffering. What is our justification for giving moral designation to suffering? Am I suffering when I experience pain? If God does not exist, how would I have a standard of good by which I could compare the wrongness of suffering or the evilness of violence? How would an atheist that actually framed the question without presupposing that God exists maintain the tension of the original contradiction? Assume the atheist position is correct. There is no God. We have evolved socially, emotionally, morally, etc. If the notions of good and evil are both innate to the evolutionary process of humanity, how do we distinguish between them? Perhaps, I have unfairly changed the topic of the discussion, but I fail to see how the problem of evil exists without the existence of God. Doesn’t that mean that God has to exist?
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1 – A Review and Reflection
November 22, 2010
I promise to include only one spoiler in this review, and I’ll include it right in the beginning – *Spoiler Alert*- the book is still better than the movie. Frankly, that’s saying something, because I loved this movie. While I’m being frank, allow me also to say that I was nonplussed with many elements of the J.K. Rowling’s seventh and final installment of the Potter saga the first time I read it – which should add a little extra chutzpah to my claim that the book is still better. Those constitute a whole lot of unqualified claims, so allow me to elaborate for a moment.
First, when I received the book, I received it at my home at the earliest possible moment that Amazon could get it there. For days leading up to the release, I did not go out and buy it. I did not watch the television. I did not listen to the radio. I surfed the web as if I genuinely appreciated the present danger of the perverts that lurk on the internet. Perverts that had already been going to all varieties of places, public and private, doing their dead best to leak key plot points that they had stolen. I was cloistered in my home pacing the floors, waiting for the UPS truck. When the book finally arrived, I barely restrained myself from kissing the delivery man. He gave me a wary look that revealed he had already narrowly dodged one too many exuberant outbursts for the day. I brought the box to the kitchen table, and tore into the package greedily. I tossed the bubble wrap to my sons as a kind of consolation toy, a weak apology for the fact that daddy would not be interacting with anyone for twenty-four hours.
I started reading at 5:00 pm on the Saturday after release, and seven hours later my eyes ached and I had to go to bed. I woke up Sunday morning and groaned at the day ahead of me: church and a pot-luck luncheon where I would have to interact with friends that had bought the book at release thirty-six hours earlier. I feel guilty now, but had no shame then – I read through the sermon, I read while standing in the foyer “greeting” parishioners. I made my wife drive, and I read in the car. After approximately thirteen hours of reading, I finished the book. I will say that next to frantic Greek expositions and theological responses to journal articles, I have never read as voraciously, as determinedly. It held my attention, and I ached to know what would happen. No movie has ever had such an impact on me. However, one thought, more than any other, ran through my head the entire time I was reading: “We’re camping in the forest again? Seriously?”
This is a great place to transition to the movie, because this is the kind of pacing issue that the movie handles much better than the book. The movie opens on an ominous note, the Minister of Magic is assuring the wizarding world that everything is under control. What ensues, the movie captures better than the book did (at least, what I remember of the book in my paranoia driven, frantic reading of the text); there is an obvious homage being paid to the horrors that befell those on the wrong end of ethnic cleansing in places like Russia and Germany in the twentieth century. The movie uses props, leaflets and propaganda, which are eerily similar to those of Russian provenance, proclaiming the dangers of life with “Muggles” and “Mudbloods.”
In fact, next to the pacing of the lonely foray into camping (and make no mistake, there is still a lull in the middle of the movie for this element) I was most impressed with the movie for bringing new elements into focus. J.K. Rowling has not received enough acclaim for her clear messages of human rights and social justice. I have been frustrated with the movies up until TDH part 1, because they seemed to ignore completely the fact that Harry is battling against an ideology of racial supremacy as much as he is battling against “dark” magic. However, there is gold to be mined in the visual extravaganza that modern movies can produce – and there is no better candidate than the fantasy genre for such displays. The film is beautiful, like the others, but instead of an action packed, adventure ride, you get a film full of emotional tension. The film produces a genuine sense of dread; in fact, I felt that some of the flashy, action sequences interrupted the story being told.
The movie stumbles a little with its focus on the three friends. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson perform amiably (actually, one of the movies’ most touching scenes has Radcliffe acting opposite a CGI puppet), but the absence of the supporting cast is felt. Still, Emma Watson performs the hell out of her role as Hermione. There is a particularly gut wrenching scene where Bellatrix is torturing Hermione in the Malfoy mansion that left me squirming in my seat. Once the know-it-all, Watson’s Hermione is light years more mature than Harry and Ron, which makes the romance between Ron and Hermione endearing instead of tiresome. The performances capture a genuine, and deep love between all three friends.
Finally, Dobby the elf steals the movie. I was sitting in the theater watching Dobby stare the Malfoys down and proclaim that he was a free elf, rescuing his friends, thinking “it’s about time we see this theme in the movies.” For those that have seen the movie or read the book, you know what happens next. It was absolutely “the moment” in the film, when he proclaimed that he was with his friends and was finally a happy, free elf. I cried. I “misted up,” reading the book – but the scene is done so well that I absolutely cried in the theater. Though, I did not cry for Dobby as much as I cried for what his sacrifice represented, and I was relieved to finally see the real value of Rowling’s literature played out on the big screen.
Ecumenism and the Problem of Theological Language
November 18, 2010
There is a language barrier in Christianity, and it has always existed. An anthropologist, I am not, so I will not attempt to explicate all of the legitimate reasons cultural and language barriers exist. However, all of those innnocuous reasons seem to reveal the insidious nature of division in the Church. In my estimation, the theological language barrier exists in the Church, because exclusion exists in the Church. Call it what you want, but when a Protestant refuses to allow a Catholic to explain their position in their own terms (…or a Catholic an Orthodox, or and Orthodox a Protestant, etc., et al), because the Protestant some how already knows the answer, then such interaction is no longer about mutual understanding, constructive criticism, or even healthy disagreement – it is about exclusion. What place has exclusion in the body of Christ? If there is no male or female, no Jew or Gentile, no master or slave in the body of Christ, how can there be actual division?
Which is an important point, I think. If the Church is Christ’s, and he transforms us into a unified body, then there can be no actual division in the actual Church – it is a spiritual law. So, our problem becomes even more exclusive in nature. If there is division, it is either only perceived division or those groups that are divided are not the actual Church. I suppose the larger issue then becomes clear, if Christ is Lord of the Church (read here, “if Christ is your Lord”), then it will conform to his image and his purpose; she is (gasp) predestined to it. So, by allowing exclusion to take place through the vagueness that occurs in interdisciplinary theological discourse, we are flaunting our unwillingness to conform – we are resisting his Lordship. Consequently, the Spiritual reality is that Christ’s Church is unified, but we seem to be slow on the uptake.
How, precisely, does this reduce to an issue with language? Perhaps, an example will be useful. In a sacramental sense, the Eucharist, Baptism, Marriage, et al are seen as conduits of grace in the lives of Christians. Ask a Catholic to explain this, and she will most likely give you a rendition of the RC’s teaching that Christ’s work on the cross requires a response in faith from human beings, so that the efficacy of grace can be experienced. Ask a Protestant to explain this, and he will most likely give you a rendition of the Protestant assertion that an attempt to participate in God’s work of grace actually removes its efficacy; and an attempt to do so constitutes a theological system by which humanity saves itself through empty rituals of righteousness. If you ever want to be “that guy” at a party just bring this issue up, then sit back and enjoy the show. Wherein lies the real issue? Is it really a difference between soteriological systems? Has one side so grossly misunderstood the clear message of the Gospel? Has anyone on either side bothered to ask what the other means when they use the term “Grace”? This is just one example, and it may be a poor one at that.
Are there other issues hindering the work of ecumenism? Absolutely. However, I have been left puzzling for the last several years whether any of those would be as prominent, if we would lay down our weapons and work toward a common vocabulary. Let’s be honest, here – the Orthodox are not going to accept openly homosexual priests any time soon, the Catholics are not going to ordain women any time soon, the Protestants are not going to participate in the Sacraments any time soon. However, how much closer would we be, if each acknowledged the legitimacy of the others’ Christian walk? Are the various Christian sects even able to recognize the doctrinal orthodoxy inherent in the others, or has the vocabulary become too much of a barrier? I recognize that this may only be loosley associated with exclusion as a concept, but language is the origin of behavior. If I reject certain theological language as being heretical, I cannot disassociate that language from the person sitting in the pew. If I do not prefer the language that they use to express their faith, then how will I be able to live out unity with their Christian witness? If I think you teach heresy, by proxy, you are a heretic. The logic is simple, but few are willing to openly acknowledge it.
One Thousand Words, One Thousand Days – A Shameless Self-Promotion
November 17, 2010
This is shameless self-promotion of a little project I am going to start over at my personal blog, Cognitive Dissonance.
An interesting thought has struck me. I have been watching and reading a lot of interesting pieces in the last several months that seem to address a common sensibility. That sensibility being that you are only ever truly great at something, even if only within your own generation, once you have spent countless hours doing it. Mastery occurs over a period of time that is basted with hard work and roasted in the heat of determination. Too often, I have feared writing something, saying something, or doing something, because I had not yet mastered it. How simply ridiculous of me that was.
So, this idea is a genesis of sorts. I have already written much, and so I am nearly intelligible to most readers, but as of late I cannot help thinking that Samuel Johnson was actually talking about me when he said,
Sir, he was dull in company, dull in his closet, dull everywhere. He was dull in a new way, and that made many people think him great.
Problem being, of course, nobody thinks I’m great – save, perhaps, my children and wife, but they feel a sort of obligation toward the notion. So, clearly, Johnson isn’t talking about me. Nonetheless, this notion of mine will drive me out of the ashes of obscurity in the minds of those in the “know” and perhaps propel me into the myriad of lesser known wordsmiths floating in the sea of paper that constitutes publishers’ willingness to foist anything on consumers. Ah, those will be the good old days with which I bore my grandchildren.
Consequently, starting tomorrow (you didn’t expect me to start today did you?!), I will write one thousands words in one thousand days consecutively. With the intent of writing whatever in the hell falls into my brain, so long as I am writing and I am improving that writing, I will plod along toward the road of mastery. The best part is that a blog threatens the possibility of an audience, but in reality it is merely a threat. However, if I pull it off, I will have documented proof. Will I be better at this after 1,000,000 words fall out of my brain? Who knows, but it seems an appropriate distraction from the horrendous fashion and music that seems to be popular right now.
On Getting Pissed About the Right Things
November 12, 2010
There’s a well worn old quote by Tony Campolo that goes something like this:
“[According to a profile in Christianity Today entitled] The Positive Prophet, … I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
It’s one of those quotes that gets spread around because people, even the people at whom it was directed, find it has a way of disturbing ones presuppositions. I know when I first heard it some years ago it made me uncomfortable.
I recently heard a similar quote from Zizek:
“I am told that here in New York a man can have his penis cut in two. …So you can do it with two women. You can achieve immortality. You can go into space. But maintaining a little bit of health care is impossible.”
Perhaps I’ve become too jaded but I didn’t even think that the penis bit would arouse any frown but it did. Now, both who seemed to find the bit a little crude are people who I really respect and I hope that this post is not viewed as a simple reaction to what may well be a legitimate sense that FB ought to have some cleanliness about it; but I found it sparked an idea in me that I’ve not been able to shake yet. Why is it that attention was drawn to the perceived offensiveness of the mention of genitals but not at the idea of the rich taking leisure cruises in space while the rest of us plebs can’t even find jobs?
Today I just read this piece by Adam Kotsko which I think hits right on the mark and I was about to post a link to it until I thought about it and realized that many of my friends and family would find his use of fuck excessive and unnecessary. (do go read the whole post)
“We passively accept “cuts” in everything else because of the “cut” represented by the tax “cut” — the “cut” that would “cut us loose” from shared responsibility, from anything that would challenge the ever-more-dominant attitude of “I got mine, and you can go fuck yourself.” Are you being foreclosed on? Fuck you, you fucking bum — I pay my bills. Are you out of work? Find a job, you lazy fuck — I work hard.
The result is a society based on the premise of looting. We are all “cashing out,” taking whatever we can hold onto — because fuck you, I’ve earned it. The CEOs are the most visible offenders, rigging companies to give themselves insane bonuses worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year, but isn’t that the model for everyone? The dream of homeownership: I’ll live in my own little detached box and go to my job in my own little individual box as well, and everyone will have to leave me the fuck alone. I’ve got mine, so leave me the fuck alone — did it ever occur to you to get a fucking job like I did? Did it ever occur to you to work hard like I did? Obviously not, if you don’t have what I have — so fuck you. Don’t ask me for a hand-out, you stupid fuck.”
Yet, that is exactly how the word fuck is supposed to work. It’s meant to make one feel uncomfortable much in the same way an evangelical preacher like Campolo using shit is meant to direct ones attention in a certain way.
But we get angry in certain ways because we are trained to get angry in certain ways. In our day we’re trained to sympathize with the ultra-rich. ”Don’t tax them, we need them for (poor paying and unstable) jobs (jobs which are quick as a wink shipped overseas at the first dollar sign); Don’t demonize them, they worked hard to get where they’re at.” Moreover we exalt them because they idealize the strange myth of the American Dream. Rags to Riches for everyone. Of course the massively overwhelmingly vast majority of people in this country never make that cut and ride it out in the lower and middle classes; tales suppressed because they contradict the normative narrative and if you don’t agree you’re a communist.
Why people are afraid of government instead of corporations honestly is beyond me. It defies anything like empirical backing. And things simply won’t change until we care more about space rides than about genitals.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
