The "Problem" of Evil

I believe I speak from experience (however minor) that the only real substantive argument that atheists have against Christianity is the so called "Problem of Evil." Frankly, all their other arguments besides that one are trivial at best and idiotic at worst. Because the Problem of Evil (POE) is consider such a stalwart opponent, I feel that I have not lived up to my obligations as a critical thinking believer until I have engaged (however badly) this impressive beast. So, for better or for worse, here is my attempt to add my two cents into the long debated subject. I have no doubt my own small pebble will do nothing in the collective sea of human thought other than to serve as a reminder to myself of my own ideas.

Let's begin by saying what POE is. It goes something like this (and you have probably heard this before): "God is good. God is all-powerful. If God were good and all-powerful, He would not allow evil to exist. Evil does exist, however, so God must not be good, all-powerful, or both." Here it is in short: if God is good and all-powerful, then why is there evil, and why does it continue? That is the insurmountable question leveled against Christianity, the rocks upon which many a faith has supposedly wrecked.
The answer to POE is so blindingly obvious, however, that once I (quite unexpectedly) fumbled upon it, I began to seriously question what all the fuss was about. It also made me sad, because the implications of POE's persistance in the marketplace of ideas is that Christians have suffered a serious bout of amnesia in regards to their own foundational doctrines. It is the equivalent of a bard forgetting a story that he has told for years (incuding just yesterday); it is inexcusable.
POE is answered by the simple reassertion of Christian doctrine; namely, that there are two sides to the story of God and man: one side is the Fall; the other side is the Cross. Both of those sides serve as an answer to POE that puts it to bed so suddenly and quickly before the eyes of mortal men that its simplicity may be its only weakness (as honest men may not take it seriously). It is, however, the foolishness of philosophic thinking to demand complexity on all counts; simple things can level entire kingdoms faster than convoluted argumentation. POE itself stands as a prime example of this; its simplicity is its true venom. It is also its downfall, however, since simple questions usually incur (after much thinking) simple answers; and I am defiantly proclaiming that the Christian answer to POE is simple.
As to why evil is, the Fall is the response; a response as simple yet as shocking as lightning. I could hazard some sort of ridiculous commentary here, but I believe better men have put the issue of the Fall in a much more adequate and simple fashion. Francis Schaeffer was one such man, and he put it this way:

Christianity's answer [to evil's existence] rests in the historic, space-time, real and complete Fall. The true Christian position is that in space and time and history, there was an unprogrammed man who made a choice, and actually rebelled against God. (From Escape From Reason)

The presence and continuance of evil on earth is the result of man's choice, leading to fallen men and a fallen creation (I Corinthians 15:21, 22 & Romans 8:19-22). The Fall gives meaning to both men making evil choices and a world breeding disease and disaster. All men are wounded, and so is their world.
As to what God is doing about all this, the Cross is the equally simple yet shocking response. According to Christianity, there were only two ways God could have "dealt" with evil when the Fall happened. First of all, He could have destroyed us. Such a response would not have satisfied POE for two reasons: firstly, there would be no one to question God and thus no one to ask POE in the first place; and secondly, such a response would reveal God to be indeed all-powerful, but not good, since He is meeting evil with evil (i.e., destroying all things). Thus it would prove POE's point: God is not God if He answers in such a way.
The second way God could have dealt with evil, the way He did take, the way for which we fall on our knees and worship Him, is that He could have saved us. This, of course, is the whole meaning behind the mysterious and immutable reality that is the Incarnation. In response to honest men asking, "What has the good, all-powerful God done about evil," we can most definitely say, "Good sir, it is Christ." Romans 5:8 is the summation of Christian apologetic thought on the subject of what God is "doing" (or has done) with evil.

Objections can be raised. One is that if God is all-powerful, why is destruction and salvation His only options? Why not instead prevent evil from happening at all, or prevent it from continuing to happen? I have heard something like this before, and I am afraid that it does not escape the same problem that occurs when God decides to destroy us, i.e., in order for God to do what is good (i.e., deal with evil) He must do something that is evil (i.e., removing freewill). Again, God is revealed as merely all-powerful and not good; He is no longer God.
Another objection that can be raised is that if salvation (through the Cross of Christ) is God's response to evil, His way of "dealing" with it, then why not save everybody and be done with it? The answer is the same as before: that would be God meeting evil with evil (i.e., removing freewill). Like evil actions, salvation is a choice, though, unlike evil actions, it is not a choice between doing or not doing, but rather between receiving or not receiving. Evil is an active choice; salvation is a passive one (which is why Christianity has often described it as a "surrender"). If you receive the salvation of Christ, all well and good; if you reject it, however, then you are (for your part) responsible for the continuance of evil. Salvation is God's dealing with evil; rejecting it is tantamount to saying, "I'm sorry, sir, but I very much like evil, and wish it to continue."
The Fall and the Cross are Christianity's final and only answer to POE. Any answer that does not include them is asinine, and ultimately satisfies no one. In response to POE (and all of its proponents), we defiantly say this: it is mankind who chose to unleash Hell on earth, and God who chose to send Heaven to earth. You can be mad at men who perpetuate evil by committing evil acts or by rejecting salvation; you can even be mad (as you should be) at the Church for being slack in its job of proclaiming the gospel; but enough of this childish nonsense that blames evil on God, or uses evil to disprove God. He has chosen to save us and not destroy us (or our freewill), and has sent people (including Himself) to bring us His salvation. What more would you have Him do?

Make Ye the Way Straight for the Next Christian Fad

Oh, beautiful, beautiful satire. I love it!

The Return of a Pet Peeve

Early on in this blog's life, a reoccuring theme of mine was the devestating effects that removing the doctrine of Sin have on the gospel. Past examples of my concerns can be found here and here.
One of my fellow bloggers reignited my interest in the subject (if only for a moment) by posting this excellent article on his blog. I recommend reading his entry entitled "Smart Baptist" (which contains a link to the article).
In times like these (when the gospel is turned into a cloak for political or consumerism agendas), I like to read more G.K. Chesterton (a Catholic) and Oswald Chambers (a Protestant) because both of these men firmly point to the fundamental reality of Sin and the fundamental reality of Redemption (and to the fact that without a proper view of the fundamental reality of Sin, there is no proper view of the fundamental reality of Redemption).

Letter to Limbaugh on Hypocritical Lunacy

I sent this letter in an email to Rush Limbaugh yesterday. I have posted it here to display the rare occasion when I touch on politics:

Even though I know that the liberal left is nothing but a pack of two-faced powermongers ready to do whatever it takes to secure more power towards implementing their liberal agenda of socialism and big government, I am ashamed to say that I still find myself flabbergasted at the audacious lengths of hypocrisy that the left is willing to go to in order to win an election. Their recent rantings about Sarah Palin and the RNC have completed frustrated my natural human inclination towards intelligent thought.

So let me get this straight:

1. The liberal left that wore as a feather in its cap the liberation of women from the unbearable chains of motherhood is now attacking Sarah Palin for being a "bad mother" because she took the VP nomination?
2. The liberal left that crusaded tirelessly for the emancipation of a woman's sexuality out from under the tyranny of archaic and patriarchal constructs such as "matrimony" is now attacking Palin's daughter for having a child out of wedlock?
3. The liberal left that constantly brandishes "separation of church and state" like a rapier and is a well known enemy of traditional Christianity now cites God's wrath and vengeance in regards to Gustav's "interruption" of the RNC earlier this week?

I know that I should not be surprised at the willingness of the liberal left to throw every cherished belief that they claim to have under enumerable buses, and sacrifice every sacred cow they have on the altar of their agenda; but the above mentioned examples of hypocritical lunacy just frustrate me to no end. It has given me considerably cruel headaches.

I endure my headaches, however, and here is why: I know that all of the latest nonsense spewing forth from the liberal left is merely signs of desperation. Palin has scared them to death, McCain is gaining more momentum, and the Messiah's downfall is looming like the twilight of the gods. It is desperate times for the liberal left, and desperate times do call for desperate measures. Thus, I endure all my headaches because I know that all of the latest bile from the left is merely them refusing to see the death throes of their once thought invincible campaign for the presidency. It is a fun (yet still frustrating) spectacle to watch.

On Immortality (or, Why the Universe is Out to Kill Us)

A common buzz amongst Scientism and futurists types is how one day (in a galaxy far, far away) humanity will (through genetic manipulation and technological augmentation) be able to defeat death and become immortal. This, of course, is nonsense. There is no way for you to make yourself immortal; it is impossible.
Common sense would say that it would be (at the very least) difficult: even if you somehow stopped the aging process and completely immunized yourself, it does not matter--there is always the possibility of the emergence of a new disease or condition not yet discovered or considered, or the possibility that you will be hit by a bus.
Common sense, however, only tells us why human manufactured immortality would be difficult. To see why it is impossible, we must use our imagination for a second. Imagine a human (maybe the last one) who has, indeed, become "immortal" in every sense that this person could be: they have somehow stopped the aging process, immunized themselves against all diseases known and unknown, and have placed themselves in an environment where they are completely safe and sustained. Even then, immortality is not and cannot be obtained, for the following reasons:
Immortality (i.e., always being) is not contingent upon you; it is contingent upon the reality that you live in, upon the plane of existence that you inhabit. Unless your reality is immortal (always being), or eternal (has been and always will be), you will not be immortal, no matter what genetic or technological wonders you invoke.. Simply put: if your universe dies, you die with it. If you inhabit a dying universe (and therefore are a part of a dying universe), then immortality is negated as a manufactured possibility (for we "manufacture" with what we have, and all that we have is a part of our dying universe).
We, of course, do inhabit a dying universe. Even science knows that the universe (or at least our universe) will die; it may take a few billion years, it may be a "big crunch" or a falling apart, but it will happen. Thus, even if you somehow managed to achieve the aforementioned conditions of "immortality," you will only live until the universe dies, until it collapses or "runs away," or until the Sun burns out, until all suns burn out, until entropy finishes its deathly task and all energy is expended, equilibrium is reached, and everything (including "immortals") freezes and becomes static, cold, and dark. Again, a dying universe negates the possibility of manufactured immortality or immortal beings.
Since a dying universe creates the impossibility of manufactured immortality (and since we inhabit a dying universe), therefore the only way to guarantee the possibility of immortality is to: (1) somehow guarantee the immortality of the universe (i.e., keep the engine running); (2) find something (or someone) that can guarantee the immortality of the universe; (3) find another universe (preferably one that is immortal/eternal); or (4) find something (or someone) that is separate from (and yet still in contact with) our universe that can give immortality to either us, our universe, or both. Unless one of those four ways is satisfied, humanity's desire to make themselves immortal will be an eternal chasing of the wind.

(Note: To see the Christian stance, look here.)

The Great Escape

I found an excellent article by an ex-atheist writing about how he escaped atheism, or (as he put it) escaped from nihilism.

Further Frustrations

Several months ago, I mentioned my frustrations in dealing with atheism. Now I want to give a practical example. A random atheist (signed in as "anonymous") told me to check out this "well researched" (his words) site in regards to all of the "lies" that Christianity is founded on. I checked it out, and all I can say is if that site is what is consider "well researched," then perhaps you (my readers) will understand my frustrations a little better. Citing old, long debunked atheistic arguments ("Jesus never even existed"), idiotic statements ("following a star would only lead you in circles"; they do not even understand the basics of navigation!), and the quoting of verses that butchers the context and reveals a severe lack of understanding in regards to textual criticism, only furthers my conviction that atheists really have no clue what they are talking about.
I am never surprised by these things; what else can you expect from those who deny the existence of a source of ultimate Truth? Still, that such nonsense is touted as "enlightenment" makes my blood boil.

The Greatest Proof for Black and White

One of the things that I love to do occasional (okay, I do it a lot) is to list blatant foolishness masquerading as wisdom and gleefully tear it to shreds from the top down. It is time again for me to vent, so in the words of Mr. Bean: "Brace yourself."
Today's candidate is this little pseudo-pearl of wisdom: "We know that there is no such thing as absolute good or evil because we know that everything is so complicated. We know that there is no black or white because everything is so gray." This statement is ludicrous for the following reasons:

1. Gray needs black and white in order to exist (I speak in a moral sense, but even if I was referring to colors, I would still be right). In the realm of morals, you can have no concept of grayness without black and white, just like you can have no concept of "the middle" unless there really are two extremes. The very existence of the concept of a neutral ground is completely contingent upon there being non-neutral grounds. Without the concept of non-neutral grounds, neutrality losses all meaning; the same is true in regards to a middle with no extremities, or gray without black and white. They need each other in order to exist; the presence of one is directly dependent upon the presence of the other.
2. Likewise, without a concept of absolute good and evil, then there are no "complications," for the "complications" (in order to even be complications) need absolute good and evil to exist in order to exist themselves. The very concept of moral complications is completely contingent upon the concept of absolute morals.
   

Should not this all be obvious, though? Ask yourself: why do these "complications" arise? What makes something morally complicated? Well, generally speaking, complications arise because we see good and evil in the same situation. For example, a man is willing to commit terrible atrocities (evil) in order to save the life of one who he loves dearly (good). That situation is most definitely complicated, but to claim that it is proof against the existence of absolute good and evil is completely idiotic. The only reason that this situation is "complicated" at all is because the "evil" that the man is doing really is something evil, and the "good" that he is doing really is something good. If good and evil disappear, then his actions are no longer "good" or "bad" actions; they are simply actions: "The man did something in order to do something else." There's nothing "complicated" about that (or interesting for that matter).
Far from being the greatest proof against good and evil, moral complications turn out to be the greatest proof for absolute good and evil. The greatest proof that black and white exist is the gray. That is what we call sweet, sweet irony.

The End of Atheism

My last two posts have been dealing with a response that I got from an atheist (who I am calling Alec), and within them I revealed the inherent weakness of atheistic reasoning. I have unfortunately, one last flaw to reveal in his logic, and because it is not the biggest flaw he had, this will seem more like a parting shot than anything else. However, I cannot let such a glaring error pass by me unchallenged and unexposed.
Alec began his response thusly: "Atheists are not obligated to follow your or anyone else's idea of what atheism is. Not Nietzsche's, not Wells', nobody's." Now, what is he actually saying? What he is actually saying is this: there is no fixed definition of atheism. No one is the authority on atheism (not even atheists themselves: "Not Nietzsche's, not Wells', nobody's") and thus all definitions are mere subjective opinions that carry no real weight in regards to atheism's actual definition. Thus, just because Nietzsche or Wells (or myself) say atheism is such-and-such, Alec is under no obligation to believe us because there is no authoritative statement on atheism, only opinions on atheism that can be believed or discarded at will and/or preference. What's atheism to you may not be atheism to me, and what's atheism to me may not be atheism to you.
Alec shoots himself in the foot, however, within the very next sentence: "Atheism is defined thusly: The absence of a belief in a god. Period. End of definition." Okay, first he tells me that there is no fixed, authoritative definition of atheism, then he goes and defines atheism in an attempt to convince me that that is what true atheism is. If there is no fixed, authoritative definition of atheism, then by what grounds am I obligated to believe that his definition is any more truer than Nietzsche's or Wells' (or my own, for that matter)? If there is no ultimate idea of what atheism is, if all is merely subjective opinion, then how do you even begin to have a standard by which you can measure what atheism is? You cannot; without a fixed definition, all attempts to completely define atheism are lost, including Alec's complete definition ("complete" by his addition of "Period. End of definition").
Contrary to what you may be thinking, I am not twisting his words; I am hearing what he is actually saying (whether he knew it or not). Because he equally dismissed Nietzsche and Wells as well as me, apparently even atheist's definitions are not immune from the whole "[we] are not obligated to follow your or anyone else's idea of what atheism is." And because Alec is himself an atheist, that means that his own definition is not immune either. Therefore, it is equally as subjective and dismissible as Nietzsche's, Wells', or my own. In an attempt to remove any grounds for me to define atheism, he has removed any grounds for himself to define atheism.
"We are the (currently living) atheists and we will decide what the word means." If the word does not have a fixed, authoritative definition, and if no one (not even atheists) can give one, then how in the world am I to believe that any definition you all come up with is the true definition? What is there to prevent future atheists from saying, "We are not obligated to follow your or anyone else's idea of what atheism is. Not Dawkins', not Alec's, nobody's"? There is nothing to prevent it. In addition, if atheism has no fixed, authoritative definition, then chronological location ("currently living") is irrelevant; if the very idea of atheism cannot be authoritatively defined by anyone, then that includes "currently living" atheists as well as dead ones.
The further problem with atheism lacking a fixed, authoritative definition is even more devastating for Alec. If no one can define atheism (not even atheists), then we cannot know what it actually is; and if we cannot know what it actually is, then the very idea of "atheism" has no meaning. Therefore, we cannot know whether or not atheism exist at all. Ideas must have meaning (a fixed, authoritative substance) to them in order to exist. If someone says, "I don't believe in God," we can call that belief whatever we want to, but we cannot call it atheism, because (according to Alec's own logic) atheism is indefinable, and thus even the statement "I don't believe in God" cannot be called "atheism" because no one knows what the heck atheism even is! In this scenario, where atheism is indefinable, atheism as an idea ceases to exist. Making atheism indefinable is the end of atheism.
I do not believe that Alec meant to say all that, nor do I believe that all atheists are as dumb as my entries may make them sound like. What I do believe is exactly what I said in my previous post: when placed in the fires of logic and reason, atheists (though perhaps well-meaning and sincere) simply have not or do not think out their own ideas to their logical conclusions. Every time I read one of their blog posts, every time I read one of their essays or articles, every time, I remember what a friend of mine once said, "In order to be an atheist, you must be willing to live with certain logical inconsistencies."

"Boy's philosophies..."

"Atheism is too simple.... [It is a] boy's philosophy." -C.S. Lewis

In my previous post, I demonstrated how the response I received from an atheist (I'll call him Alec, b/c it's a cool name) showed the results of epistemological nihilism, i.e., how claiming that there are "no authorities" reduces all arguments (including atheistic arguments) to absurdity and non-existence. I showed how, in an attempt to silence my arguments, Alec was willing (whether he realized it or not) to demolish the very foundations of argumentation itself in order to win the argument, i.e., he was trying to argue that there are no arguments, which is an obvious contradiction. That was perhaps the most fatal flaw of his whole response.
I am not finished, however. There is yet another flaw I wish to expose, a flaw which that same response demonstrated perfectly, a flaw that (though not quite as fatal as the first one) still demonstrates the inherent weaknesses in atheistic reasoning.
Angry at my implication that atheism can philosophically lead to nihilism, Alec (speaking for all atheist: "We are the (currently living) atheists") decided to instruct my unlearned mind on what atheism really is: "Atheism is defined thusly: The absence of a belief in a god. Period. End of definition." What this response demonstrates is the supreme naiveté that apparently most atheists are working under (if Alec is truly speaking for all of them). This supreme naiveté is the assumption that ideas do not have consequences, i.e., that absence of a belief in a god merely means that and nothing more (aside from the freedom "to consider any other set of values you wish.")
Atheism is not as simple as "absence of a belief in a god," however, and the reason why is because the question of God/god(s) is no mere simple inquiry. It is the prime question, the question dealing with prime reality, with what is the source of all things. When you are asking the question about God/god(s), you are not merely saying something about supernatural entities; you are really asking the question, "What is really real; what is fundamental reality?" The God/god(s) question is the first and foundational question in regards to shaping your worldview. The answer that you give to that question will directly affect the way the rest of your worldview turns out, including your answers to: What is the nature of external reality? What is a human being? What happens after death? Can we know anything? How do we determine what is right and wrong? What is the meaning of human history? etc. The question about God/god(s) is alot weightier than Alec seems willing to allow for himself (and all atheists).
As such, atheism does not end at "absence of a belief in a god." That statement is a presupposition that must be thought out to its logical conclusion(s), i.e., "What does it mean if there is no God/god(s)?" I had mentioned that philosophical atheism will logically lead to nihilism, and Alec took except to that; but he preceded to give me no alternative logical conclusion except that atheism sets one free from religion, which is a tautology (a philosophical "no duh"). That atheism only sets one free from religious institutions and principles is only surface scratchings. What does it mean to be absent from a belief in God/god(s)?
I tried to mention to my friend that Nietzsche realized that, if there is no God, if we are merely a conglomeration of molecules that came together purely by chance through arational, random, natural forces, then we are merely puppets trapped in the system of natural cause and effect, and our actions have no more meaning to them because they are not our actions, but random acts of nature imposed on us by nature through cause and effect happenings that we know nothing of (you can find this in his book Human, All too Human). Thus we have the complete loss of meaning to our actions, and thus all loss of meaning period (he also realized this in his work "The Madman").
I tried to mention to my friend that H.G. Wells realized that if there is no God, then man is merely left to himself, and is solely dependent and reliant upon his own devices; and after seeing two world wars, Wells concluded that if man's only hope is man, then man is doomed (you can find this in his book Mind at the End of its Tether). Thus we have the complete loss of hope in "human potential." We are our own worst enemy, and we cannot save ourselves; and since there is no God, then there is no one to save us from ourselves. Therefore, again, we are doomed.
That wasn't good enough for him, though; so now I must quote from another atheist, a modern atheist, a contemporary atheist, a current atheist, a "we atheists". Prominent atheistic evolutionary biologist and historian William Provine of Cornell University put it this way: if there is no God, then (1) there is no life after death, (2) there is no foundation for right and wrong, (3) there is no ultimate meaning for life, and (4) people do not really have free will (you can find this in Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial, as well as Ben Stein's documentary Expelled). This man is living today (though I hear that he has cancer). He is, therefore, one of the "we atheist" that my friend was speaking of, and apparently Provine disagrees with my friend on what exactly atheism is, because he has looked beyond mere surface scratchings to logical conclusions.
What do Nietzsche, Wells and Provine all have in common? They all moved beyond childish atheism, beyond naive ideas, and went onward to the consequences of those ideas. They all possessed the courage and maturity to look their belief's conclusions square in the eye and be honest about it. Some were honest to a fault (Nietzsche committed suicide), but they all were more honest than Alec was. He believes in a "boy's philosophy," a kiddie belief that does not see or does not want to see the true logical conclusions of its own belief system; atheists who have seen the conclusions are summarily dismissed as irrelevant. This is not adult thinking, but childish naiveté that refuses to grow up and face the reality of their own ideas.

P.S. For a well done, easy to understand perspective on what atheism's logical conclusions are and how it reaches them, I recommend James W. Sire's book The Universe Next Door