As I've mentioned earlier, the Problem of Evil (POE) is perhaps the biggest single reason why people reject the Christian faith. After all, if you look at all the suffering we see around us (e.g., moral evil like wars and murder, or natural evil such as earthquakes and hurricanes), how can one believe in a perfectly good God?
(And by the way, thoughts and prayers go out to those suffering from the aftermath of the earthquakes in Indonesia.)
One thing about the POE is that you always have to be careful when answering a skeptic's questions about it, because there may be two motivations behind his/her asking. First, it's possible that he or she has a logical, philosophical, or generally intellectual stumbling block to the Christian faith. In that case, one would want to argue clearly and cogently why the fact that evil exists in this world does not invalidate Christianity.
On the other hand, the skeptic could be looking for emotional answers. For example, if they have been hurt deeply recently, or wronged by some personal crime, then presenting a logical argument about why God may exist in light of evil in this world may not be much help. Expressions of love, hope, comfort, and acceptance may be more appropriate in these cases.
About emotional answers: One of the leading theologians/ethicists/philosophers/political commentators in the 1930s up through the 1960s was a man named Reinhold Niebuhr (who held this distinction w/ his brother H Richard Niebuhr, some might argue). He turned the theological world upside down by writing _Moral Man and Immoral Society_ in the 1930s, because he argued against the optimism of the times--that we were progressively good. History proved him valid by the end of the decade obviously with Nazism and WWII--human-created suffering:-( Anyway, often Christians are someone prideful, classifying themselves as the "good guys" and everyone else as the "bad guys." We have this cheery optimism about ourselves.... Niebuhr points out that all groups have self-interest and act for the sake of the group. I am afraid sometimes that he might be proven right by the way we Christians act. :-( This is oversimplifying an entire book, and I think like most books, it might be possible to pose counter-arguments, loopholes, etc.... But I also think it would do a great deal of emotional healing in this world and answer some people's questions about suffering, if more Christians recognized their self-interest and the hurt we've caused in this world by such:-(
ReplyDeleteYou've heard me refer to Kingdom Ethics. P. 59 talks about 4 dimensions of character ethics and one is Loyalties and Passions. Under loyalties, we often have a group loyalty--that keeps us from listening to valid criticisms/discussions/calls to repentance. It can happen with a church small group or on a larger scale--say with Christian slaveholders in the South. When that happens, others suffer and it happens as much, sometimes more, with Christians as with anyone:-( Groups cannot achieve complete objectivity, whether scientists or Christians, and then suffering happens... which is why groups must be conscious of this and constantly use some of the other factors when making decisions and allow space for dissent and discussion. Not foolproof to prevent suffering, but it helps:-(
PS Niebuhr applies this to all groups, not simply religious ones, although he points out that religious groups almost universally supported their nation-states during the 20th century. One Niebuhr scholar I read tonight (Langdon Gilkey) adds though, "Without denying Niebuhr's point, I might add that, nonetheless, during that period the churches of Japan, Germany, England, and the United States had a better record challenging the evils of the state than did the academic faculties, the scientific laboratories, or the educational administrations in those same communities." How much better I don't know, all things considered. The Church in Germany, for example, stripped the Bible of any reference to Jewishness.... and taught Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes. Ummm.... On the other hand, Bonhoeffer and Barth (theologians) were some of the few Gentiles who stood up against the massive, humanmade suffering:-(
ReplyDeleteThere is a third reason that people sometimes bring up the Problem of Evil. Sometimes people know that thinking about the possibility of a God would require them to rethink their lifestyle and the moral choices they make. For example, given the widespread religious teaching on the subject, if God exists, there's a good chance that one shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage. If someone doesn't want to stop having sex outside of marriage, the Problem of Evil, being a strong argument against the existence of God, allows someone to not have to reconsider their behavior.
ReplyDeleteIn such situations, the Problem of Evil is more of a red herring than an actual issue.