Tag: suffering

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 5

What happens when suffering comes?

What role does tragedy play? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Graffin introduces us to the role that tragedy plays in a life. I found myself moved by reading accounts of people he had lost in his life due to drugs and alcohol. I definitely resonated when he talked about how when you go through a divorce or lose a child to death, it is as if the laws of the universe have been broken. Divorce is easily the greatest tragedy I have gone through. Nothing comes close.

In contrasting to the theistic view, he writes that if there were no death, the world would not be able to contain the biological exuberance. This is certainly true. Yet he goes on from here to say that death requires and receives no justification. It’s simply a part of life.

If this is true, why do we all act like it is not that at all? Are we all just deluded? Why are we all sad? Why do we all try to make sense of death? Why is it that we are scared to see a corpse or to touch a corpse? We can say death is natural in a sense, but natural does not always equal good.

He also says it is hard to be a theist after looking at the fossil record and trying to explain all the death that came before us. No reason is given why this is so. Theism doesn’t require a perfect world at all. Why should it? From a metaphysical standpoint, I find that hard to conceive. Even with Heaven, it is a good world in every sense, but could we not add one more soul and say it is a better world? Only God is perfect in Christian theism.

He also says the central problem of theism is all the suffering in nature, but how can this be the central problem when it is a necessity of Christianity that that problem be there to be dealt with? Christianity has evil right at the center of the world in the cross. Also, if theism has to explain all the evil that comes about in a world made by a good God, can we not ask like Chesterton did that in a world of total chaos, why do we get so much good?

He says also that none of the explanations given for suffering is comforting or satisfactory. The problem is, he doesn’t interact with any of these theodicies. There are plenty of them. Is Graffin throwing all of them out? This is someone who has talked about being skeptical and about the joy of learning, but when it comes to his position, he is not skeptical of if naturalism can explain good and evil and he seems to show no interest in learning about theodicies from theism.

I do agree with him when he speaks out against at funerals saying that God thought it was that person’s time to go. We don’t know that. I always get cautious when I hear someone claim what God is or isn’t doing. How do they know? Do they have access to the divine throne room?

In the end, Graffin unfortunately does not really engage. I wish he had said more. We both agree that there is a lot of tragedy in this life, but Graffin doesn’t give me any hope or meaning to it. At least my worldview can do that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth) Continue reading Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 5

9/11 And Why Evil Fails Practically

Does the atheistic problem of evil really help? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Since today is the anniversary of 9/11, let us consider a thought experiment. Now I think that it is impossible for anything to exist without God existing, but I am going to put that aside for argument’s sake in this post. I also am going to approach this as if we have no strong evidence for or against the existing of God. This is going to be on a practical level only. In essence, I am asking which worldview would be preferable to be true on theism vs. atheism.

We thus have two different scenarios for a 9/11 event. In world A, theism is true. In world B, atheism is true, and I am taking atheism as the definitive statement that there is no God. That is what it means anyway.

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

William Rowe The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy p.62

“Atheism, as presented in this book, is a definite doctrine, and defending it requires one to engage with religious ideas. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives life without reference to such a being.”

Robin Le Poidevin Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion p.xvii

I hate that I have to post so much, but I am sure some atheists would come around and say “Atheism is a lack of belief!”

So now having established my case here is what happens. In both worlds, 9/11 happens and thousands die in one horrible attack.

In world A, there is an eternity that people will spend. Some will spend it in Heaven and some will spend it in Hell, at least on Christian theism. There is the possibility that there will be justice for the people who perpetrated the evil. There is the possibility that there will be the chance that people will see their loved ones again. Justice can still prevail in the world. Of course, some other forms of theism might answer matters differently, but I think a large number would say that there is still a God who can give justice and raise the dead.

In B, well, it was certainly a tragedy, but that was it. The attackers? Dead. The victims? Dead. Chances of justice for them? None. Chances of seeing dead loved ones again? None. I do realize there are some atheists who have postulated an after-death, but this is a very very small minority. Note also I am even granting that there are still ideas such as goodness and justice in an atheist universe which I even then still question.

From a practical standpoint, you could say that in the theistic universe, some people could suffer eternally, but also some will rejoice eternally and some will see dead loved ones again and some of those people who will suffer will very likely be the attackers themselves who pulled off the evil.

This is one reason I just do not think the problem of evil works. Remove God and you still have all the problems. Sure. We might not know why God allowed X to happen, but if we are honest with ourselves, we do not know why we do X in our own lives many times. I am fine with an unknown of why if it comes with a known of someone I can trust.

9/11 is a great tragedy in our nation’s history. It was not the first. It will not be the last. As a Christian, I can be thankful there is a God in every tragedy.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

You Don’t Deserve Good Things

Do you get what you deserve? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Often times, the problem of evil is brought up by atheists and it is hard to not understand the emotional plight being discussed. You see horrible situations going on in the world and the question is “Why does God not intervene?” It is okay to wonder this and to even ask it yourself.

Asking why is understandable, but there is often a hidden assumption that God is obligated to do something about this. Is He not a God of love? How does love sit on the sidelines? Yes, He is love, but He is also a God of justice. My question I often ask is “What does God owe us?” This is especially so when it comes to the case of God taking life. Upon what grounds can it be said that God had no right to take life? Who does He owe life to?

Let us now turn to make this something that hits home to us on a personal level every day. If you read this blog regularly, and I hope you do, then you know if I have a deep desire in my heart, it is to find love again. The truth is there is no amount of good that I can ever do whereby God is obligated to give me a love. He owes me nothing.

Sometimes when people get good things in their life, we often say that they deserve it. On a horizontal level from human to human, this could be so. On the divine level, it is not. This is not bad news, but great news. After all, who wants it to be that we have something because God owed it to us? Paul says this in the start of Romans 4 in saying that the man is blessed whose sins will not be held against him.

What do I deserve from God? Judgment. Every time I sin, I am essentially saying that I wish He was dead. I am saying that I want to be on the divine throne. I am saying my will be done and not His. I refer to sin as divine treason. It’s no light matter. I know too many times in my life I treat it like such a light matter.

It is pure grace that God forgives me. It is even more grace that He allows me to come into His kingdom.

What does that say about the rest of life? It says that if I do get blessed to have the love that I want again someday, it will not because I was just so incredibly good that God decided to give me something. I am not denying that He rewards those who do good, but He does so out of grace even then and not obligation. James tells us that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father above. All is grace.

I pray God will give me that love in my life. If He does, it is His grace. If He does not, He still has given me more than I deserve and in reality, the opposite of what I deserve. I should be thankful for all that I have. Again, this is my own struggle as well.

When good things come in your life, be thankful. When suffering comes, remember the good things and God is still with you. In everything, as Scripture says again, give thanks.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Suffering Together

What can make suffering easier? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A few nights ago on Facebook I saw someone share something and I knew immediately what it was about. It was about his divorce as when I announced mine and shared my experience, it was greatly helpful to him. I hate that every day I live with the scarlet D on me, but it is somehow easier when I meet someone who I have got to help who is going through the storm as well.

When my divorce came, I remember that it was helpful having someone around with me who had gone through it before as well. Now don’t get me wrong. I still had to do the work of healing myself. I also made sure to get in touch with DivorceCare, which was actually instrumental in getting me down here to seminary.

The reality is for many of us that when we meet someone who has the same struggle that we do, it can make the burden a little bit easier. We’re no longer alone. One of the worst feelings in suffering is that you are unique in your experience. Even if you know you are not, it can be hard if you think no one around you understands what you’re going through.

When you meet someone who does, it changes. Now you’re not alone. They don’t even have to be able to solve the problem. All they really need to do is to be able to listen.

This is one of the beautiful things at times about suffering. When I get to help someone else out of their suffering by sharing my experience, it is true they get helped, but I am also helped by it. It shows me that already, my experience is not being wasted. If I have someone also who respects me and says “Hey. This guy I respect has gone through this. Maybe I’m not so awful for having this experience.”

For me, it works with situations like divorce, being on the spectrum, dealing with anxiety, and I wouldn’t mind helping out kids in the hospital who are about to undergo surgery for scoliosis to say “I went through it, and I’m fine today.” For you, it could be anything else. It could be having to go through a miscarriage or recovering from cancer or surviving child abuse when you were younger.

As Christians, we should know that none of our suffering is wasted. God will not put any of us through needless suffering. All of our suffering will be redeemed somehow. Somehow, it will work for His glory, yes, but Romans 8 tells us all things work together for good to them that love the Lord.

That means whatever suffering you go through, it will work for your good. In gaming terms, this is the ultimate cheat code. Imagine going through a game and no matter what happened in it, you knew it would work for your good. You would be a quite confident player.

This isn’t a game. This is reality. All things will work for your good. Deal with suffering in a healthy way, but remember in all of it, it will work out for your good.

Then go out and help someone else with their suffering. In turn, they too can be a wounded healer for others.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Theology And Suffering

Where do we live? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have said a lot this week about atheology and the idea that we have God in a specific niche for how He is supposed to work in the world. Atheists think that God is not filling this niche and then abandon theism. We need to realize that we can be just as prone to that kind of thinking where we see God on a functional basis. God is not the ground of being, but rather a being who fills in the gaps for us and is supposed to comfort us. This has been known as moral therapeutic deism.

Final Fantasy IX has as its intro a song called “A Place To Call Home.” That’s really what we are to think as theists. This world is supposed to be our home. Yes. I am going to dispute the song that says “This world is not my home. I’m just passing through.” This world was created for God to dwell with man forever in, and if we read the end of Revelation, He has not abandoned that plan.

When we have suffering in our lives, we can dwell on it and get stuck in and let it consume us. Note I am not saying to never be depressed. When something tragic happens, by all means mourn. I am not telling you to be a stoic and to suppress all emotion and never feel sad.

That being said, there comes a time when you have to move on with your life. My divorce hurt immensely when it happened, but I couldn’t stay there. Did I have to spend some time mourning? Yes. Some times will take longer than others and to some extent I still mourn everyday, but when it comes to fighting evil in my own life, I couldn’t stay there.

If we focus on ourselves in the evil, we will likely have an entitlement mindset and think that we are even owed by God the solution that we want to our problem. It’s easy to go from “God didn’t do what He was supposed to” to “God doesn’t care about me” to “God doesn’t exist.”

However, we can also go another route and say that we are aware of the evil and we are going to do something to fight against the evil. I make it a point to try to help men who are going through divorce now whenever I can. I have been pleased to hear that my forthrightness has been a blessing to some men. I don’t want any man to walk this road alone.

That sense of injustice that we can have can drive us to do something about evil. If you think sex trafficking is an evil, you’re more prone to do something about it. The same with abortion or cults or anything else out there. Rather than give up on what you see as a problem, you go out there and do your part to help deal with the problem.

Yet I need to say one more thing about suffering. Some people can get so caught up in themselves and their suffering that they can think that they don’t belong at all in the world. We can claim the internet has led us to have global connections, but we have also missed local connections. How well do you know your next-door neighbors? Do you even know them at all? I notice living in an apartment complex on a seminary that most of us when we go home at the end of the day, we stay there.

It’s easy to feel alone in the world and feeling alone can easily lead to an idea that you don’t belong, especially when suffering hits. This can then lead to suicide. In order to think that is the best response, in some level, you must have built in an idea of God that He is supposed to do XYZ or else He doesn’t love you.

To a degree, it makes sense to us, but it is also very much focused on ourselves. One of the greatest helps we could have to dealing with suffering is to have good doctrine about God and our relationship to Him. That has made a tremendous difference in the suffering that I have experienced. If you are thinking this way, please go somewhere like here. Reach out to someone. You are not an accident and you do belong here.

Please.

Possibly tomorrow we will return to reviewing the atheist book I have been reviewing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth.)

Atheology and the Problem of Evil

What kind of God should deal with evil? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In yesterday’s post, I wrote about a certain idea of God that many evangelistic atheists have. We could describe this as a functional god. This god is meant to explain the universe. This god is meant to be a presence to me in suffering.

When it looks like the universe works scientifically on its own and that there is no emotional presence, then atheism seems rational to these people. Let’s consider another aspect of this. What about evil?

Too often, we theists have been on the defensive end in this area. It is up to us to explain why a good God allows evil. What never seems to go answered is “Why should God be obligated to deal with evil at all, let alone in XYZ manner?” To say that God has to deal with evil is to assume that God has an obligation to us.

Note I am not saying that God will not deal with evil. I am questioning the why He will and the how and when of His doing so. If an atheist says that God needs to deal with evil, they have in mind a certain theology of the God that they think should defeat it, but what is this God like? We need to know.

For instance, why should God have to deal with what we deem to be a problem on our terms? Why should He have to deal with it as a being with unlimited resources in a way that we think is amenable to our limited resources? You need more of an answer than “I want Him to” or “If He really loved us, He would do it this way.” Why?

Could it be that evil really became a problem when we thought the universe was meant to be a place that was just to make us happy and that it was all about us? I get that people have talked about suffering and wondered about it for awhile, but at the same time, they didn’t jump to atheism. Job and his friends never doubted the reality of the deity, but just debated what He was like.

The problem of evil is in many ways asking a question about justice. Will there be any justice in the universe? We often have the saying of justice delayed is not justice denied, and it is true. Just because justice isn’t happening immediately doesn’t mean it’s not happening at all.

A Christian specifically views this world as intentional and while this world is not all about our happiness, it is meant for us to live in. We were made for this place. In a sense, this is our home. Someone else like Richard Dawkins will instead look at the world and say in River Out of Eden.

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Yet if this is the way the universe is, then why do we have this longing for justice? Why do we cling to ideas of good and evil? Does Dawkins? Not at all. Look at any moral crusade Dawkins goes on, whether he’s right or wrong in it, he certainly thinks he’s going out for something good. He certainly thinks science is a good worth pursuing. He certainly thinks Christianity is damaging to young people.

And this is what we really need to be asking atheists. What is this idea of good that you hold to? What is this idea of evil? We use these terms and speak about them as if we all know what they mean when they really don’t. I, as a classical theist, ask atheists to tell me what they mean by good. If good boils down to what you want and evil to what you don’t want, then you are saying that the universe should bow to your desires and that if God were real, He would do the same. Not much of a god then.

Then, we need to go beyond that and ask what their idea of God is like. Yes. Atheists have an idea of what God would be like if He existed. One such seems to be He would deal with evil in such and such a way in such and such a time. They also think that this is an obligation on His part.

There is another point I would like to make on this and this is in the question of suffering, but that is for another day.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Conclusion

Any final comments? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It is always something good to finish off another poorly argued book. So how does this chapter end?

As I embarked on this endeavor, I aimed to prove to myself that such unbelief was warranted; that such doctrine held so dear by many was nothing more than wishful thinking. I once wanted to believe in a higher power and that an unseen force perhaps carried my being along as I moved along this life that I am currently living – that the pain that I’ve experienced as a child wasn’t all in vain. I was ignorant of the beauty and mystery that existed, without the need to believe that God was the one responsible. I found that I had the ability to learn and see for myself that such a view was obtainable, and that a belief system built on nothing but fanciful tales offered nothing that could answer the questions I had. I know such a way of thinking is possible, and as such I know this is possible for anyone. We are all humans, and with that, we all have the chance to look at the evidence, admit when we have been wrong and work towards a better understanding of this world. My final realization was a simple one.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 136). Kindle Edition.

It’s always amazing how these people still cling to a personal testimony years later. Amazing. As for answering the questions Brucker had, I found it to be pretty simple for the most part. The ones I can say I don’t know to, such as the scientific ones, don’t matter to the ultimate claims of theism and Christianity anyway.

One obvious problem is that Brucker was answering questions, which is fine, but his questions were being ignored. He recounts some stories of this happening in Sunday School and other such events. Pastors and youth leaders. Hear this. If you have a student who is asking questions, never silence or ignore them. If that means you have to do extra work to answer their questions, then do it. Avoid it and you are on the fast track to creating an atheist.

What got my curiosity going was perhaps spurred by my grandfather – an avid fan of Real Time with Bill Maher. While watching the HBO program with my grandfather one night, Maher advertised his then-upcoming documentary Religulous. It sounded like an interesting piece at that time, so once it was released, I purchased a copy and watched it with grandfather. We had a few laughs, but most of all it sparked something inside of me, constructing a question that I still struggle to answer today – Is this popular belief as warranted as was once portrayed to me?

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 137-138). Kindle Edition.

I went to see Religulous shortly after it came out. It sparked a lot of questions in me. Namely, how ignorant does someone have to be to think that this is a powerful critique of religion? You can find my review here.

Brucker goes on to describe struggling in AA because people would attribute so much of their success to God. I find it more concerning that Brucker sees people succeeding all around him and is complaining because of God. Perhaps he could have said “Maybe there is something to this if it leads to so many people leading better lives?” That doesn’t make it true, but it is still evidence to consider.

From my memory, I recall a particular quote which effectively ended the notion that God – as he’s been described – may exist; and if he does in fact exist, almost every monotheist religion that’s supported him has failed remarkably. The particular quote was one of Epicurus – a Greek philosopher – and as do most atheists, I regard this as one of my most favorite. It goes as such: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 139-140). Kindle Edition.

The problem is this kind of statement is not even really used by atheistic philosophers anymore. It’s the logical problem of evil and it doesn’t work. That’s not to say all forms of the argument from evil fail, but this one does, and had Brucker just done basic reading on the topic, he would have known that.

Religious faith requires its adherents to relinquish their ability to freely question – perhaps the most beautiful aspect of who we are as human beings.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 140). Kindle Edition.

No. That’s fundamentalism. I freely question and I celebrate anyone who asks questions. Questions are incredible and wonderful and worth exploring.

At any rate, this book is not worth your time and money. I read this stuff so you don’t have to.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Still Unbelievable Part 12

Is there such a thing as necessary evil? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Once again, David Johnson is back, unfortunately. Let’s see how this one goes.

You can suffer without any evil being done. It can simply be the consequence of living in this world. Before sin, suffering was possible. Presumably, falling down a hill would have still left a mark. On the other hand, evil can be done without anyone suffering. One only needs to displease god by acting against his desire. It might make you happy, and benefit people around you. But to god, it is still evil, and must be punished.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

The problem I see here is there is no clear explanation of what is suffering and what is evil. What is the difference? If all suffering is not an evil, then how can you tell which is which? As I often say when it comes to good and evil, atheists never seem to define their terms.

Johnson says we can have ethics without God. No explanation is given for this. Could we have systems we agree to live by? Sure. (Granted though I don’t think anything could be without God so this is a huge hypothetical) Would they be true systems? On what grounds?

Since evil is both cause and result of sin, it also can’t exist without god. This bears repeating: By Christian formulation, there can be no sin and evil without god.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Well since there couldn’t be anything in existence without God, then yes. The difference is God did not actualize evil. He did not create the reality. He left it a possibility for us and for the angels, but He didn’t make it real.

I wonder if the Kalam Cosmological Argument applies here. Did evil have a beginning? Or was it always in existence? It is a problem for the Christian either way. If evil had a beginning, then it must have the same beginner as all things with a beginning: god. It does not work to say that one of god’s creatures created evil. One wonders how such a thing would even be possible. A creation might choose evil. But evil would already have to exist for it to be a choice. The other option is to say that evil is as old as god. It is as eternal as good. Can there be good without evil? Can morality be represented by a one-sided coin? If good is the only option, then in what way is it good. Evil is a necessary opposite. Some Christians argue that we can’t know a straight line unless we know what a crooked line is to which we can compare it. If that were the case, then god could not have been always good unless there was always evil for comparison.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Johnson has really mastered the art of muddled thinking. On the first, what does it mean something has to exist to be chosen exactly? Does the future exist to Johnson such that I am choosing it? Johnson is treating evil as if it has a real substance on its own, when Christian thinking has always argued against this and said evil is the absence of good or choosing a lesser good over a greater good.

As for the line about a crooked and straight line, you would think Johnson would go back and look at the most likely source of this quote, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, to see what he said.

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

Lewis argues the exact opposite way Johnson says Christians argue. I only know that something is wrong, because I know there is some idea of what is right.

As we go on, Johnson does get predictable with one Scriptural citation:

That is because god is not only the personification of good, but of perfection. Yet in Isaiah 45:7, god takes responsibility for evil by saying that it is he who creates darkness and disaster.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

I have answered that here.

But Christians tell us that god is perfectly good without the option of evil. He does not avoid doing evil. He cannot do evil. That is very different. Evil is not even an option for the one who is the personification of perfect good. So why would evil be an option for his offsprings? The Christian would say that it is so we could freely choose to love him. But that also makes no sense. God is in some kind of love relationship within the triune godhead: the father, son, and spirit. They all choose to love one another without the possibility of evil hanging over them. So we shouldn’t need it to choose love either.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

hmmmm. Let me think about this for half a second.

How about we’re not God? Could that be it? We are not perfect beings who lack nothing. We are limited creatures. God is not limited. God is not in time and does not make choices like we do.

This theodicy of choice is also utterly defeated by the doctrine of heaven. There, we will be like god, perfectly good without the possibility of evil. Yet we will still have our free will intact. Choice offers us no excuse for god allowing the possibility of evil.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Except Heaven is the result of choices. Those who are there are there by choice and are now in a place where they will eternally freely choose the good based on seeing the blessed presence of God. That is not forced. It is chosen.

Not too much later in this chapter, Johnson says:

We have thoroughly explored all the Christian claims that exonerate god for the presence of evil.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Imagine if I wrote about 30 page in a book, and I doubt that this chapter is that long, and I was arguing against position X, be it evolution, Arianism, dispensationalism, old-Earth creationism, anything, and saying “We have thoroughly explored all the claims used to defend this position.”

Yet Johnson thinks he has done this, and without citing ANY scholars that disagree! Amazing!

It is only a rhetorical device to say that god is all good with no possibility of evil.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Again, there is no interaction with church history at this point. Aquinas wrote on this issue, for example You can read that here. Too many atheists seem to raise what they think is an objection, and just stop right there.

In speaking about Eden, Johnson says:

God gave them an order that they couldn’t have possibly understood, or fathomed the consequences. The forbidden fruit imparted the knowledge of good and evil. That means they went out into the world with no real ability to sort right and wrong. They didn’t have the knowledge of good and evil.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Good and evil is a merism. It refers to wisdom in this case. What Adam and Eve were being tempted with was making themselves the center of wisdom.

Everything after here I have already addressed multiple times, but for now, let’s see what’s coming up next. Ah. A chapter on faith and what it is. This should be a train wreck. Who is behind this?

Chapter Eleven Faith: All the Way Down David Johnson Andrew Knight Michael Brady

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Well, after this chapter, I guess we can say that some suffering is self-inflicted.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Still Unbelievable Part 7

What’s it like for someone falling away? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, we return to Sophie and her testimony. I really don’t want to speak ill of her at all. If anything, I have sympathy for her, especially since I think she was sold a false bill of goods on what the Christian experience was to be like. A lot of that will be in the conclusion. For now, let’s see what all she has to say. This one is about the dealbreakers.

With regards human suffering, Lane Craig and other theists on the Unbelievable? show, ultimately concede at some point, that we don’t know why there is so much horrendous suffering in the world but that it must be justified to some extent, as in God must have his reasons, or at the very least, things will be made right in the future. This, of course is conjecture, rather than any type of evidence.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Yet how is this conjecture? If you accept that for the sake of argument there is a God who has the omni traits, then yes, there has to be a good reason why He allows this evil. It is up to the skeptic to show that there is no good reason, and that’s a hard sell to do. Not only this, but what do you gain in the problem of evil if you remove God? The evil is still there. You’ve just removed the solution. How is this a help?

Epicurus puts it best with his idea rejecting the notion of evil with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. It can of course apply to suffering too. If God willing to prevent suffering, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
If he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
If he both able and willing? Then why is there suffering?
If he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? No amount of books, explanation, sermons and teaching will ever make theodicy go away for Christianity, nor can it, or the issue would be put to bed by now. It’s a continual stumbling block to belief, which is never truly answered, much less an explanation given as to why it has arisen in the first place. And this brings me to my next deal breaker.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Except it has as even atheists will admit. This is the logical problem of evil and it hasn’t really been used since Plantinga wrote his work on the topic. There are still other versions of the argument from evil, but this one is not really used anymore except on the internet.

With no Satan, hell or human fall, there is no real explanation as to why evil and suffering exist. Even, the free will argument which somewhat relies on these constructs, and states, that if there is no possibility to sin, you cannot have free creatures who liberally come to love you, doesn’t work. This argument, often brought up on the show, completely misses the fact that God can in fact arrange paradise, with free will and exempt from suffering, pain and the devil. It’s called heaven.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

But everyone who is in the blessed presence of God is there by choice. That is a huge distinction and it is one atheists meet regularly. The first time I ever encountered this question was in a systematic theology class when a student asked it and that was over 20 years ago. I thought of the solution then and have spent more time refining it and I still haven’t seen a response to it.

Besides, like human parents, let’s be honest, God could just choose to forgive us. There is no need to murder anyone. It was making less and less sense.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

And again, questions like this have already been answered.

The gospels were oral traditions written decades after the death of Jesus with the earliest being Mark dated at around 70CE and ending with the discovery of the empty tomb, and the latest gospel being John, possibly as early as 90CE. They are all of anonymous authorship and certainly the earliest manuscripts didn’t include the title by which we know them today. They do not claim to be authored by eyewitnesses to any of the events they describe. They are not written by people who knew Jesus. We do not have the originals, only copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. They are written in Greek by educated people living in a different country to Palestine. Jesus’ disciples would have spoken Aramaic, were quite possibly illiterate and were living in Palestine. Jesus himself, other than some writing in the sand, leaves no written record (which would have been very helpful), nor did He ask anyone to make notes as they went along. In addition, major events are undocumented by other sources, such as when the graves spill out their dead onto the streets after the resurrection mentioned only in Matthew. If these are in fact gross error or made up, how are we to distinguish what else is or isn’t invented or erroneous in the text?

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

There’s a lot here and I have written plenty on it elsewhere. Does Sophie know the dates of when other books in the ancient world were written and when the earliest manuscripts are and how far apart the events are from the writing? The Gospels are a goldmine by comparison to most ancient literature.

The books were supposedly anonymous. Are we to think that no one knew who the books came from? Someone delivering the scrolls would say who they were from. We only know who wrote Plutarch because one of his descendants tells us. Other sources are also silent on major events, such as the eruption of Vesuvius and that TWO towns were destroyed in the blast. I plan on doing a series on the Gospels eventually so I will save this for then.

There is a lot of stuff I am going to skip over as I have addressed it elsewhere, but I want to say something about this:

And, it doesn’t even begin to explain why God would prefer to continue hiding when He is apparently desperate to have a relationship with us.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

This is a great reason why I oppose the personal relationship model in that Christianity is about Jesus wanting to have a personal relationship with you. Christianity is about Jesus being king. There is not a lonely God out there who is desperately seeking to find someone to love.

I hope Sophie finds out sometime soon more information than the atheists have sold her. It’s a shame there weren’t better-informed Christians in her life.

Brace yourselves because next time it’s David Johnson again. *Groan*

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Still Unbelievable Part 2

Does God make sense of human suffering? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter on human suffering is written by Matthew Taylor. Let’s see how this starts with this quote early on followed by some examples from Francis Collins:

The Christian claim is that their god is the best explanation for our existence. The justification is that everywhere we look, nature is amazing and wondrous and it simply can’t be an accident. All that is must be the product of something greater, and that something can only be the Christian god. Ask any Christian to justify this and you’ll get an answer that attempts to show how science and faith do not conflict or that science confirms the reasons for the faith. Press hard and the reasons sound more wishful thinking than demonstrated conclusion.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Unknown is why something is raised up about science and faith being in a construct. It can easily be that the world is beautiful and amazing and science is a tool that brings out the beauty and wonder of the world. Alas, I suspect that Taylor is just trying to poison the well right at the start.

Naturally, he went with a scientist on the question. If the question is the nature of beauty, a philosopher would have been the better pick, but what do they know I suppose. I would have told Matthew about truth, goodness, and beauty being transcendental and ontological realities and how God is the metaphysical basis for them.

So I guess ask any Christian just isn’t right.

Evidence is a genuine challenge for Christian claims involving their god. The bible makes it clear that faith in an unseen god is something to be respected. A trait that Jesus himself praises when he says to Thomas “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”. John 20:29

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

On the contrary, I love talking about evidence. It is atheists I meet who most often do not. It’s easy to see this when I recommend them books to read and get told no over and over. As for faith, I have my own work on that here. As for the passage in John, as John Dickson says:

It is important to realise that Jesus is not saying, You, Thomas, believe with evidence; but blessed are those who can bring themselves to believe in my resurrection without any evidence! That is often how people perceive the Christian faith—as if it were about believing stuff blindly, without evidence, or even contrary to the evidence. The British atheist A.C. Grayling cited this Thomas story in a Guardian article, arguing that “Faith is a commitment to belief contrary to evidence and reason … [Faith] is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant.”[29] But “faith” in the Christian tradition, as I pointed out in chapter 2, has more in common with the oldest usage of this English word: “Belief based on evidence, testimony, or authority”. In this famous passage from John’s Gospel, Jesus is not saying people will be blessed if they can learn to believe without any evidence. He is making the distinction between believing on the basis of personal observation and believing on the basis of testimony. Both are forms of evidence. It’s just that personal observation is the way you determine repeatable and directly detectable things, and testimony is how you verify things that are, by definition, beyond your direct detection.

Dickson, John. Is Jesus History? (Questioning Faith) (p. 112). The Good Book Company. Kindle Edition.

In other words, Thomas had enough evidence already with all he had seen over the years and the testimony of the ten there with him. He would have been more blessed if he had trusted the reliable sources he had with him. It is not saying that all evidence is to be avoided.

Taylor after talking some about evolution goes on to say:

So why is it that when the Christians on the Unbelievable? forums are challenged to provide the details of the experiments that can confirm the presence of the Christian god, the questioner is accused of being hostile? This is exactly what Justin does in Chapter Two of his book when he quotes Lawrence Krauss as describing the world’s religions of being in disagreement with science. If the Christian is to remain in step with science, they must be prepared to subject their god to scientific testing. Testing that will, over time, make the Christian god more or less probable. Yet, when the Christian is challenged to do that, the response is that the Christian god can not be tested in a lab and so, as Krauss predicts, the Christian removes their religion from the boundary of science. When the Christian’s response to the question of where is the experimental evidence that supports their god’s existence is variations of “god is outside of nature and can not be tested” then they are at odds with science and they are making claims that science can not support. That being the case, they can not then claim that the arrow of evidence points in the direction of the Christian god. The two positions are contradictory.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

But God is outside of nature and cannot be tested. Science is great at testing the material realm, but if something is not a question of matter in motion, then it is not removing it from science. One can use scientific tools, but the conclusion itself is not scientific. If you want to know if Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, you go to history and not science. If you want to know if Romeo and Juliet survive at the end of Shakespeare’s play, you go to literature and not science. If you want to know if Fermat’s Last Theorem has been solved, you go to mathematics and not science. If you want to know what truth, goodness, and beauty are, you go to philosophy and not science.

Taylor’s main problem here is assuming that if something is not in the realm of science, then it is nonsense, while the idea that if something is not in the realm of science makes it nonsense is itself not in the realm of science. I object to the idea of scientifically testing God because He is not matter in motion and that’s a category fallacy. I don’t object to doing philosophy and metaphysics and I don’t object to using scientific tools to gather data, but the final ground is not science.

That is not a fault of science any more than it’s a fault of literature that it can’t tell us what the speed of light is or a fault of mathematics that it can’t tell you if Babylon conquered Israel. When it comes to the matter of studying, well, matter, science is superior. When it comes to studying other areas, leave it to those areas.

If asked what caused the Big Bang, Taylor says:

The Christian already knows the answer of course, they say the answer is their god. Yet challenge the Christian to explain what was before their god and the response is it’s not a valid question because god is beyond time. The very answer that they reject with reference to the big bang, is the answer they give for their god.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Yes. It is a nonsense question because God is by definition eternal so if you ask “What came before that which is eternal?”, it’s nonsensical. That is not the case with the Big Bang. Even if somehow the universe was eternal, an event is not. The Big Bang is not eternal so it makes sense to ask what was before the Big Bang.

There is a trend in Christian apologetics to claim that this can only be the case because the Christian god created everything to be this way. The process of science can only work because matter interacts and behaves the way it does. If the interactions of particles, chemicals and everything else was arbitrary then science would be impossible. The reason why everything acts the way it does is because of the properties of each particle. The elements hydrogen and oxygen exist the way they do because they can’t exists any other way. of how their atoms are formed. They interact the way they do because their make up means that there is no other way for them to interact.  Why is this the case? Well we don’t know at the moment, could there have been any other way for these particles to exist and interact? We don’t know at the moment. Will we ever know? Maybe, which is why the efforts are being made to find out. Does any of this mean that a god should be invoked as the unexplained explainer? No, because that doesn’t explain anything.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

If it is asked “Does God explain how all of this works?” then yes, just saying God is not sufficient. If God is used to explain why all this works, then yes, God is sufficient. It works because God created the universe to provide for us. We can use science to study the how, but the why, the final cause, is known by theology and philosophy.

What’s more, a supernatural god can create a universe that operates in any way it likes, intervene with miracles whenever it chooses, all without regard to natural laws or consistency. Creation can be reordered, man can be made from mudpies, snakes and donkeys can talk, and the sun can be stopped in the sky in order to create a longer work day. On the other hand, for a natural universe to exist it would have to be bound by a variety of predictable and consistent constraints that serve to make its continued existence possible. All that we know about nature and the universe is knowledge that has been gathered through the scientific process. More than that, the scientific process has only provided details and information on what is natural, science hasn’t provided us with any clues about the existence of anything extra natural or supernatural.

Johnson, David; Knight, Andrew; Atkinson, Ed; Skydivephil; Taylor, Matthew; Brady, Michael; Dumas, Sophie. Still Unbelievable: Why after listening to Christian arguments we are still skeptics . Reason Press. Kindle Edition.

Taylor ignores that in Scripture, the strength of the covenant is based on that natural order. Consider Jeremiah 31:35-36

hus says the Lord,
who gives the sun for light by day
    and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
    the Lord of hosts is his name:
36 “If this fixed order departs
    from before me, declares the Lord,
then shall the offspring of Israel cease
    from being a nation before me forever.”

Not only this, but you have to have order in order for there to be miracles. If there is no order and anything could happen at any time, there would be no miracles. The fixed order is not a shock to the Christian. It’s a necessity and the early scientists wanted to study this order to see how God did what He did.

As for leaving evidence, I consider existing itself to be the evidence. Why should there be something rather than nothing at all? Why is there truth, goodness, and beauty in the universe? These are philosophical questions, but they need answers just as much as scientific questions do. We ignore science to our peril, yes. We ignore philosophy to our same peril.

More will be said in later chapters on suffering. It looks more like this chapter was about explaining the universe instead of suffering. Unfortunately, we won’t find much good in many of those chapters.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)