The Problem of Evil II. Suffering & Glory

This is the second in a series of posts on the Problem of Evil (hereafter referred to as PoE). In this series, I offer my own resolution to the quadrilemma of Epicurus discussed in this earlier post. The series will be several posts long. The full picture will only become clear as all posts are presented. For this reason, I will not generally respond to challenges or arguments to individual posts. But I am more than happy to answer any questions for clarification.

From Epicurus forward, every presentation of the Problem of Evil (PoE) begins with the tacit presumption that suffering must be an unnecessary and unwanted evil, something which a good God would certainly eradicate if he could. And thus the argument goes, either he is not good, or he is not able to eradicate suffering. Believers typically respond to this presumption about suffering in these ways:

1) Suffering adds texture to life (Psalms 30:5; 126:6): we cannot know true joy in the absence of sorrow, we cannot know pleasure without pain, we are not truly human without the full range of experiences including suffering; and

2) Suffering develops character (Romans 5:3-5; James 1:2-3): without suffering, character qualities like endurance might grow stagnant, might never develop to their fullest potential. Even Jesus grew and learned through suffering, we are told (Hebrews 5:8).

Because they do not take such benefits of suffering into account, the typical PoE argument of the skeptics, including the quadrilemma of Epicurus, are too simplistic. The PoE cannot be reduced to such a facile syllogism. Nevertheless, the above defenses of suffering fail, in my opinion, to account for all suffering. Indeed, CS Lewis recognized this in his theodicy, The Problem of Pain, in which he turns to the pain and suffering of animals where the moral arguments carry no water. Skeptical commenters on this blog have asked how the thousands of children crushed or drowned in earthquakes and tsunamis benefited from suffering ... or even how we who have survived such natural calamities benefit from their suffering. Such questions go unanswered. So, while I accept the standard Christian arguments about the benefits of suffering, those arguments do not solve the riddle for me, nor for countless others, nonbelievers and believers alike.

Suffering and the PoE go far beyond human experience where there can be some observable moral benefits in suffering. Indeed, the New Testament tells us that “all creation” is involved in suffering (Romans 8:22). From this passage we learn that suffering is the result of a deliberate choice on the part of the Creator, but that it is not his plan to leave the cosmos in this state. This passage suggests strongly to me that some eternal purpose of God is being fulfilled by this provisional state of suffering in the cosmos.

Christianity teaches us that all history is moving toward an inexorable climatic moment when all evil is destroyed, all processes of decay come to a halt, and death itself dies. Could it be that suffering in this cosmos under the free hand of evil contributes in some way to the ultimate undoing of evil? I believe that the Scriptures intimate that this is the case.

In the previous post, I suggested the possibility that God might combat evil on a cosmic scale using the same tactics he recommends to his followers on a terrestrial scale. Jesus teaches us to defeat evil through patterns of intentional nonresistance. If, in the cosmic battle between good and evil, evil is being overcome by good (see Romans 12:21), the winning of the war may come only at the cost of much suffering. While we learn from Romans 8:22 that this suffering is spread across all of creation, no part of creation suffers more than God himself, in the person of Jesus.

In Colossians 1:24, Paul makes an interesting statement about the suffering that Jesus endured. He says, in effect, that in his own personal suffering, he was “filling up what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” Two conclusions can be drawn from this remarkable verse:

1) Something is actually accomplished in the spiritual realm by the sufferings of Christ. The death of Jesus accomplished redemption for mankind, but that is not all. The clearest statement of the purpose for Jesus coming to earth is found in 1 John 3:8, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” And in John 12:31, Jesus declares that his approaching suffering and death would be instrumental in the undoing of the work of the devil.

2) The sufferings of Christ are, in this regard, incomplete. Our sufferings team with his to accomplish the purposes of God. God calls people of faith to co-venture, if you will, with him in the battle against evil. I believe that we are called to share in the suffering which ultimately pays the price for the undoing of evil. And thus is suffering given meaning, purpose and value.

The New Testament has much to say about a connection between suffering and glory. It seems clear that there is a direct corresponding relationship between suffering in this age and glory in the next (2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 8:18; Matthew 5:11-12; 1 Peter 1:7, 4:13). Is glory merely a consolation offered by God for the unfortunate sufferers? Is it a reward, an eternal “atta-boy” offered to those who buck-up under affliction? I don’t think so. The 2 Corinthians passage suggest the relationship is directly causal. That is, Paul teaches that suffering in this realm is “accomplishing”, or “achieving” future glory.

Does all suffering qualify for glory? Are all forms of suffering accomplishing the purposes of God? I do not know. Romans 8:22 suggests that the writhing of the entire cosmos is somehow instrumental in bringing to birth God’s plan. On the other hand, Peter urges people of faith to suffer with a heart and mind like Jesus had in his suffering (1 Peter 2:21-23; 4:1); and he tells us that there is no value in the sufferings which we bring upon ourselves (2:19-20; 4:15-16). So it would seem that the sufferings of the innocent, and the sufferings borne in faith would be at the top of the list in efficaciousness.

In the next post, we will visit the book of Revelation and observe how our actions and our sufferings here are significant in precipitating the final judgments of God against evil.

Your comments are welcome.

The Problem of Evil: I. God’s Modus Operandi

This is the first in a series of posts on the Problem of Evil (hereafter referred to as PoE). In this series, I offer my own resolution to the quadrilemma of Epicurus discussed in this earlier post. The series will be several posts long. The full picture will only become clear as all posts are presented. For this reason, I will not generally respond to challenges or arguments to individual posts. But I am more than happy to answer any questions for clarification.

I believe that the quadrilemma of Epicurus relies heavily upon assumptions about God and his purpose for the Creation, and for man. The church has often upheld a theology which, in my view, contains misconceptions which inadvertently give rise to the rational objections of skepticism. The PoE is a “problem” in part because of these widely held assumptions, assumptions which are common both to believers and nonbelievers. I will, in this series, challenge a number of these assumptions, among them:

1) Man is central to Creation. Christians typically believe that man is the raison d'être of the cosmos; that is, we are the primary reason for all Creation. In this view, evil is a sidebar story, one that intersects God’s central purpose in various ways. It is not the main story. The main story is man. Not only is this assumption self-aggrandizing, but it becomes a major building block in the development of the PoE. I will challenge this view.

2) The Chief Purpose of Man. Related to the first assumption is the commonly held view that God created man for fellowship. The chief purpose of man is “to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever” ... or so the Westminster Confession famously declares. With respect to the PoE, this assumption typically leads to the “free will” defense which argues the following: in order for God to have the quality of fellowship he desired, it was necessary to give his created beings the freedom to choose him or not, thus leaving the door open to rebellion and consequent evil. While fully endorsing free will, I will nevertheless challenge parts of this view, and suggest an entirely different “chief purpose of man.”

3) Evil invaded a previously pristine Creation. The assumption is that God’s original Creation was idyllic, a Garden of Eden without flaw. It is assumed that God would not create a broken universe, one with a component of evil at its very outset. According to this assumption, evil enters this unspoiled Creation as an unwanted guest, through the rebellion of Satan and his angelic followers, and/or through the rebellion of man as illustrated in the first three chapters of Genesis. I will challenge this view.

4) Pain and suffering can have no ultimate meaning. The PoE is only a problem if we neglect the many promises of Scripture to those who suffer unjustly. While not answering all our “why” questions, or specifically detailing exactly how suffering plays into God’s purposes, the Bible does make it clear that suffering has very high value for this age and the next. The materialist who only sees a temporal existence may never grasp the eternal value of suffering. Moreover, many believers have failed to fit suffering into its eternal context, a context in which suffering is redeemed, and glory is bestowed commensurately to suffering.

5) God would not battle evil the same way he instructs us to. Jesus instructs his followers not to resist evil. Paul, quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, teaches us to overcome evil with good. Yet it is typically assumed by both sides in the PoE debates that an omnipotent God could and would merely annihilate evil through the use of his superior power, if he chose to do so. It is this assumption that I wish to challenge in today’s post.

Let’s first set the stage. The Bible clearly teaches that we live in the midst of a battle of cosmic proportions between good and evil. The battle is, at times, territorial. There are places and times when the forces of evil clearly have the upper hand. Jesus identifies Satan, the archenemy of God and ruler of the forces of evil, as the ruler of this world (John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11). Many other Scriptures could be cited which demonstrate that evil often has the upper hand in this cosmic war. It is clear that we do not live in a world in which God does whatever he pleases whenever he pleases. Jesus taught his followers to pray that the will of God would be done on the earth, a clear indication that God’s will is not being done here. The Scriptures make it clear the there are rules of engagement in the battle of the ages. This is not a matter of God lacking omnipotence. It is a matter of legal rights, rules of engagement with the adversary, legalities which God honors. Much could be said about this cosmic battle. It provides the backdrop which we must understand if we are to make any sense of the evils, both natural and moral, that we observe in our world. But in this post, I limit my discussion to these questions: what is God’s modus operandi in this battle? what are his tactics? and how does he intend to destroy evil?

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus presents a radical approach to dealing with evil. In Matthew 5:38-45 he says

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (NIV)

This teaching of Jesus has been variously dubbed as “nonresistance”, “the way of peace”, and “pacifism”. It has been the subject of many heated debates (and I do not wish to start a new debate here!). Whatever your views about political pacifism, Augustine’s “Just War Theory”, civil police action, etc., it is clear that on some personal level, at least, Jesus is teaching that a great strategy for overcoming evil, perhaps the best strategy, is to lay down our resistance to evil. To love those who hate us. To turn the other cheek. To go the extra mile. To pray for our oppressors. To freely give.

The standard approach of dealing with evil (and most of the Old Testament presents this approach) is to overpower it, to subdue it. Moses offered a system of holding evil in check through a carefully defined system of measured retribution: “an eye for an eye”. Jesus offers a new approach, an approach that is radically counterintuitive: Destroy evil ... rob it of its power to procreate ... by offering up NO RESISTANCE.

Many confuse the teachings of Jesus on pacifism with “passivity”. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the following slide illustrates:

Rather than being a passive, door-mat response to evil, the approach taught by Jesus is the most effective way to deal with evil in the long run. This is the secret of many great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., who once said “We will wear you down by our ability to suffer.” What did he mean? He meant that the power of the oppressor would be more effectively broken by nonresistance than by open battle. And he understood that this approach would necessarily entail much suffering.

The anabaptist theologian, Myron Augsburger, puts it this way: “Turning the other cheek is not a surrender, but a strategy for operation.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer, explains:

"The only way to overcome evil is to let it run itself to a standstill because it does not find the resistance it is looking for. Resistance merely creates further evil and adds fuel to the flames. But when evil meets no opposition and encounters no obstacle but only patient endurance, its sting is drawn, and at last it meets an opponent which is more than its match. Of course this can only happen when the last ounce of resistance is abandoned, and the renunciation of revenge is complete. Then evil cannot find its mark, it can breed no further evil, and is left barren."

Jesus not only taught this approach, he lived and died by it. His friend Simon Peter recalled the manner in which Jesus suffered and died: “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23 NIV). The Cross of Jesus Christ, that central feature of Christianity, is our iconic reminder that Jesus overcame evil not by his superior might, but through yielding his very life to its torments.

While many believers understand how the principle of peace operates in disarming and overcoming evil, we typically confine this modus operandi to our finite, human sphere. But if God teaches us to deal with evil through the greater powers of love and non-resistance, why do we expect that his own methods would instead involve his omnipotent power and domination? What of the possibility that God, in this cosmic warfare with evil, is using the very methods he gives to us. In fact, he is! At the close of those radical teachings on the power of peace and love, Jesus declares that when we practice his teachings we show ourselves to be “sons (and daughters!) of [our] Father in heaven.” That is, we are acting just like God!

If this be true, it changes many of our presuppositions about evil, suffering, and God’s response or his perceived lack of response. It would suggest that every bit of suffering at the hands of evil (in which God himself leads the way!) is just one more piece of the battle that ultimately destroys evil. It would suggest that the suffering of every man, women, and child is another nail in the coffin of evil. No wonder the Scriptures make such a point of connecting our temporal sufferings with ultimate glory!

Scripture suggests that the sufferings of all creation play a role in evil’s undoing (Romans 8:18-25). So even the suffering of animals may, in some way, contribute to the ultimate judgment and annihilation of all evil.

The Old Testament story of Job teaches us that, in our sufferings, there are “behind the scenes” realities that we do not always see or understand. Job’s perspective was limited. He suffered greatly, and tried, along with his friends, to piece together some kind of rational explanation for his pain and perceived injustice. In this respect, Job tried to sort out the PoE, just as we are doing today. But the reader of Job is given a cosmic perspective. The sufferings of Job were not the result of some isolated randomness, void of meaning. Rather, they were played out in the context of a much larger, ages-old battle between a good God and an evil Adversary. His sufferings had an eternal significance that Job perhaps never fully understood until his death gave him a retrospective eternal view. I believe that this will be true of all suffering endured in this cosmos.

“The Problem of Evil” Debate: and the winner is ...

Sadly, the debate in the discussion of the preceding post has descended to personal attacks, perceived personal attacks, and recriminations. My goal is to maintain a higher level of mutual personal respect on this site, especially when the conversation is between believers and skeptics. Perhaps the fault is mine for offering the quadrilemma of Epicurus for discussion. The issue easily becomes an emotional one, it seems.

I appreciate many of the arguments offered by the theists who commented. Many of them have merit. But at the risk of alienating my believing friends (something I seem to be doing a lot lately!), I must declare myself on the side of the skeptics here. If I had to choose a winner, it would be Psiloiordinary, and the skeptics who joined him. Of course, I disagree with where their arguments lead them. I am solidly in the theist camp. But the tone of some of my fellow theists on this topic, their dismissiveness of the problem, their lack of humility distress me. The problem of evil is, in my view, a significant challenge to theism, one that has lacked a satisfactory answer. Christians often object to theodicy itself (that is, the felt need to defend God), as a pointless, even presumptuous endeavor. “Who do we think we are to sit in judgment of God and his actions?” they ask. I’ve never accepted such an approach. It presumes that, though the Creator made us rational and moral beings, he expects that we will not use these faculties in our response to him. No, for me the problem of evil is a very real problem, one that cannot be dealt with easily. We owe it to a world of skeptics to offer our best answers with a high level of humility.

Many who have thought long and hard on this problem have come to similar conclusions. Because the problem of evil is a real problem to me, and to my faith, I have read a number of books on the subject, including The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis, Unspeakable by Os Guinness, The Doors of the Sea by David Bentley Hart (which should be required reading by all who would engage in this debate!), and Is God to Blame by Gregory Boyd (which comes the closest to my own views). (I've also read the challenges of Richard Dawkins, and other atheists on the subject.) For the most part, the Christian authors above display a healthy tentativeness in their approach, and a humility in their tone befitting the issue at hand. There are no easy answers.


Having said that, I now propose to boldly lay out my own views on the problem of evil. I addressed these views briefly a year ago in a series of posts on this site. I will now resubmit them with more detail and elaboration. I will do this in a new series of posts. I will not defend or debate my thoughts as I present them. If readers have questions for clarification, I will be happy to respond. I will deal with reader objections only after I have finished the series. Fair enough?

I will begin shortly at an unlikely starting point: Jesus’ radical teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. Stay tuned ....

Epicurus and the "Problem of Evil"

A frequent commenter here at OutsideTheBox responded to my previous post on the existence of evil with the famous 2300 year old quadrilemma of Epicurus:

Many skeptics contend that no satisfactory answer to Epicurus has ever been forwarded. Do you agree? I am mainly interested in the response of other believers. The problem of evil, which I have addressed in a series of posts a year ago (the "Theodicy" series), continues to be one of the primary lynch pins of unbelief. It is a reasonable objection to theism which cries out for a reasonable answer. Believers, how have you resolved the problem of evil? or have you? I will give my own specific response to Epicurus in the next post, but I'd like to hear first from you. Comments?

Reasons: V. The Existence of Evil

In response to a friend who asked, I recently wrote an essay entitled "Reasons for My Belief". The full essay can be found by clicking here. Following is the fifth and final post in a series in which I single out the five evidences from the essay. I am including, in this final post, the "epilogue" closing remarks. The earlier post did not allow for comments. As I repost sections, I am seeking readers' comments. So, please, join in the discussion ...

On a recent visit to Phnom Penh, my wife and I toured Tuong Sleng Prison, where Pol Pot held his recent arrestees before they were sent off to the killing fields. At Tuong Sleng, these prisoners were systematically tortured by the Khmer Rouge in an effort to extract more names of resisters. The prison, and its artifacts, were grim reminders of how utterly evil human beings can become.

Many consider the Problem of Evil to be the strongest argument opposing faith, particularly Christian faith. I have discussed this at length in earlier posts (see the sidebar Main Post Series for links to the Theodicy posts #7 through #11). However, as I reflect upon the meaning of evil, I have found it to be one of the strongest validations of my faith. This is indeed a 180° inversion of “the Problem of Evil”.

Evil, in its various inhuman permutations, takes on a life of its own at times. Without doubt, much man-on-man evil can (sadly) find its logical source in adaptive evolution. Evolutionary psychology seeks to define all evil in terms of biology. Dawkins appeals to the “selfish gene” for which our minds and bodies are mere survival machines. But not all evil readily fits the pattern we would expect from evolution. It is these horrifying and monstrous examples of evil which lead me to conclude that evil indeed does have a life outside of our natural, material world; evil goes beyond biological impulse. And if this is so, if evil is at times the manifestation of a supernatural force or personality, the mere existence of such an evil is an indication to me of a countering supernatural, personal source of good.

I do not subscribe to philosophical or religious dualism. The existence of a good God is not dependent upon a balancing force of evil. However, supernatural malevolence, if it exists at all, powerfully indicates supernatural goodness. And for this reason, every instance of inexplicable evil we encounter (one need not look long in the annals of history) is one more piece of tangible evidence for a good Creator/God who is, I believe, locked in a cosmic war with evil. In my view, this cosmic battle dates back at least to the creation moment, and is the major theme playing out in our universe. This conflict forms the basis for much of my own theology.

Some might fail to follow this logic. Some will deny any logic exists in this argument at all! However, my skeptic friend asked for my reasons for believing; and though this one may seem strange to some, and is certainly subjective, it has for decades been a lynchpin for my own faith.

epilogue

In these five lines of evidence, you may note a trend from objective toward subjective. I could add many additional evidences, but they would continue to be more and more subjective, more personal, more experiential. In truth, these experiences of a personal God who is involved in my life serve to verify my belief more than the objective evidences offered here. But I recognize that they will have less value as evidence for my readers, and hence I omit them. I sometimes appeal to the following analogy: I could never prove to a doubter that my wife loves me. I can offer no objective evidence. There is nothing in our relationship that could qualify as empirical proof of her love. And yet, I am as certain of her love as I am of almost anything else. Likewise, for myself and many other believers, God has made himself so real that our certainty approaches absolute knowledge, though we could never bring this certainty to bear upon another.

Nevertheless, these subjective, personal evidences are fortified in my mind when I consider the more objective evidences such as the finely tuned cosmos, the ordered universe, and the markers of intelligence. Indeed, the Bible appeals often to the testimony of creation (e.g. Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-4). I do not pretend that the evidence offered here should persuade a skeptic to alter his worldview. But I do believe that the nature of our cosmos provides ample ground to justify a serious exploration for an open-minded seeker of truth. For such a seeker, the ultimate proof will not be found in the words of a blog-post, but in the inscriptions of the heart.

Reasons: IV. The Transcendent Nature of Human Love

In response to a friend who asked, I recently wrote an essay entitled "Reasons for My Belief". The full essay can be found by clicking here. This post is the fourth in a series in which I single out the five evidences from the essay. The earlier post did not allow for comments. As I repost sections, I am seeking readers' comments. So, please, join in the discussion ...

My dictionary defines transcendence as “that which is beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.” The Latin root suggests the twin ideas of climbing and crossing. As I use the word here, it speaks of a level of reality that is above us and beyond us crossing our physical, empirical reality. Our experiences intersect this “transcendent” reality when no material causation can be found for them. In my experience of human love, I find just such a transcendent quality.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called mutual affection, which, among all living things, he found unique in humans, “the highest achievement they can aspire to.” Human love has inspired poets and artists through the ages. Plato told us why: “At the touch of love, everyone becomes a poet.” Even Einstein chimed in on the transcendence of human love when he said, “Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.” (Okay, that one was just for fun. But he did say that!)

Perhaps one of the best know quotes on love came from the physicist/philosopher, Blaise Pascal: “The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of.” This scientist who spent a lifetime in the realm of reason found in human love something that reason could never explain.

I agree. Some biologists will insist that they can find evolutionary paths that lead to the ineffable wonder of human love. But I doubt their accounting. Something so indescribably sublime cries out for an explanation beyond a few molecules bouncing around in the brain. Emotions and sensations on a much lower plane would have sufficed to ensure the propagation of the species. So whence the high joys of human love, especially marital love? These highest of human joys cross over into the realm of eternity, and give the human soul a sense of connectedness to something, or Someone who transcends the physical. That is my experience.

Reasons: III. Markers of Intelligence

In response to a friend who asked, I recently wrote an essay entitled "Reasons for My Belief". The full essay can be found by clicking here. This post is the third in a series in which I single out the five evidences from the essay. The earlier post did not allow for comments. As I repost these sections, I am seeking readers' comments. So, please, join in the discussion ...


3) markers of intelligence (in the origin of life)

Hume was right! When the eighteenth century philosopher David Hume argued so effectively against the arguments of design, he did so by suggesting that nature designs itself! And ever since Hume, science has been confirming that to be the case on many fronts. Matter is marvelously capable of self-organization. We understand the principles by which the universe structured itself, how matter coalesced following the big bang into stable star systems and galaxies, etc. Built into the chemistry and physics of the universe is an uncanny capacity to bring organization out of chaos, despite the laws of entropy which might predict otherwise. Built into life itself is a principle of self-design. Darwin helped us to see how random processes have resulted in variations subject to natural selection giving rise to the marvelous diversity of life forms on our planet today. Dawkin’s “blind watchmaker” is truly stunning in his ability to generate both diversity and functional complexity. But all these natural explanations for the amazing design and beauty we observe fail to answer the ultimate question: Why would a universe possess these remarkable characteristics in the first place? Why is the universe so full of the capacity to self-design, to self-organize? Why is it that everywhere we look, we find a cosmos busy crafting itself?

The skeptics, in their zealousness to write God out of the script, may have inadvertently stumbled upon the very genius of the Creator. The stronger the argument for a self-organizing universe, the more cogently is the case made: this universe has the fingerprints of intelligence all over it. In the self-designing attributes of the cosmos, I see not an argument against God, but the most compelling argument for a greater Creator than we imagined, one whose intelligence and wisdom are seen in these very built-in processes. The intuitive sensibility of Paley’s argument has never been fully dispelled; it has only been pushed back in time, relegated to the deep mysteries of the Mastermind who first set it all into motion.

Nowhere is this proclivity toward self-organization more spectacular and compelling than inside the living cell. Michael Denton speaks to the design implicit in the living cell in Nature’s Destiny:

“From the knowledge we now have of the molecular machinery that underlies some of their extraordinary abilities, it is clear that cells are immensely complex entities. On any count the average cell must utilize close to a million unique adaptive structures and processes—more than the number in a jumbo jet. In this the cell seems to represent the ultimate expression in material form of compacted adaptive complexity—the complexity of a jumbo jet packed into a speck of dust invisible to the human eye. It is hardly conceivable that anything more complex could be compacted into such a small volume. Moreover, it is a speck-sized jumbo jet which can duplicate itself quite effortlessly.

“The fitness of the cell for its biological role in the assembly and functioning of the multicellular life gives every indication, as with so many of life’s constituents, of being unique. In the case of many of their key properties and abilities, it is difficult to imagine how these properties and abilities could be actualized except in a material form with the precise characteristics of the living cell. In other words, if we were to design from the first principles a tiny nanoerector about 30 microns in diameter with the capabilities of the cell—with the ability to measure the chemical concentration of substances in its surrounding medium; with the ability to measure time, to move, to feel its way around in a complex molecular environment, to change its form; with the ability to communicate with fellow nanoerectors using electrical and chemical messages and to act together in vast companies to create macroscopic structures—we would end up redesigning the cell.”

Denton uses the term “directed evolution” to help answer the inevitable questions about how complexity of such staggering proportions could ever come to self-organize. Mike Gene suggests another term, which I prefer: front loaded evolution. Both of these theorists have proposed that the incredibly elaborate machinery inside the cell, machinery composed of variously shaped protein molecules specified by RNA blueprints, demand a designer. Not the designer of the Intelligent Design theorists who propose a designer for complex organisms. Rather, the designer of the DNA process which is capable of building such organisms over time through the processes Darwin described. Denton writes, "the evolutionary process of tracing out the tree of life becomes a perfectly natural phenomenon; the inevitable unfolding of a preordained pattern, written into the laws of nature from the beginning." (Nature’s Destiny, 282)

Some will reject this argument on the grounds that it lacks the full array of material evidence. Denton sees the evidence coming in small bits, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle:

"Because the validity of the argument [biocentric design of the universe] depends on so many independent lines of evidence, the conclusion is not materially threatened because the whole picture is not yet complete or because this or that phenomenon such as the origin of life or the mechanism of evolution is not understood. Just as the meaning of a jigsaw puzzle may be obvious long before all the pieces are perfectly placed, so too my argument does not necessitate that everything be explained." (Nature’s Destiny, p xvi.)

Others will object that this argument merely proposes another god-of-the-gaps. I reject god-of-the-gaps approaches because I am convinced that gaps in natural evolution are diminishing as our understanding grows. It may be helpful to distinguish between the “gaps” which are temporary empty spots in our current knowledge, and “gaps” which extend beyond the reasonable limits of science. Abiogenesis may be just such a gap. Far from slowly closing, the gap of abiogenesis becomes more and more daunting as our understanding grows. The more we know about evolution, the more we know about DNA, the greater becomes the mystery of the first cell, and of the DNA alphabet itself. It is this widening gap which I believe is unlikely ever to be filled. In this regard, I am in alignment with Denish D’Souza who has said, “I'm not making a god-of-the-gaps argument arguing that because evolution can't account for it, therefore God did it. But neither should we submit to the atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.”

Say What, Richard Dawkins???

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God."

~ Richard Dawkins, October 21, 2008

Those following my current set of posts may want to check out Melanie Phillips' column in yesterday's edition of The Spectator. 

(A tip of the hat to Bradford at Telic Thoughts.)

Reasons: II. Ordered Universe

In response to a friend who asked, I recently wrote an essay entitled "Reasons for My Belief". The full essay can be found by clicking here. This post is the second in a series in which I single out the five evidences from the essay. The original post did not allow for comments. As I repost sections, I am seeking readers' comments. So, please, join in the discussion ...


2) the ordered universe

“God does not play dice.” Whatever Albert Einstein meant when he referred to “God”, there can be no mistaking the import of this well-known quote. The universe which Einstein studied, the universe which amazed him with its endless mysteries, the universe which he, more than any other human, helped to explain, this universe could simply not be ruled by chance alone. Someone, or something, must be providing certainty, order, predictability. Without that someone or something, our universe could only be subject to the whim of chance, a chaotic and unpredictable reality which could never submit to the inquiries of physicist or mathematician.

What set men like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler apart from the great majority of their contemporaries? Why did they suspect the true nature of the universe while others persisted in their primitive superstitions? What led them to explore the solar system as they did, and discover its governing principles? They were led by their undying conviction that their investigations would prove fruitful because of their strong belief in the Creator. They were armed with an expectation that they would find an orderly universe, one governed by mathematical principles and physical laws written by a Creator. Einstein tips his hat to these pioneers of science: “[T]hose individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge” (Ideas and Opinions). To the 21st century mind, this expectation seems self-evident. Of course, we know the universe obeys the laws of physics. Of course mathematics is consistent. Of course the universe is orderly.

Ah, but not so fast! When Einstein confirmed these phenomena, he found them utterly remarkable! Einstein refers to this order as an “unexpected event”, and also declared that it should be regarded as a miracle:

“Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence... [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the ‘miracle’ that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge.”

We take this ordered, law-abiding universe quite for granted. We regard it as expected, unremarkable. Does this confidence reveal how much we’ve learned, or how little we actually perceive? Is Einstein passé? Was he naive? Or did he see more deeply into the mystery of the universe than we are able, or willing, to look? Is the 21st century skeptic afraid to acknowledge that the order of the universe demands the existence of an “Orderer”?

I find a fascinating juxtaposition in the nature of our cosmos. The same universe governed by law and order is also subject to wild and unpredictable randomness. Clearly, this randomness plays a central role in the progress and development of the universe, and in the evolution of life on our planet. Such randomness is all we should expect in a universe of the materialist’s imaginings. But randomness is not all we have. And randomness, Dawkin’s “blind watchmaker” if you will, can only be productive and meaningful in a context provided by an orderly universe governed by unbending laws. When I consider these remarkable realities, I am compelled to acknowledge the wise and wonderful hand of the Creator.

Reasons: I. Finely-Tuned Cosmos

In response to a friend who asked, I recently wrote an essay entitled "Reasons for My Belief". The full essay can be found by clicking here. This post is the first in a series in which I single out the five evidences from the essay. The earlier post did not allow for comments. As I repost sections, I am seeking readers' comments. So, please, join in the discussion ...

1) the finely-tuned cosmos

There exists in our universe approximately 30 distinct physical and chemical conditions each of which must be finely tuned within very narrow parameters in order for life to develop and prosper. These conditions have been noted by many authors. Those unfamiliar with this line of evidence may wish to reveiw the Wikipedia article on fine tuning here, and further descriptions of the argument here or here.

One such condition involves the synthesis of carbon, a process which takes place inside stars. The renown English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, spent much of his career analyzing the nuclear reactions which have taken place inside stars over the course of the history of our cosmos. It is well understood that these nuclear reactions are responsible for the bountiful supply of carbon in our universe, an element that one might not expect to find in abundance, but which is absolutely essential for carbon-based life. Hoyle discovered that unique characteristics in the nucleus of the carbon atom make it possible for these atoms to be produced in such abundance; he then calculated the likelihood that these characteristics should be present, and learned that they are statistically unlikely in the extreme. He went on to make this oft-cited observation:

“Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.’ Of course you would ... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” ("The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. p 8-12)

Australian biochemist Michael Denton has studied many such elements of fine tuning, and has declared, "All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology – that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact." (Nature’s Destiny, p. 389).

While many of these evidences of fine tuning will be studied for many years to come, and we may find natural explanations for some, I am convinced that most will continue to point back to Holye’s “superintellect”, and Denton’s “special designer”. But not conclusively; it should be noted that other explanations have been suggested which might account for fine tuning. The most common of these are various multiverse scenarios. We are told that perhaps ours is just one in a chain of billions or trillions of universes; if so, the chances that one such universe would result in conditions favorable to life ultimately rise to one in one; and voilà, here we are!

Thus, the arguments from fine-tuning, no matter how intuitively they point to a Creator, can never prove the existence of God. For me and many others, however, Occam’s razor (the logical construct which says, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best”) leads us to a strong likelihood of a “superintellect” First Cause. The alternate explanations, while plausible, are complex and lack evidence. It is my view that the simplest solution is to credit fine tuning to the hand of the Designer, Planner, and Creator of the universe.

It is interesting to note that fine tuning, which may be the best of all theistic arguments, is rarely invoked by Creationists, even by Intelligent Design proponents like Philip Johnson and Michael Behe. The reason is that the fine tuning argument presumes naturalistic evolution. Fine tuning thus works bests for those theists who fully embrace Darwinism, as I do. And for me, an intelligent Creator is the simplest, most intuitive, and thus most likely explanation of the life-friendly cosmos in which we find ourselves.

Reasons for My Belief

An atheist friend has asked me to lay out my evidence for theism. I am happy herewith to comply. Many “theistic proofs” have been forwarded over the centuries. Typically, they are oversold, stated in language too bold. In the following post, I humbly submit five of the most convincing lines of evidence for me, some related to long-standing arguments for God’s existence, some unique to my own thinking. They are modest claims, and may convince no one else. My purpose here is not to persuade a skeptic, but rather to show why my mind (which also tends toward skepticism!) is convinced of an unseen, supernatural Creator/God. I have chosen to disallow comments on this full essay. Soon, I will post a series of bite-sized sections of the essay and invite comments. In this way, the ensuing discussions can be more focused.

prologue

Four disclaimers at the outset:

1) I am merely offering evidence, and I propose to do no more than that. “Evidence” is a word with a spectrum of meanings ranging from “proof” to “hints”. Somewhere between those two extremes would be “indications”. My presentation of evidence here could be described as an offering of indications. The first three arguments are based upon standard teleological arguments, (argument from design). But they explore three variations upon that theme, and each is a stand alone argument, not dependent upon the others. In my opinion, these arguments are often abused by theists, their significance exaggerated. I do not view them, nor do I present them as “theistic proofs”. They are modest indicators, bits of inconclusive evidence which, when viewed together, form a strong basis to suspect a Creator.

2) I am not a defender of “Intelligent Design”, à la Dembski, Behe, Johnson, et. al. I hope it will be clear that the arguments presented here do not presume an interventionist God. The cosmos is subject, and quite obedient, to natural laws. It seems to work amazingly well without the constant supervision or intervention of Divine influence. But this in no way precludes a teleological view of the cosmos, with “design” set in place at the outset of Creation, and perhaps at the outset of life itself (abiogenesis). This view of a noninterventionist God in no way diminishes his ultimate influence; rather, it greatly enhances his wisdom and his creative genius.

3) I am not herewith offering evidence for the Christian God versus other god beliefs. Atheists often throw into these discussions the “many gods” argument. Richard Dawkins famously points out that “atheists disbelieve in just one more god than the countless gods that theists disbelieve in.” True enough. But the discussion of comparative religions is best left for another day, after the question of whether a God exists at all is settled. I am happy then to explain why I reject Zeus, Wotan, and Buddha in favor of the God Jesus came to reveal.

4) Some readers may be disappointed at missing citations or end-notes. It is not my purpose here to produce an academic paper. I am simply offering some of my personal reasons for belief. If a reader asks, I will attempt to source any of the quotes.

1) the finely-tuned cosmos

There exists in our universe approximately 30 distinct physical and chemical conditions each of which must be finely tuned within very narrow parameters in order for life to develop and prosper. These conditions have been noted by many authors. Those unfamiliar with this line of evidence may wish to reveiw the Wikipedia article on fine tuning here, and further descriptions of the argument here or here.

One such condition involves the synthesis of carbon, a process which takes place inside stars. The renown English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, spent much of his career analyzing the nuclear reactions which have taken place inside stars over the course of the history of our cosmos. It is well understood that these nuclear reactions are responsible for the bountiful supply of carbon in our universe, an element that one might not expect to find in abundance, but which is absolutely essential for carbon-based life. Hoyle discovered that unique characteristics in the nucleus of the carbon atom make it possible for these atoms to be produced in such abundance; he then calculated the likelihood that these characteristics should be present, and learned that they are statistically unlikely in the extreme. He went on to make this oft-cited observation:

“Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.’ Of course you would ... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” ("The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. p 8-12)

Australian biochemist Michael Denton has studied many such elements of fine tuning, and has declared, "All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology – that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact." (Nature’s Destiny, p. 389).

While many of these evidences of fine tuning will be studied for many years to come, and we may find natural explanations for some, I am convinced that most will continue to point back to Holye’s “superintellect”, and Denton’s “special designer”. But not conclusively; it should be noted that other explanations have been suggested which might account for fine tuning. The most common of these are various multiverse scenarios. We are told that perhaps ours is just one in a chain of billions or trillions of universes; if so, the chances that one such universe would result in conditions favorable to life ultimately rise to one in one; and voilà, here we are!

Thus, the arguments from fine-tuning, no matter how intuitively they point to a Creator, can never prove the existence of God. For me and many others, however,
Occam’s razor (the logical construct which says, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best”) leads us to a strong likelihood of a “superintellect” First Cause. The alternate explanations, while plausible, are complex and lack evidence. It is my view that the simplest solution is to credit fine tuning to the hand of the Designer, Planner, and Creator of the universe.

It is interesting to note that fine tuning, which may be the best of all theistic arguments, is rarely invoked by Creationists, even by Intelligent Design proponents like Philip Johnson and Michael Behe. The reason is that the fine tuning argument presumes naturalistic evolution. Fine tuning thus works bests for those theists who fully embrace Darwinism, as I do. And for me, an intelligent Creator is the simplest, most intuitive, and thus most likely explanation of the life-friendly cosmos in which we find ourselves.

2) the ordered universe

“God does not play dice.” Whatever Albert Einstein meant when he referred to “God”, there can be no mistaking the import of this well-known quote. The universe which Einstein studied, the universe which amazed him with its endless mysteries, the universe which he, more than any other human, helped to explain, this universe could simply not be ruled by chance alone. Someone, or something, must be providing certainty, order, predictability. Without that someone or something, our universe could only be subject to the whim of chance, a chaotic and unpredictable reality which could never submit to the inquiries of physicist or mathematician.

What set men like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler apart from the great majority of their contemporaries? Why did they suspect the true nature of the universe while others persisted in their primitive superstitions? What led them to explore the solar system as they did, and discover its governing principles? They were led by their undying conviction that their investigations would prove fruitful because of their strong belief in the Creator. They were armed with an expectation that they would find an orderly universe, one governed by mathematical principles and physical laws written by a Creator. Einstein tips his hat to these pioneers of science: “[T]hose individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge” (Ideas and Opinions). To the 21st century mind, this expectation seems self-evident. Of course, we know the universe obeys the laws of physics. Of course mathematics is consistent. Of course the universe is orderly.

Ah, but not so fast! When Einstein confirmed these phenomena, he found them utterly remarkable! Einstein refers to this order as an “unexpected event”, and also declared that it should be regarded as a miracle: 

“Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence... [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the ‘miracle’ that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge.”

We take this ordered, law-abiding universe quite for granted. We regard it as expected, unremarkable. Does this confidence reveal how much we’ve learned, or how little we actually perceive? Is Einstein passé? Was he naive? Or did he see more deeply into the mystery of the universe than we are able, or willing, to look? Is the 21st century skeptic afraid to acknowledge that the order of the universe demands the existence of an “Orderer”?

I find a fascinating juxtaposition in the nature of our cosmos. The same universe governed by law and order is also subject to wild and unpredictable randomness. Clearly, this randomness plays a central role in the progress and development of the universe, and in the evolution of life on our planet. Such randomness is all we should expect in a universe of the materialist’s imaginings. But randomness is not all we have. And randomness, Dawkin’s “blind watchmaker” if you will, can only be productive and meaningful in a context provided by an orderly universe governed by unbending laws. When I consider these remarkable realities, I am compelled to acknowledge the wise and wonderful hand of the Creator.

3) markers of intelligence (in the origin of life)

Hume was right! When the eighteenth century philosopher David Hume argued so effectively against the arguments of design, he did so by suggesting that nature designs itself! And ever since Hume, science has been confirming that to be the case on many fronts. Matter is marvelously capable of self-organization. We understand the principles by which the universe structured itself, how matter coalesced following the big bang into stable star systems and galaxies, etc. Built into the chemistry and physics of the universe is an uncanny capacity to bring organization out of chaos, despite the laws of entropy which might predict otherwise. Built into life itself is a principle of self-design. Darwin helped us to see how random processes have resulted in variations subject to natural selection giving rise to the marvelous diversity of life forms on our planet today. Dawkin’s “blind watchmaker” is truly stunning in his ability to generate both diversity and functional complexity. But all these natural explanations for the amazing design and beauty we observe fail to answer the ultimate question: Why would a universe possess these remarkable characteristics in the first place? Why is the universe so full of the capacity to self-design, to self-organize? Why is it that everywhere we look, we find a cosmos busy crafting itself?

The skeptics, in their zealousness to write God out of the script, may have inadvertently stumbled upon the very genius of the Creator. The stronger the argument for a self-organizing universe, the more cogently is the case made: this universe has the fingerprints of intelligence all over it. In the self-designing attributes of the cosmos, I see not an argument against God, but the most compelling argument for a greater Creator than we imagined, one whose intelligence and wisdom are seen in these very built-in processes. The intuitive sensibility of Paley’s argument has never been fully dispelled; it has only been pushed back in time, relegated to the deep mysteries of the Mastermind who first set it all into motion.

Nowhere is this proclivity toward self-organization more spectacular and compelling than inside the living cell. Michael Denton speaks to the design implicit in the living cell in his book, Nature’s Destiny:

“From the knowledge we now have of the molecular machinery that underlies some of their extraordinary abilities, it is clear that cells are immensely complex entities. On any count the average cell must utilize close to a million unique adaptive structures and processes—more than the number in a jumbo jet. In this the cell seems to represent the ultimate expression in material form of compacted adaptive complexity—the complexity of a jumbo jet packed into a speck of dust invisible to the human eye. It is hardly conceivable that anything more complex could be compacted into such a small volume. Moreover, it is a speck-sized jumbo jet which can duplicate itself quite effortlessly.

“The fitness of the cell for its biological role in the assembly and functioning of the multicellular life gives every indication, as with so many of life’s constituents, of being unique. In the case of many of their key properties and abilities, it is difficult to imagine how these properties and abilities could be actualized except in a material form with the precise characteristics of the living cell. In other words, if we were to design from the first principles a tiny nanoerector about 30 microns in diameter with the capabilities of the cell—with the ability to measure the chemical concentration of substances in its surrounding medium; with the ability to measure time, to move, to feel its way around in a complex molecular environment, to change its form; with the ability to communicate with fellow nanoerectors using electrical and chemical messages and to act together in vast companies to create macroscopic structures—we would end up redesigning the cell.”

Denton uses the term “directed evolution” to help answer the inevitable questions about how complexity of such staggering proportions could ever come to self-organize. Mike Gene suggests another term, which I prefer: front loaded evolution. Both of these theorists have proposed that the incredibly elaborate machinery inside the cell, machinery composed of variously shaped protein molecules specified by RNA blueprints, demand a designer. Not the designer of the Intelligent Design theorists who propose a designer for complex organisms. Rather, the designer of the DNA process which is capable of building such organisms over time through the processes Darwin described. Denton writes, "the evolutionary process of tracing out the tree of life becomes a perfectly natural phenomenon; the inevitable unfolding of a preordained pattern, written into the laws of nature from the beginning." (Nature’s Destiny, 282)

Some will reject this argument on the grounds that it lacks the full array of material evidence. Denton sees the evidence coming in small bits, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle:

"Because the validity of the argument [biocentric design of the universe] depends on so many independent lines of evidence, the conclusion is not materially threatened because the whole picture is not yet complete or because this or that phenomenon such as the origin of life or the mechanism of evolution is not understood. Just as the meaning of a jigsaw puzzle may be obvious long before all the pieces are perfectly placed, so too my argument does not necessitate that everything be explained." (Nature’s Destiny, p xvi.)

Others will object that this argument merely proposes another god-of-the-gaps. I reject god-of-the-gaps approaches because I am convinced that gaps in natural evolution are diminishing as our understanding grows. It may be helpful to distinguish between the “gaps” which are temporary empty spots in our current knowledge, and “gaps” which extend beyond the reasonable limits of science. Abiogenesis may be just such a gap. Far from slowly closing, the gap of abiogenesis becomes more and more daunting as our understanding grows. The more we know about evolution, the more we know about DNA, the greater becomes the mystery of the first cell, and of the DNA alphabet itself. It is this widening gap which I believe is unlikely ever to be filled. In this regard, I am in alignment with Denish D’Souza who has said, “I'm not making a god-of-the-gaps argument arguing that because evolution can't account for it, therefore God did it. But neither should we submit to the atheism-of-the-gaps, that holds since science explains some things, it can surely explain everything.”
______________________________

These first three arguments rely heavily upon the testimony of three scientists. Some skeptics will disregard such “appeals to authority” as not constituting hard evidence. True enough. And yet, 90% or more of what I know, I know because someone told me, and I accept their testimony. And I have little trouble accepting the testimony of Fred Hoyle regarding the chemistry of the universe, nor Albert Einstein’s descriptions of its physics, nor Michael Denton’s evaluation of the biochemistry inside the cell. It should be noted that I have not built this case upon the testimony of theists. Rather, I have appealed to the testimony of an atheist (Hoyle), and agnostic/atheist (Denton), and a deistic pantheist (Einstein). None of them profess belief in the personal God I proclaim. And yet, when considered as a whole, these mysteries of origins leave me with more than a suspicion of a rational designer in back of it all.
______________________________

4) the transcendent nature of human love

My dictionary defines transcendence as “that which is beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.” The Latin root suggests the twin ideas of climbing and crossing. As I use the word here, it speaks of a level of reality that is above us and beyond us crossing our physical, empirical reality. Our experiences intersect this “transcendent” reality when no material causation can be found for them. In my experience of human love, I find just such a transcendent quality.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called mutual affection, which, among all living things, he found unique in humans, “the highest achievement they can aspire to.” Human love has inspired poets and artists through the ages. Plato told us why: “At the touch of love, everyone becomes a poet.” Even Einstein chimed in on the transcendence of human love when he said, “Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.” (Okay, that one was just for fun. But he did say that!)

Perhaps one of the best know quotes on love came from the physicist/philosopher, Blaise Pascal: “The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of.” This scientist who spent a lifetime in the realm of reason found in human love something that reason could never explain.

I agree. Some biologists will insist that they can find evolutionary paths that lead to the ineffable wonder of human love. But I doubt their accounting. Something so indescribably sublime cries out for an explanation beyond a few molecules bouncing around in the brain. Emotions and sensations on a much lower plane would have sufficed to ensure the propagation of the species. So whence the high joys of human love, especially marital love? These highest of human joys cross over into the realm of eternity, and give the human soul a sense of connectedness to something, or Someone who transcends the physical. That is my experience.

5) the existence of evil

On a recent visit to Phnom Penh, my wife and I toured Tuong Sleng Prison, where Pol Pot held his recent arrestees before they were sent off to the killing fields. At Tuong Sleng, these prisoners were systematically tortured by the Khmer Rouge in an effort to extract more names of resisters. The prison, and its artifacts, were grim reminders of how utterly evil human beings can become.

Many consider the Problem of Evil to be the strongest argument opposing faith, particularly Christian faith. I have discussed this at length in earlier posts (see the sidebar Main Post Series for links to the Theodicy posts #7 through #11). However, as I reflect upon the meaning of evil, I have found it to be one of the strongest validations of my faith. This is indeed a 180° inversion of “the Problem of Evil”.

Evil, in its various inhuman permutations, takes on a life of its own at times. Without doubt, much man-on-man evil can (sadly) find its logical source in adaptive evolution. Evolutionary psychology seeks to define all evil in terms of biology. Dawkins appeals to the “selfish gene” for which our minds and bodies are mere survival machines. But not all evil readily fits the pattern we would expect from evolution. It is these horrifying and monstrous examples of evil which lead me to conclude that evil indeed does have a life outside of our natural, material world; evil goes beyond biological impulse. And if this is so, if evil is at times the manifestation of a supernatural force or personality, the mere existence of such an evil is an indication to me of a countering supernatural, personal source of good.

I do not subscribe to philosophical or religious dualism. The existence of a good God is not dependent upon a balancing force of evil. However, supernatural malevolence, if it exists at all, powerfully indicates supernatural goodness. And for this reason, every instance of inexplicable evil we encounter (one need not look long in the annals of history) is one more piece of tangible evidence for a good Creator/God who is, I believe, locked in a cosmic war with evil. In my view, this cosmic battle dates back at least to the creation moment, and is the major theme playing out in our universe. This conflict forms the basis for much of my own theology.

Some might fail to follow this logic. Some will deny any logic exists in this argument at all! However, my skeptic friend asked for my reasons for believing; and though this one may seem strange to some, and is certainly subjective, it has for decades been a lynchpin for my own faith.

epilogue

In these five lines of evidence, you may note a trend from objective toward subjective. I could add many additional evidences, but they would continue to be more and more subjective, more personal, more experiential. In truth, these experiences of a personal God who is involved in my life serve to verify my belief more than the objective evidences offered here. But I recognize that they will have less value as evidence for my readers, and hence I omit them. I sometimes appeal to the following analogy: I could never prove to a doubter that my wife loves me. I can offer no objective evidence. There is nothing in our relationship that could qualify as empirical proof of her love. And yet, I am as certain of her love as I am of almost anything else. Likewise, for myself and many other believers, God has made himself so real that our certainty approaches absolute knowledge, though we could never bring this certainty to bear upon another.

Nevertheless, these subjective, personal evidences are fortified in my mind when I consider the more objective evidences such as the finely tuned cosmos, the ordered universe, and the markers of intelligence. Indeed, the Bible appeals often to the testimony of creation (e.g. Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-4). I do not pretend that the evidence offered here should persuade a skeptic to alter his worldview. But I do believe that the nature of our cosmos provides ample ground to justify a serious exploration for an open-minded seeker of truth. For such a seeker, the ultimate proof will not be found in the words of a blog-post, but in the inscriptions of the heart.

______________________________

Comments have been disabled on this post. I look forward to your comments as each of the five evidences are posted individually. If you have a general comment, my email (which can be accessed at my profile–just click on the picture below "About the Host") is always open to readers.