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.
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.
36 comments:
Hi Cliff,
If you aren't a dualist (you don't believe in supernatural evil) then how can you say that the existence of supernatural evil is evidence for a supernatural god.
Do you think god is;
All powerful.
All knowing.
All loving.
Thanks,
Psi
Psi,
Good question. We're back to definitions, and perhaps I was not clear enough in the O.P. I am using "dualism" in its classic theological sense in which it refers to two equal powers, one for good and one for evil, with balanced power and existing forever in dynamic tension. I am not a dualist in that sense. But I do believe in a supernatural power of evil.
God is all powerful? Yes, but I believe that for reasons I have expressed elsewhere, and will return to in future posts, the exercise of his power is self-limited in this cosmos and in this age.
God is all knowing? Yes, but I am not certain about exactly what that means. I am reasonably sure that God does not know the future in any absolute sense.
God is all loving? Yes, not only so, but that his very essence is love.
Hi Cliff,
Epicurus?
Regards,
Psi
Psi,
Hardly. Why would you suggest that?
However, supernatural malevolence, if it exists at all, powerfully indicates supernatural goodness.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the blog to explain why you think "supernatural malevolence, if it exists at all" should be regarded as an indication of anything else - you've presented a flat assertion without any supporting argument.
Isaac,
Perhaps you will not be satisfied that this is anything other than a "flat assertion." But for me (and these are my reasons, after all) the argument is intuitive. If we posit a supernatural force of evil without the counterbalance of a supernatural force of good, evil would be unrestrained and would have destroyed everything long ago.
cliff > If we posit a supernatural force of evil without the counterbalance of a supernatural force of good, evil would be unrestrained and would have destroyed everything long ago.
Destroying everything would put an end to evil acts - so why would a supernatural force of evil have "destroyed everything long ago"?
The existence of a good God is not dependent upon a balancing force of evil.
Why doesn't the same argument apply - without the counterbalance of a supernatural force of evil, good would be unrestrained and would have made everything sublime long ago?
Isaac,
Destroying everything would put an end to evil acts - so why would a supernatural force of evil have "destroyed everything long ago"?
Good point. Isaac, if you do not see the intuitive logic of counterbalancing forces ... that's okay. Just say so. I'm okay with that. I really don't want an endless debate over this point.
As for your second point, I do not understand what you are trying to say.
Hi Cliff,
God or Not-God
I take it you are familiar with this one?
Regards,
Psi
cliff > if you do not see the intuitive logic of counterbalancing forces ...
When you say "The existence of a good God is not dependent upon a balancing force of evil" it seems that you do not see "the intuitive logic of counterbalancing forces".
If "The existence of a good God is not dependent upon a balancing force of evil" then why would the existence of a supernatural force of evil be dependent on a balancing force of good?
Isaac,
You missed the point entirely. What I stated in the OP is that I do not subscribe to philosophical or religious dualism which typically argues that a power of evil is a necessary balance (and an equal balance) to any posited power of good. I do not believe that, so I am not a dualist. It is in that context that I said the existence of God is not, in my thinking, dependent upon the existence of an equal and balancing supernatural power of evil. Study dualism and you will understand what I meant.
On the other hand, and in a totally different way, the existence of a transcendent, supernatural force of evil powerfully suggests a power of goodness which has held it in check. That is my view. It seems self-evident to me. If you do not see it that way, its perfectly all right with me. But for me (and these are my reasons) super-malevolence strongly suggests at least as powerful a force for good. But unlike the dualist, I do not see them as equal, or necessary in any philosophical sense. I see one suggesting the other based on our experience of both. Savvy?
Hi Cliff,
Sorry mate.
I might have got it now. . .
Evil is not necessary for god to exist . . . but the fact it does suggests that he does.
Evil is not a necessary or sufficient condition for god. But the fact it exists at all suggests god is there fighting the good fight.
Is that right?
Cheers,
Psi
Psi,
It is a bit more complex than that, but yes, essentially my belief is what you have said.
Many things about the human experience suggest to me that there is larger, unseen battle raging about us, one in which our lives and our choices play a significant role. The "good fight" is not merely God's. He is waging the battle through his created cosmos, including mankind. That is why, in my view, our actions, our choices, our prayers (etc.) matter profoundly.
cliff > On the other hand, and in a totally different way, the existence of a transcendent, supernatural force of evil powerfully suggests a power of goodness which has held it in check. That is my view.
Based on assumption that a supernatural force of evil would need to be held in check - when you're willing to argue for the self-limited power of God it is no more than arbitrary convenience to disallow a self-limited power of evil.
I can see that your view allows ad hoc defense against questions about our suffering world - as long as you don't examine it too closely.
cliff > It seems self-evident to me.
It seems completely arbitrary to me.
mea culpa
Your view doesn't provide ad hoc defense against questions about our suffering world.
cliff > the exercise of his power is self-limited in this cosmos and in this age.
Which is to say - able but not willing.
cliff > He is waging the battle through his created cosmos...
Whither the first commandment?
Isaac,
I don't think you yet understand my views about evil. I will soon post how I solve the riddle of evil in the cosmos. I'd prefer to hold any defense of my views until after I have offered them.
cliff > I don't think you yet understand my views about evil.
My reference was to what you have already stated: the exercise of his power is self-limited in this cosmos and in this age.
Okay Isaac, I'll be more specific ...
cliff > the exercise of his power is self-limited in this cosmos and in this age.
isaac> Which is to say - able but not willing.
Anyone with children understands that there are times when a parent is both able and willing to shield his children from risk of harm, and chooses to self-limit his intervention. So your inference is unwarranted.
In the case of God and evil in the cosmos, your inference is also quite mistaken. You'll see why after I have laid out my view.
(btw, my offered scenario from parenting is not analogous to my view of what is happening in the God and evil arena. I offer it to demonstrate that willingness + ability does not always result in action.)
cliff > ... both able and willing to shield his children from risk of harm, and chooses to self-limit his intervention.
Which is to say willing in some cases and not-willing in other cases!
No. Sorry, you don't get it.
At least I've learned that I should interpret your "I will!" as having unspoken restrictions - I will if I think it's good for you...
Or maybe you are incorrectly assuming that we (and what is good for us) are what drives his will.
I was just following your "offered scenario from parenting".
Assumptions about what drives His will might have something to say about why He is or is not willing - but what do they have to say about whether He is or is not willing?
I am willing if I can be bothered
- isn't -
I am willing.
Isaac,
Please note that I specifically said that the "offered parenting scenario" was not analogous to my views about God and evil. So it was clearly a mistake to apply that scenario to God.
As for willingness, again, you do not know my views. Suffice it to say that none of us always does what we want to do. We are often willing and able, but for reasons other than ability and desire, we withhold our hand. If you think long enough, you can do doubt see this principle at work in your own life.
cliff > We are often willing and able, but for reasons other than ability and desire, we withhold our hand.
Which is simply to say once again that I should interpret your I am willing as having unspoken restrictions.
Is there something in Epicurus to indicate that willingness should be read as conditional?
Is there something in Epicurus to indicate that willingness should be read as conditional?
Not as far as I can tell. And, of course, this is the Achilles' heel of Epicurus. He leaves no room for conditions in willingness, something which we all experience in the choices of our lives.
cliff > ... no room for conditions in willingness, something which we all experience in the choices of our lives.
Is God's omnipotence conditional?
Is God's benevolence conditional?
Are you speaking of God or of "someone like us but a lot older, cleverer and more skilful"?
Isaac,
No.
No.
and No.
isaac > >Is God's omnipotence conditional?
cliff > No.
How are we supposed to square that with "... the exercise of his power is self-limited in this cosmos and in this age"?
cliff > and No.
It wasn't a yes/no question.
Isaac,
• The free exercise of one's omnipotence can quite obviously be conditional without the omnipotence being conditional.
• I'm sorry, I did misread the final of your three questions. The answer should have read, "God".
cliff > The free exercise of one's omnipotence can quite obviously be conditional...
One is actually willing to freely exercise one's power or one is actually not willing to freely exercise one's power - depending on conditions which one is free to disregard but actually not willing to disregard - so actually not willing.
Which is enough to describe Epicurus's gods as indifferent - neither benevolent nor malevolent.
Saying self-limited is simply to say not willing with different words - it doesn't make it into willing.
cliff > The answer should have read, "God".
If the answer had been "someone like us but a lot older, cleverer and more skilful" the relevance of what "we all experience in the choices of our lives" would have been obvious - but not obvious for an unlimited God.
I read a couple of your posts on the problem of Evil - Interesting insights. I find it strange that the problem of Evil is one that I least struggle with. Maybe I have "unconventional" views on evil. I view most evil as just being part of the natural process of life and remnants of evolution - particularly with some of the moral behaviors. I've been watching the BBC Earth series, and watching the animals in action, all I see is evil at its greatest. The fact that God gave us a soul, a higher consciousness, a moral compass, points me towards the fact that God in fact is good and is at work against the evil, even through our own sense of right at wrong. Atheistic evolution, on the other hand, gives a horribly poor answer to the problem of evil.
Yet, I struggle with the concept of evil as it pertains to faith, doubt and Calvinism. Why is it so hard for some to believe, including myself. Did he predestine them to Hell. That just seems cruel. The suffering and evil on Earth is not on my mind -- rather, it is eternal suffering that bothers me. What about the Jews that were killed in the Holocost. My list could go on. Finally, and this links up to what I posted previously on your blog, when Christians fail to show love, that is basically akin to evil...and there is so little love nowadays...Look at Anne Rice. Okay...Off to bed!
Cliff- I loved your comment "Anyone with children understands that there are times when a parent is both able and willing to shield his children from risk of harm, and chooses to self-limit his intervention"
You might guess that I concur with the title of my own blog. The problem of evil has become even less of a problem as I watch my daughter claim she thinks I don't love her when I put her in time-out!
My husband, who doesn't really doubt much at all, does have a bit of an issue with evil, particularly as a physician. I wonder if it is because I'm so shielded from the world in my "bubble" of being a stay at home mom, that I just haven't seen enough evil to doubt. I hope not though...I really dont need another thing to doubt about!!!
Like a Child,
“I view most evil as just being part of the natural process of life and remnants of evolution - particularly with some of the moral behaviors.”
Yep. Me too. That is one reason why, for me, the very existence of evil suggests there must be a cosmic tension, and thus a good God. Nevertheless, we who extol the virtues of this almighty and lovingly good Creator are called upon to account for this life history, strewn with the tearing of flesh, the tears of bereaved mothers, the death and disease and pain-filled privation of countless animals and sentient beings, not to speak of the incredible waste of thousands upon thousands of extinct species. The story of the cosmos is one of violence, death, and endless decay. And, apparently, the Creator designed it thus. It is no wonder to me that this is the most frequently cited rationale for unbelief. Evolution actually helps us understand it in a different light, but it does not, for me, fully ameliorate the issue.
“Why is it so hard for some to believe, including myself.”
Great question. I think it is a struggle for you (and me!) to maintain faith because neither of us is satisfied with stock Christian answers. We allow ourselves to think deeply, and go where others fear to go. But I genuinely believe that a faith tested and examined in these ways will go on to be a more reliable, robust and real faith. I will be satisfied with nothing less!
Anne Rice shows courage. And I identify with her in much of what she is saying. Those of us who appreciate and love her must be vocal!
If you have trouble identifying with your physician husband’s struggle with evil, just think about the 2,000 mothers who buried the malaria torn bodies of their little babies today. And the 2,000 more tomorrow. And the next day. And the next.
But don’t stop with such considerations. Maintain your trust in God. Our faith can yield far more satisfying answers to these horrible dilemmas than can the non-answers of the Materialist.
I don’t know much about Anne Rice. I knew she wrote “Interview with the Vampire” and other Vampire stuff. And I thought I heard that she was a Christian. Anyway, I just read some more about her to figure out what you two were talking about. I guess you’re talking about her leaving Christianity. I read her reasons why and I must say I can understand her feelings. But it seems she’s not leaving Jesus though. So if I’m not misunderstanding her, to me this may just be a matter of semantics. She’s not leaving Jesus so she’s still a disciple of Jesus. Maybe she just doesn’t want to be identified with a “group” that is really “all over the place” anyway. I’m guessing there may be some “Christians” out there who are bashing her. And that would really just give her fuel for her fire. Just my immediate thoughts on the matter.
Mike,
I think your "immediate thoughts on the matter" are right on! Thank you for sharing them.
Post a Comment