Theodicy discussions ...

I received two communications this morning, one in an email from a friend, another in a comment on an earlier post here. Both writers dealt with the subject of theodicy (the problem of evil), each of them from a unique vantage.

First I opened an email from long-time friend, Laurie Burke. She was returning to Tennessee (where she is pursuing a PhD in Clinical Psychology at the University of Memphis) from an APA conference in Baltimore. The conference was on the Psychology of Spirituality and Religion, and she had presented a paper on bereavement distress and complicated grief, her subspecialty. She wrote to tell me of the role theodicy played in many discussions at the conference. One’s ability (or lack of) to reconcile faith in an inherently good God with personal suffering, bereavement, and grief has a profound effect upon one’s ability to process personal loss. This is the practical, intensely personal side of the otherwise philosophical and sometimes dry discussion of the problem of evil.

Second, Mike Gene (author of Design Matrix which I discussed briefly here) commenting on my post entitled “Retroactive Curse?”, accepted my challenge to discuss theodicy from the standpoint of a believer who accepts the findings of modern science and recognizes the centrality of the apparent dilemma which persistent evil poses to Christian theology.

As I have often found it difficult to engage the Christian community in this discussion, I was greatly encouraged to receive these two communications affirming that theodicy matters, and that believers ought to be engaged in coming to terms with the problem of evil.

I had planned to write a more comprehensive detailing of my own theodicy views, but personal challenges in my own life have curtailed my own writing for the present. Then, along come these two writers with some distinct thoughts on the subject. Perhaps they can be persuaded to offer guest posts here. I have asked them to do just that!

Nature's Dark Side

The Ichneumon (ikˈnyu-men) mother wasp carefully searches the leaves for a juicy, well nourished caterpillar. Upon finding just the right fat, food-processing machine, the wasp will with her long ovipositor deep in the flesh of the unsuspecting caterpillar, leave her eggs, and fly away. But just before inserting her eggs, she will carefully locate the critical bundles of nerves inside her womb-host, stinging those nerves in such a way that the caterpillar is paralyzed, but remains alive. In this way, the wasp larvae will have a constant supply of fresh meat to feed on until they are ready to dig their way out of their hollowed-out host. But there is more! Some innate intelligence working in the wasp larvae instructs them to take care to postpone consuming critical caterpillar organs ... they want their meat alive! So, carefully, they consume the internal parts of the caterpillar in reverse order of importance, leaving the heart until the very end!

An imagined scene from some horror movie? Or the cruel hoax of a sadistic story-teller? No, this is one of a myriad of such regular occurrences in nature. And we who believe in a wise and immutably good God must account for a plethora of seemingly diabolical schemes strewn across the landscape of biology. Did our loving Father create these species to interact in this way? Are these the dirty little secrets of Special Creation? or are these horror-filled anomalies the work of an “Intelligent Designer”?

Some Christians choose to ignore this darker side of Creation. They speak freely of the beauty of the natural world, the grandeur of the mountains, the majestic power of the crashing sea, the glory of the soaring eagle, the elegant beauty of the Stargazer Lily. But they avoid the endless stream of agony, suffering and brutality implicit in the natural order: the parasite, the predator and prey, Tennyson’s nature “red in tooth and claw”. The standard Christian response, that these are but manifestations of the curse, the consequence of Adam’s sin, are hackneyed and obsolete. We now have an endless trail of irrefutable fossil evidence: these brutal horrors of nature precede man by hundreds of millions of years. It has been thus from the beginning!

Richard Dawkins, in his new defense of evolutionary science, The Greatest Show on Earth, retells the habits of the Ichneumon wasp in his chapter entitled “Arms Races and ‘Evolutionary Theodicy’” (page 395). I found the chapter absolutely fascinating. Even the renown atheist recognizes how an understanding of the requisites of evolution offer at least a measure of resolution to the age-old theodicy problem.

It has been my contention for sometime that evolution, properly understood as a part of God’s master plan for the cosmos, actually helps the believer find his way through the thorny issues of the problem of evil, and its corollary, the problem of pain. In building my case, it becomes my burden to confront believing friends with aspects of Creation they’d sooner not think about. It is not a popular thing to do. Some friends are enraged at what they perceive me to be: an agitator, a faith-challenging troublemaker. They fail to see my long term goal: to solve problems of faith.

In truth: evolution, the powerfully-supported science which believers often reject, actually helps to solve theodicy, the #1 stumbling-block which believers typically choose to ignore. But before we can proceed down that path, believers must lay down their resistance to undeniable science, and abandon their denial of the dark underbelly of life. When Christians face these two realities, and consider them side-by-side, they will soon be free to explore fresh answers in the full light of reality!

The sooner this day comes, the better!

Human Suffering in Haiti ~ and my Faith

The 1755 Lisbon Earthquake is iconic in the philosophical and theological discussions of evil and suffering. The Hatian earthquake threatens to surpass Lisbon in death toll, perhaps rising into the top ten earthquakes in the category of human casualties. We are confronted once again with the age-old theodicy problem: How can we account for such incredible suffering in a universe purportedly created and governed by a God who is loving and good.

It has been my contention that no world-view, whether theistic or non, can skate on this issue. No philosophy, no theology, has integrity if it ignores this elephant in the room, the problem posed by suffering and evil. Today, as I view dump trucks discharging their faceless, nameless loads into mass graves, I am sometimes amazed at the indifference of some believers who claim this huge affront to faith does not faze them. The comment threads on this site are littered with such cavalier dismissals. Many other believers are guilty of a greater atrocity, blaming the victims of tragic disasters for exciting the Posieden-like anger of a vindictive God. Still others take the easier hand-in-the-sand mentality: what I don’t think about can’t threaten me!

Lisa Miller, Religion Editor at Newsweek, commenting on the suffering in Haiti, has raised the question again in her column, Why God Hates Haiti, The frustrating theology of suffering. Read it. Ask the hard questions.

Some Christians react defensively when I call them to consider the problem of evil. They perceive me as attacking their faith. Of course, they are correct. A faith which does not take into account the horrors of evil and suffering ought to be attacked. But my purpose is never to destroy faith. Rather, I seek to build faith that is rational, robust, reality-based. Arriving at such a faith may involve a good deal of illusion dismantling. Is it worth the risk? For some, such an examination may result in the complete crumbling of faith, as it did for Bart Ehrman. It is my experience, however, that most Christians who engage is this perilous work of critical thinking, asking the hard questions, emerge on the other side with a faith that is more vibrant, more reliable, more defensible. For me, it is the only kind of faith worth possessing.

Retroactive Curse?

I’ve been involved in an interesting discussion over at Undeception. In this post, Steve discusses how William Dembski, one of the foremost proponents of the Intelligent Design movement, has embraced Old Earth Creationism. That is, he understands the incontrovertible evidence for the age of the earth. And he knows that such evidence includes a history of suffering and death on our planet before the dawn of man. While he still rejects evolution (acceptance of evolution in Dembski’s case would apparently spell the end of his employment at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where he is a philosophy professor), his acceptance of the geological and paleontological records creates a conundrum for his theology: billions of years of suffering and death on our planet prior to the dawn of man. More importantly, all of this death occurs before the Fall of man. And Dembski’s theology posits that death and suffering are included in the curse which resulted from the sin of Adam and Eve. No problem, according to Dembski. God merely set a curse upon Creation in anticipation of the Fall.

This is like blaming that the man who struck a match at 3:30 in the afternoon for thereby causing an early morning fire on that same day. Except that God is all-knowing, and apparently therefore it is perfectly rational that the curse resulting from Man’s sin might extend backward for billions of years. And thus does Dembski solve the theodicy riddle (how can evil exist in the creation of a good God?) in his book, The End of Christianity. Blame the extinction of dinosaurs on Adam! Eve eats an apple, and trillions of preexistent bacteria die over billions of years. Of course, such a view wreaks havoc upon common sense notions of cause and effect, which lie at the foundation of all science. If God plays such a huge cosmic trick with the sequence of events, can a scientist like Dembski really trust anything in the natural order?

Dembski has effectively rewritten Genesis 2:17 to read, “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely set into motion a whole set of retroactive physical, spiritual, and biological laws including the eventuality of death, laws which will not only henceforth govern your lives and all Creation, but actually have already been governing Creation for 13.7 billion years. So, verily, don’t eat thereof. On second thought, maybe you should eat because if you don’t you’ll really screw things up.” And he has altered the grammar of Genesis 3:14-19, effectively replacing a string of straightforward future tense verbs with past perfects. Exactly how does this solve anything for a man who has so much invested in literalism and inerrancy?

Dembski’s commitment to a literal reading of an inerrant Genesis 1 compels him to reject evolution (God created each species “according to its kind”). His insistence upon a literal understanding of Genesis 2 and 3, (and thus a literal Adam and Eve) lead him to reject common descent. But unlike other Biblical literalists, he cannot square the geological and paleontological record with six-day young earth Creationism. The resulting theological dilemma has Dembski contorting Biblical literalism beyond recognition.

Christians who take seriously their faith must deal with the issue in some way. It won’t go away anytime soon. So I am asking my believing readers, How do you solve this dilemma?

o I avoid science, thus shielding myself from all the potential difficulties of squaring my chosen beliefs with hard facts.

o I avoid the philosophical issue of the problem of evil. If I don’t think about it, it doesn’t effect me.

o I avoid the theological issue of death before the Fall. If I don’t think about it, it doesn’t bother me.

o I accept Dembski’s logic. It is the only way to hold together my acceptance of Biblical inerrancy in the face of the vast fossil record showing a long history of death and extinctions prior to man.

o I reject Dembski’s solution as irrational. I accept Biblical inerrancy, but have another solution to the dilemma.

o My view of reality compels me to redefine how God reveals truth, and I do not read the Bible as the literal, inerrant “Word of God”.

Or do you have a different approach than one listed here?

Fusion: Randomness and Creation

In this sometimes series, we are exploring the "fusion" of science and theology. Many Christian sites are responding to apparent contradictions between science and faith. My purpose in this series is to step beyond these problems to ask the question, "If science and the Bible are both revealing truth, what happens when we combine them? What new insights result from the fusion of growing natural revelation and special revelation?”

Einstein once declared that God does not play dice. His statement was less about theology and more about his initial distaste for quantum physics, but it serves as a backdrop to today’s post. Does God roll the dice? Did he create a universe regulated by chance, randomness? We Christians have difficulty with this idea of chance happenings. We prefer to think of God as the “Blessed Controller of all things” (J.B. Phillips translation of 1 Timothy 5:16). But physicists and biologists alike insist that all reality, from subatomic mechanics to genetic mutations, can only be understood as a flow of random events. Are they correct? Consider with me two contrasting theological frameworks:

1) God governs all creation with a “hands-on” approach, creating and then managing and superintending every detail, carefully orchestrating events to accomplish his purposes. If he did not special create each species, he at least intervened from time to time to guide the development of “irreducibly complex” biological systems. His directive influence extends not only over cosmic and biological evolution, but also over all human activity. He sovereignly guides every detail of the believer’s life, holds sway over the course of human history, even setting governments in place. In this way, the flow of creation moves unalterably toward the culmination of his over-all plan and purpose.

2) God initiates the cosmos, but then essentially leaves his hands off. He allows evolution to take its wandering course, and rarely intervenes in the affairs of human beings. But he is not the disengaged god of the deist; he is deeply interested and invested in the flow of human history (even entering into it in the person of Jesus) and interacts personally with people of faith. However he seldom exerts his directive influence; instead he chooses to let his creation take its natural course. His purposes are accomplish not by the force of his will and manipulations, but by the natural outplay of physical and spiritual laws.

In my previous Fusion post, I turned to the concept of evolutionary convergence to suggest that God might have created humankind “in his own image” using an entirely random evolutionary process. If this hypothesis were correct, it would mean that the second framework is no mere role of the dice. Rather, it would lead to this possible scenario: God created a vast cosmos, one of sufficient size to ensure the eventual emergence of planet capable of hosting life; he infused the cosmos with just the right chemistry to ensure that life could and would emerge and evolve upon that planet; and he waited patiently for nearly 14 billion years for these eventualities to transpire. After creating a universe capable of hosting and evolving humankind, despite its entropic nature, little or no direct divine intervention would have been required.

Such a scenario gives answer to the riddles posed by Richard Dawkins and others about the oddity of Christians assigning cosmic significance to human beings when we occupy an infinitesimal corner of an immense cosmos, and have been on the scene for a mere eyeblink of cosmic time. If, in fact, it best served the purposes of the Creator to allow his creation to develop according to natural laws, the scope of time and space may have been necessary.

But more importantly, such a scenario completely changes the playing field for theodicy, or the problem of evil. Under the first theological framework above, God must, in some answer for malaria, animal pain, millions of species extinctions, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, and indirectly responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, 9/11, and every other imaginable human ill. However, if God’s purposes are best served by leaving his hands off of creation, all such ills are seen in a different light, assuming that God’s choice of modus operandi was one of necessity, not of whim.

While this scenario may help to solve some problems for belief, for many it raises other problems and questions. Among them,

1) What considerations might prompt God to create and govern his universe in this way? What might compel him to leave his hands off of creation even when it is assailed by catastrophic horrors and unthinkable atrocities?

2) Does randomness presuppose Open Theology, or the idea that God does not possess perfect knowledge of the future? This question was raised by a reader in response to the earlier post on randomness.

3) Can such a view of randomness be integrated into the teachings of the Bible, which might seem to favor the hands-on God?

In upcoming posts, I will offer my perspective on these and other questions.

“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?

Book Review: Exploring Reality

Reality: is anyone as well equipped to tackle such an all-encompassing subject as John Polkinghorne? Following a 25 year run as an accomplished particle physicist, Polkinghorne studied theology and became a priest in the Church of England. A result of this somewhat unique bi-vocational career is that Polkinghorne has become perhaps the most prolific writer on the intersection of faith and science. In Exploring Reality, (Yale University Press, 2005) Polkinghorne alternates between physical and metaphysical approaches to his subject matter. In this interweaving of hard science with the “softer” realms of theology, Polkinghorne has given us an engaging introduction to his view of reality.

Regular readers of Polkinghorne will find familiar discussions of subjects like quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution, and how these speak to questions of ultimate reality. For me, however, the value of the book was in Polkinghorne’s forays into such subjects as the trinity, evil, the historical Jesus and the nature of time.

Though I use a different path, I find common conclusions to the theodicy question in the writings of Polkinghorne. In the chapter titled “Evil”, Polkinghorne summarizes his “free process theology” approach to the problem of evil (page 144):

A theologian would say that what is involved in the occurring costliness of creation is the divine permissive will, allowing creatures to behave in accordance with their natures. Bringing the world into being was a kenotic act of self-limitation on the Creator's part, so that not all that happens does so under tight divine control. The gift of Love in allowing the genuinely other to be is necessarily a precarious gift. I believe that God wills neither the act of a murderer nor the incidence of an earthquake, but both are allowed to happen in a creation given its creaturely freedom.

A central theme in Polkinghorne’s thinking about evil and suffering is found in the concluding paragraph of the chapter: God himself enters into the suffering of this cosmos (page 146):

The Christian God is the crucified God, not a compassionate spectator from the outside, but truly a fellow sufferer who understands creatures’ pain from the inside.

By far my favorite chapter, “The Nature of Time: Unfolding Story” outlines Polkinghorne’s understanding of the dimension of time. He notes with apparent approval that openness is becoming increasingly accepted. Polkinghorne’s makes clear his “openness” to openness (page 119):

It would be no defect in the divine perfection not to know the details of the future if that future is not yet in existence and available to be known.

Open Theism is a subject we will explore here at OutsideTheBox in the future. So I was very interested in Polkinghorne’s stated position. Other topics under the general subject of time include progressive revelation (which Polkinghorne sees as continuing to the present), the relationship of entropy to the resurrected body of Christ, and time’s continuance in the new creation. Polkinghorne departs from conventional evangelical theology when he declares on page 125,

The life of the new creation will be a temporal life, lived within the unfolding ‘time’ of that world to come, whose everlasting nature is the true meaning of the fullness of times.

In short, Polkinghorne questions the common thinking that “eternity” is outside the bounds of time, and that God lives outside of time. Since I have long been asking the same questions, it was gratifying to read Polkinghorne’s thoughtful comments about time.

An elementary understanding of science is helpful in reading Polkinghorne. However, this book is a collection of free-standing essays. And the chapters on theology can be read on their own. For those who are inclined to think outside the box, I recommend you pick up a copy of Exploring Reality.

POST #11: Theodicy, Q & A

My last post on theodicy, in which I propose that this cosmos exists as God’s answer to evil, and as his means of exterminating evil, has caused some consternation (as I expected). Mine is hardly a traditional concept. It is admittedly “outside the box”. Maybe a bit too far outside for some! But as these posts continue, I hope to demonstrate how well it fits Biblical theology, even as it flies in the face of traditional theology. My friend Steve, host of An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution has raised some excellent questions. As I typed out my response, the comment grew to the size of a full post. Here are excerpts from Steve’s comments and questions (italicized), followed by my answers. Steve begins by responding to some comments from Jac. If you want the full context of this discussion, it can be found in the comments section of Post #10.

________________________________________

Hi Jac:

I admit that when Cliff first started discussing these ideas a few months back, I thought it smacked very much of dualism. I don’t think that anymore since I believe Cliff has carefully addressed that concern a number of times. There is a difference in not be able to do something, and choosing not to do it. God is not limited in any way UNLESS he limits himself.... I’m not sure I’d put it in the same language as Cliff, that evil is “difficult for God to eliminate”. I think a more appropriate way of phrasing it is that the ramifications of eliminating evil in one swift blow are worse than allowing it to continue. (i.e. what Jesus said about wheat and chaff) But Cliff & I might be saying the same thing.

So I don’t think dualism is a problem, but I see two other challenges.

1) Where did evil come in the first place? ... Doesn’t the existence of evil outside of the space-time of our universe just push the issue back in “time” (if we can speak of time prior to the big bang)? Don’t we just end up needing the same argument again - i.e. a free-will / free-process argument? What is the benefit to theodicy of having the origin of evil outside of our universe? My questions don’t in anyway address whether your argument is consistent/good (and I know even you say it is speculative), I’m just not sure what the point or benefit is to theodicy. Maybe I'm missing something.

2) I’m really uncomfortable with the implication that the purpose of the universe is the destruction of evil. Maybe you aren’t saying “only purpose”, but it seems to be “primary purpose”. Is this what you are saying? To me this seems very much like we are being “used” by God. And I know we ARE “used” by God (we are his “hands”, “feet”, “eyes”, “ears” on earth helping to bring in the kingdom of God) – but that is different. I think the overriding theme in the bible is the redemption of creation, not the destruction of evil.
________________________________________

Steve,

• In your response to Jac, your framing of the choice God made comes close to my own thinking. We’re going way beyond anything we could know when we talk about the pre-cosmos mind of God. But I conceive of it as something like this: when evil rose up, God might have chosen to snuff it out, maybe only to have it recur again and again ... but that perhaps he devised a plan involving us and this universe which would purge it forever. Whatever he is doing here with us is going to set the whole of the angelic hosts into awe at his wisdom (Eph. 3:10). That verse has always set me on a search for something more dramatic than Jesus dying for my sins and admitting me to heaven (as wonderful as that is!). I mean that these angels have known God intimately for billions of years, and he is doing something through the church (I understand church in this verse to refer to believing mankind of all time) that will demonstrate facets of his wisdom they have never witnessed before! Something very big is happening in the cosmos. My details may be sketchy. They may be all wrong. But I have to believe that we are in the midst of a drama that is beyond anything we have ever imagined! Evil may be a thing difficult to purge forever, but God has devised a plan -- long and involved -- that will do just that. Clearly any theology that sees evil as being once-and-for-all annihilated could hardly be called dualism.

Should it surprise us that God opted not to use his “Iron Fist” to stomp out evil? Is the concept that he would utilize a more “passive” tactic to overcome evil really so startlingly new? Is this not the manner in which we are instructed to overcome evil? Does he tell us to overpower evil? or to turn the other cheek. Does he tell us to use force against evil? or to go the extra mile. He says, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21) Why should we think that a cosmic battle with evil changes the rules of divine engagement? Is it not at least possible that God tells us to war against evil through nonresistance because that is precisely how he does so? And might it be that this is actually the best way? to let evil run its course, and actually die under the influence of divine goodness, love, and nonresistance ... even a nonresistance that cost the blood of Jesus? Or are these just the wistful notions of a Sermon on the Mount idealism that could have no practical role on a cosmic scale?

• You say Where did evil come from in the first place? and doesn’t this problem just put us right back at square one, with no real theodicy solution other than free-will?

Those are very insightful questions. I have excluded events outside of time and space from my posts, because we have no way of discerning anything about them. But that is a too easy cop-out, and your questions are valid. One possibility, I suppose, is that prior to the drama of this cosmos, there was some kind of balance-of-power dualism, one that will after this cosmic battle come to its final end. But I doubt it. The Bible does tell us about a war in heaven, a rebellion against God’s authority led by Lucifer. But imagine with me that that is exactly what happened, and this cosmos and its process was God’s answer. (The following logic gets very complicated, but stay with me.) We do not need a new free-will theodicy to explain this eruption of evil. In fact, if we surmise that angels do have an inherent power of self-determination, and that Lucifer simply made a horrible choice, note that he did so without a backdrop of evil going on around him. This angelic “free-will” did not require a context filled with natural evil and moral evil, did it? In other words, if your argument is valid (that I have just pushed the “free-will” theodicy argument back 13 billions years) then our present day free-will theodicy arguments make no sense. Why should unthinkably horrible events be a necessary backdrop to ensure genuine free-will, as free-will theodicy implies? If Satan had genuine free will without tsunamis and earthquakes and unthinkable suffering of millions of innocents, why would such manifestations be deemed necessary to validate our free-will?

So no, I do not think I just pushed the problem back to an earlier free-will argument. Or if I did, then the nature of that earlier free-will argument is completely different from the one I have rejected. Still, I have not answered your question, and that is because I believe no answer exists. Our problem of evil is limited to events within our cosmos. We know evil exists. It’s ultimate cause is a mystery, for now. But theodicy attempts to answer the question, “why does it persist? why does God just look on, and take no action?” My thoughts are limited to these questions.

• You say, I’m really uncomfortable with the implication that the purpose of the universe is the destruction of evil. Maybe you aren’t saying “only purpose”, but it seems to be “primary purpose”. Is this what you are saying?

Yep, that is what I am saying. Shocking? But it may make more sense to you after I have posted more thoughts about how death, resurrection, evolution, nonresistance, the theology of suffering and glory all interconnect to this framework. In my mind, a goal to destroy evil does not exclude nor minimize the stories of the redemption of creation, and our personal redemption, etc. Rather, it adds a layer of purpose and meaning on top of these themes, enriching them and contextualizing them.

Are we just being “used” in this scheme? I certainly don’t conceive of it that way. I see that we are called into a significant and meaningful partnership with God, and with Jesus. It is our choice whether to accept this call. Its a volunteer army!* Part of this calling may be an invitation to suffer for his cause. But God, through our captain Jesus, has already led the way in suffering. We are called to join in with him. And if we do, we are granted to share in the glory of the Kingdom! This is the teaching of 1 Peter, and Romans 8. This certainly elevates our role in the cosmic scheme of things. Traditional theology has taught us to see ourselves as of little count. Pawns being acted upon. A false humility. What I am seeing is that God has given us significance beyond our imaginations. Can he get the job done without me? Yes. But I have (we all have) the amazing potential of actually speeding up the process! (2 Peter 3:3-14). A God who adopts me as his own child, calls me into high service, asks me to join in his suffering, makes me a co-heir with his Son, sharing in his glory ... such a God can scarcely be seen as “using” me.

* An exception might be those innocents who suffer at the hand of evil, and unwittingly play a role in this battle. When they experience the glory that goes hand in hand with their suffering (Romans 8:17-18), I have no doubt they will in retrospect happily accept the role they were given to play out, and not object that they were “used”.

POST #10: Theodicy, a New Approach (Part Two)

In this post, I briefly describe some personal conclusions as to how entropy relates to evil, and thus to theodicy. This post is the most significant of any of my posts to date, and lays a groundwork for many future posts. To my knowledge, these ideas have not been widely tested. I invite you to offer a response, or to question these ideas, and I hope you will do so.

As typical Christian theology would have it, God created a pristine universe and world. From there, story usually goes something like this: at a point in time, evil invades the scene, and corrupts the cosmos, necessitating corrective actions by the Creator, which in turn leads to a judgment of evil at the end of the age. As we bring together current understandings of entropy with Biblical truths, the possibility of a quite different picture begins to emerge.

In part one of this post, we traveled to the end of time, and established a linkage between the fates of evil and entropy in this cosmos. We suggested that this linkage may help us to understand the purposes of a Creator who intentionally created an entropic cosmos, even though it is clear that he considered entropy a provisional aspect of his creation, one from which he hoped (divine hope, of course, is more like certainty!) it would be delivered (Romans 8:18-23). Now I invite you to journey back with me to the dawn of time.

From the still resounding echos of creation (including cosmic microwave background radiation), physicists are today able to piece together a remarkable amount of information about the first second of cosmic history. For example, we are told that entropy began at 10 to the power of -43 seconds after the big bang (for non-math majors, this is an extremely small fraction of a second). For our purposes, we could simply say that God created the cosmos to be entropic at its very outset.

Why would the Creator intentionally subject his new creation to a physical law of decay and death? If the entropic cosmos is as we described in Post #4 , driven at every level by a principle of death and decay, why would a God of Life choose to create a cosmos governed by the law entropy from the very beginning? Why would he build into creation the seeds of its own demise, such that all creation would groan in pain, experience frustration, be bound to decay; and then express that his will from the beginning was to see it delivered from its inevitable entropic end? Considering the linkage between entropy and evil, can we not reasonably deduce that God created this cosmos as he did because of evil, in response to evil, as a way of dealing with evil?

This deduction would suggest that the rebellion of Lucifer and his expulsion from heaven occurred prior to, or commensurate with the Creation Moment, and that this cosmos, driven by death and decay would have been created to house him, and ultimately destroy him and the evil that arose within him. In this scenario, this cosmos would be God’s response to evil, and his plan to contain it and bring it to a final end.

Of the ultimate origin of evil, how it came to express itself in Lucifer, we can say nothing. This occurred outside of our cosmos, outside of our space/time dimensions, and must remain a mystery. But if we can deduce from the time line of entropy that the entire cosmos is in some way a response to evil, a complete paradigm shift ensues. The ramifications of such an understanding profoundly impact our understanding of the purpose of creation, the purpose of man, the role of evolution, the role of suffering, and, germane to our present discussion, the problem of evil. It effectively resets the table for the theodicy discussion.

The underlying presumption of Free Will theodicy, the most commonly advanced Christian solution to evil’s riddle, is that man was created by God to glorify him, to obey him and enter into fellowship with him. I have always loved that oft-quoted Westminster Shorter Catechism which suggests that the chief purpose of man is “to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.” But this presumption is, in part, responsible for the difficulty of resolving the problem of evil. C.S. Lewis suggests that the persistent existence of evil is a price God considers “worth paying” for free will. But what if the ultimate prize was not having free will spirit beings choose to love their Creator? What if, instead, the prize was the ultimate destruction of evil? And what if the true purpose of man is to co-venture with God in the pursuit of this prize?

We might then see all expressions of evil in a different light. If, in the interplay of spiritual and natural process, it is necessary to let evil run its own course, to be overcome by goodness rather than subdued by a greater power, we could surmise that God’s hand must be restrained. Yes, he allows evil to persist. But the prize is not free will. The prize is evil’s complete undoing. This turns the whole theodicy issue upside down. If it is true that evil must be allowed full expression, and that it must ultimately be overcome not by force, but by the greater power of goodness, we can then begin to see that the best thing a good God can do is to let evil run its course. Of course, we must deal with the fact that evil claims millions of innocent victims in full view of God. But as we will see in a future post, the experience of even these victims of evil is cast in an entirely new light when their sufferings are viewed as a part of the necessary process of destroying the cause of all suffering.

All theories begin with a presumption. Mine begins with this one: evil has posed a more difficult problem for God than we have allowed ourselves to imagine. This will undoubtedly be a troubling concept for many. Christians might find it unthinkable that an omnipotent God could find any task “difficult”. But I am asking you to consider the following possibilities, and to respond with your comments.

I am suggesting that all of Creation exists as God’s answer to evil. I am suggesting that the purpose of God in creating the cosmos was to house and ultimately destroy evil. I am suggesting that God knew from the beginning that evil could not be dealt a final death blow without much suffering under its hand. I am suggesting that God is asking all of Creation to join in paying this price. I am suggesting that, from the beginning, God knew that he would lead the way in suffering, that no one would suffer more. But I am suggesting that even the sufferings of Christ would be incomplete; that the price of evil’s ultimate undoing would include the sufferings of many innocent victims. (The Biblical theme of non-resistance overcoming evil in the end plays into this scenario.)

In fact, many of these suggestions have strong Biblical support. Some have inferential support. But I will not be building the Biblical case for these concepts in this post as 1) this post is already too long! and 2) I would like to hear first from my readers.

I want to finish this post by reemphasizing what I am not saying. I am not saying that entropy is evil. I am suggesting that it is a piece of God’s plan to annihilate evil. And as such it is good. Genesis 1 tells us that God was pleased with every step of his creative work. Five times we read his assessment: “God saw that is was good.” I understand that God’s inclusion of death and decay in his original blueprint was provisional, but purposeful, and that it suited his plans perfectly. (It does appear from Scripture that entropy, death and decay, are tools available to the forces of evil ... that death itself is under the controlling influence of evil in the person of Satan.)

I am not promoting a new brand of dualism, in which good and evil are locked into an eternal “balance of power”. I am not saying that the power of evil is equal to the power of God. Evil, together with death and decay, will be vanquished. Its doom is certain. I am suggesting that the manner in which evil must be dealt with is far more complex and involved than we have thought. I am suggesting that the demise of evil has so far been a 13.7 billion year process, one that we cannot yet fully understand. And I am suggesting that all the out-workings of evil in this cosmos are a necessary part of its ultimate undoing.

Please comment.

POST #9: Theodicy, a New Approach (Part One)

The problem of evil presupposes that God is 1) good, and 2) all-powerful. When set against the backdrop of natural and moral evil in a cosmos he created and over which he rules, these two presuppositions set up an incongruence that deeply troubles thoughtful believers, and bars the pathway to belief for the skeptic. In earlier posts, I described this problem, and tested standard Christian answers to the problem and found them to be incomplete, or unsatisfying.

Perhaps our theodicies have failed to adequately answer the questions raised by evil because we have failed to ask the right questions:

The problem of evil assumes:
• God exercises unrestrained sovereignty ~ Does He?
• God is responsible for all events ~ Is He?
• God can end evil any moment he chooses ~ Can He?

The problem of evil exists, in part, because most Christians believe that the abolishing of evil would be a simple task for an Almighty God. Ask most Christians if God could crush evil, and they will respond “Sure, he could crush it under his little finger this very instant.” Christians profess that the power of God is much greater than the forces of evil; and most Christian theodicies presume therefore that God is “permitting” evil to persist for some higher purpose. Perhaps we need to take a step back and recast the drama of this cosmos, with some help from physics coupled with the teachings of the Bible. Take a journey with me to the end of time, and then follow (in part two) as we journey backwards to the very dawn of time, the first instant of the Creation Moment (aka the Big Bang).

But before we take these journeys, let me be clear about what I am not suggesting. Many have attempted to solve evil’s riddle by minimizing God’s power, or suggesting that the power of evil is equal to the power of God. There is a category of theodicies which deal with the problem of evil in this way, many embracing various forms of Dualism. I reject these views. The questions I am asking, and the answer I will be proposing, have nothing to do with lowering our view of God’s omnipotence, nor will they impact the free exercise of his sovereignty. Dualism, which sets Good and Evil into a kind of eternal balancing act, is not Scriptural. John assures us, “Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4), and all of biblical revelation points to a coming climactic victory over all God’s enemies.

I will suggest, however, that when evil arose in God’s presence, he was confronted with a formidable challenge. I will suggest that the annihilation of evil is the overriding purpose of the cosmos. I will suggest the destruction of evil was not a simple task, but one that required a 13.7 billion year process and a vast entropic universe to accomplish; and that it would involve untold suffering. I will suggest that in this suffering he himself would lead the way, but that he would also call upon creation, including man, to suffer with him. And I will suggest that, after the dust settles, angelic hosts who will have observed the entire process, will drop their jaws in utter amazement at the multi-faceted wisdom of God displayed through what he accomplished, in part, through people of faith (Ephesians 3:10).

It is necessary to return to the earlier posts on entropy, particularly third and final installment. In those posts, we established the timeline of entropy both from the sciences of cosmology and physics, and from the Scriptures. Let us now revisit those concepts.

First, we will move forward in time to the end of this present age. Here we will discover that entropy ends. The need for the sun as an energy source will cease (Isaiah 60:19, Revelation 7:16, 21:23; 22:5). Natural pain, suffering, and death, all products of entropy, will cease (Revelation 21:4). At the same time, Satan will be judged, and evil will be swallowed up forever. (Depending upon one’s eschatology, this may all happen at once, or be spread out by as much as 1000 years. But it all occurs within the context of the closing of this entropic world, and the creation of the new heavens and earth. In my own view, these events are all simultaneous.) Romans 8:18-23 describe this moment when all of creation is delivered from the bondage to decay, led into this liberty by the children of God, revealed in this late day to be sons (and daughters!) of God. The context suggests that suffering ceases in the same instant. From these specific Scriptures, and the general teaching of the Bible about the concurrent changes in both the spiritual realities and in the physics of the cosmos, I have concluded that the fate of entropy is in some way linked intrinsically to the fate of evil. We also understand from the Romans 8 passage that entropy was introduced into creation by the Creator himself, but included as a provisional element, one from which he fully intended to liberate creation in the fullness of time. If the fates of entropy and evil are thus linked, and if the plan of the Creator was that entropy would someday cease along with evil, we might conclude that the purpose of an entropic creation is related to evil, and to evil’s ultimate demise.

This conclusion, which is based upon physics, the Bible, and logic, is central to my entire thesis; if you tend to scan these posts, please read that last sentence of the previous paragraph slowly.

In my next post, we will travel back in time to the creation moment in an attempt to understand what might have been the ultimate purpose of the Creator. And I will then apply these understandings to theodicy.

... Interlude ... IS GOD GOOD?

I was just getting ready to write POST #9, when the discussion of my last post took a sharp turn. I am inviting comment on Jac’s contribution (which you can read by clicking here and scrolling down to the exchanges between Jac [“anonymous”] and myself). Jac raises a point which brings the whole matter of theodicy into question. Is it necessary to solve the riddle of how a good God who is also all-powerful can permit horrifying evil if we agree at the outset that the very same God perpetrates horrifying evils. To put it another way, why should anyone expect God to stop Hitler’s hand when God himself is on record killing innocent children in Egypt and Sodom, etc. If we start with a God who commits monstrous atrocities, does the Problem of Evil cease to exist as a problem. For the Problem of Evil begins with the assumption that God is good.

I have some ideas about how to deal with this legitimate question, but I would prefer to hear first from my readers. Please comment ...

POST #8: Theodicy, Standard Christian Arguments

When confronted with the horrible evil of sin and sin’s consequences, rather than launching into an angry diatribe on the injustices of God, or conversely, launching into a defense of the justice of God, we are told that Aaron simply “held his peace” (Leviticus 10:3). For many Jews and Christians, the only appropriate response to the horrors of evil in a universe created and governed by a good, loving, and just God is not to respond at all. They say we must take our place at Aaron’s side, and hold our peace. Many thus object to the very notion of “theodicy”, that branch of theology which seeks to justify God in the face of evil: “as if,” they might object, “God needed us to write his defense brief!” While this approach (or non-approach) to the problem of evil may satisfy some, it fails to move the millions of atheists for whom the very existence of evil is the lynchpin of their unbelief. Nevertheless, if you have found solace and satisfaction in simply accepting evil without giving further consideration to its meaning, then you need read no further. But if like me, you have grappled with the problem of evil, if you believe that the rational minds with which we are endowed naturally seek answers to the riddles of existence, if you are searching for answers that are sensible and satisfying, then I invite you to consider with me the possible meanings of evil in the cosmos.

In this post, we will briefly examine four typical theodicies which have been offered by believers, and we will test them against a set of defined criteria. We will ask, “do they work? have they the compelling force to satisfy the mind of the skeptic? do they give peace to the believer willing to ask the hardest of questions?

Evil is generally divided into two categories. 1. MORAL EVIL consisting of sin, and all the direct consequences of sin. Moral evil is caused by free moral agents. And, 2. NATURAL EVIL consisting of bad things that happen seemingly outside the causation of man: hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, diseases, genetic disorders, etc. Natural evils, it could be argued, all find their origination in entropy, and are thus the result of the very way in which the Creator fashioned the cosmos. Some might find in these categories some cross-over. Certain diseases, for example, may be caused by or exacerbated by the choices of free moral agents. But it is not our intention to draw a sharp line of distinction. Rather, we wish to identify these two kinds of evil as separate categories for the following purpose: a theodicy that “works” must account for both kinds of evil. This is the first criterion for testing theodicies.

For a theodicy to accomplish its own goal, it must uphold the character of God. A theodicy which leaves us troubling about the honor and consistency of God is no theodicy at all. The Greek philosopher Epicurus laid down the gauntlet some 300 years before Christ when he asked, “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” A working theodicy must result in an omnipotent, compassionate God with his honor and integrity firmly intact in the face of a cosmos brimming with evil. This is the second criterion for testing theodicies. Examine with me the standard Christian theodicies in light of these criteria, and judge for yourself.

1) “Evil is created for God’s glory.” For many who subscribe to Reformed Theology (or Calvinism), it is enough to say that all evil exists for the glory of God. God created evil (Isaiah 45:7), they say, for his own ultimate glory. He created a cosmos in which evil was not only possible, but assured, right down to the finest detail. This view suggests that the Holocaust itself originated in the mind of the Creator, and was his intended plan written into the blueprint of the cosmos. Though it is beyond our understanding (I can certainly agree with that!), evil somehow maximizes the glory of God. Certainly not all those in the Reformed camp subscribe to this form of rigid determinism. But many do. This theodicy makes God out to be the author of all sin and natural evil. It further suggests that when God created Satan, he specifically engineered him to rebel just as he did. His fall was written into his design specifications. While this may provide a rational, satisfying answer to some followers of Calvin, I find that it fails to satisfy our second criterion. Epicurus would not be placated. No atheist will be compelled to abandon his skepticism by this argument. And few believers will find the God of this argument consistent with the God they have come to love and trust.

2) “Evil does not exist.” Others will insist that evil, in fact, does not exist as an entity, or as a reality apart from goodness. The argument goes like this: just as darkness is merely the absence of light (we cannot “fill a room with darkness”), and is instantly dispelled by the introduction of light, so evil is merely the absence of goodness. Augustine first introduced this concept. He said that all being is good. Evil is the lack of being, the lack of goodness. From this argument, Augustine moved on to #3 below, stating that evil as we know it originated in the rebellion of mankind, and the rejection of the goodness which God intended to permeate the cosmos. The problem with the idea of evil’s non-existence is that it simply fails to live up to our experience. Particularly in the face of the 20th century horrors, most people find it completely irrational to argue that evil has no independent existence. There is an energy and driving force, a “life” we might say, of evil that goes beyond the mere absence of goodness. This argument fails the tests of reason and experience. But it also fails to account for natural evil, for reasons we will apply to #3, below.

3) “Evil is caused by Man.” Augustine declared, “All evil is either sin or the punishment for sin.” This view suggests that all moral evil is the direct result of the Fall, and the sin that it perpetuates; and that all natural evil is the indirect result of the Fall, a consequence of the curses of Genesis 3:14-19. While this argument might have worked in Augustine’s day, we now understand that it cannot account for all natural evil. The earth is filled with mountains of evidence that the pre-Adamic world included natural disasters of every description: diseases, death, meteorites and thousands of species extinctions. If chronology has any bearing upon causation, we simply can no longer lay the responsibility for evil at the feet of fallen man.

Thus, each of these first three lines of reasoning fail to meet our criteria for a working theodicy. But it is the fourth theodicy argument to which most Christians today subscribe. For many thoughtful believers, it is the only option that holds out the hope of resolving evil’s riddle. Does it pass the test?

4) “Evil is necessary for Free Will to have meaning.” (This theodicy has numerous variations, including the more thoughtful “free-process theology” version espoused by John Polkinghorne and others, for which I feel some affinity. Some may wish to present a cogent and convincing case for the more sophisticated versions of this theodicy, and I welcome them to do so in the comments for this post. For the sake of brevity, I will state this argument in its simplest terms.) The typical line of reasoning goes something like this. In order to have a world in which free moral agents would have a clear choice, and thus be truly free, they must be given a viable alternative to God and goodness; hence, evil. A presupposition is that God considered it desirable to create moral agents who would freely choose him. And while he may bring some influence to bear upon his creatures, he does not use coercion. I have read and heard this line of theodicy reasoning all my life. I must say that it has always left me cold! It describes a God so desirous of creatures who choose him that if the cost is unimaginable innocent human suffering, well, so be it. This sort of ends-justify-the-means rationale leaves us with a monstrous God willing to sacrifice Jewish babies on the altars of Nazi bonfires—they are just the collateral damage—for the gratification of his desire that people have a genuine choice.

Has there ever been a single atheist or agnostic “won over” by any of these standard Christian theodicy arguments? Has a single skeptic ever abandoned his problem-of-evil objection to theism after being confronted with one of these lines of reasoning? I’ve never heard of one. Neither have I read any Christian apologist who is satisfied with his own theodicy argument. Whether its C.S. Lewis, Os Guinness, or John Polkinghorne, each writer closes his argument by confessing his own lack of satisfaction. In his own way, each one declares that we do not have an adequate answer to this riddle. Could it be that we have been looking at evil through the wrong lens? In my next post, I want to suggest an approach to evil’s riddle that does meet the criteria, for me at least, and perhaps, for you as well.

POST #7 Theodicy, Evil's Riddle

With this post, we launch into a discussion of the “Problem of Evil”. This post is part one of a three part discussion ...

From a distance we all have enough,
and no one is in need.
And there are no guns, no bombs, and no disease,
no hungry mouths to feed....
God is watching us. God is watching us.
God is watching us from a distance.

Bette Middler popularized these Julie Gold lyrics in her 1990 hit single, “From a Distance”. In the shadow of the First Gulf War, our nation sang along as the recording climbed the charts to #1. It expresses the highest hopes of many postmodern minds. God, if he exists at all, must be the God of the deist: distant, uninvolved, perhaps even uncaring. Why is God watching us only “from a distance”? Because if he were truly here, he would surely do more to correct the many evils of the world.

Deism is that belief which conceptualizes God as something of a watchmaker. He designs and creates the watch, sets it to ticking, and then never picks it up again. Deism was born in the wake of an earlier war, the devastating 30 year war in Europe. It gained traction from the scientific advancements of the 17th and 18th century. But deism is primarily an effort on man’s part to harmonize the notion of a God with the realities of the evil and suffering we see on earth.

From the standpoint of the skeptic, there is no greater barrier to belief than the problem of evil. It is the issue most often cited by the atheist and the agnostic. It has been called the “rock of atheism” (Hans Kung). All my adult life, I have struggled with this problem, and the standard Christian responses. The problem can be summarized by the following broken syllogism:

1) If God is personal, good, loving and compassionate; and
2) if God is all-powerful, in control of the cosmos; then
3) how and why does atrocious evil, including man on man violence and what is sometimes called “natural evil” (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, meteorites, etc) resulting in so much human suffering and death, continue to exist.

The problem of evil is by far the most rational and forceful argument in the arsenal of thinking unbelievers against an all-powerful, benevolent God. It is also the most difficult riddle for thoughtful people of faith.

The greatest mind of the last century, Albert Einstein, struggled with belief in a God. His own theory of General Relativity predicted that our universe had a beginning, and thus, a First Cause. But this conclusion he found distasteful, and he tried to overcome it with new theories. But when Edwin Hubble’s telescope established the origin of the universe from a single point, Einstein finally yielded to the necessity of a Creator. His own discoveries led him to abandon his earlier agnosticism, and he become a professed believer in God. But he settled upon the god of the deist, as he could never bring himself to believe in the Christian God or the God of his own Jewish upbringing. Einstein rejected the notion of a personal God. The reason? he could find no way around the problem of evil.

The many horrors of the 20th Century served to deepen this troubling conundrum. The Jewish theologian Eugene Borowitz commented on the Holocaust:

“Any God who could permit the Holocaust, who could remain silent during it, who could ‘hide His face’ while it dragged on, was not worth believing in. There might well be a limit to how much we could understand Him, but Auschwitz demanded an unreasonable suspension of understanding. In the face of such great evil, God, the good and the powerful, was too inexplicable, so men said, ‘God is dead.’”

The horrors of the Holocaust are all too well known. For their evening entertainment, Nazi soldiers trucked small Jewish children to their bonfires, dumping them into the fire. As the terrified screaming children attempted to flee the flames, Nazis armed with pitchforks stood guard, barring their way. The drumbeat of evil touching the lives of our most vulnerable continues to roll: every day, on some street in Thailand, or perhaps another country, some small child is whisked away from his or her parents, and sold into sex-slavery, destined now to die of some horrible disease at a young age. And God looks on.

There is a profound exchange in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamozov in which Ivan relates a very sad story to his brother Alyosha, an Orthodox priest. It is the story of a young boy’s unfortunate scrape with a cruel general in the Russian Army. The boy had thrown a stone which hit the paw of the general’s favorite hunting dog. This enraged the general, and he put the boy in a cold cell for the night. The following morning, while the boy’s mother looked on, the boy was stripped naked, and ordered to run. The general then turned his hunting dogs loose, and the boy was torn to pieces. Ivan asks his brother this searing question:

“Tell me yourself, I challenge you. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell me the truth.”

Os Guiness identifies the problem of evil as “life’s greatest challenge,” which is the subtitle of his book Unspeakable published in 2005. Written in a post 9/11 age, Unspeakable offers a chilling discussion of the manifestations of evil which reached a horrifying crescendo during the last century. The answers he suggests for this riddle come from one of the greatest contemporary evangelical thinkers, but I found them to be personally unsatisfying.

Evil’s existence has given rise to a branch of theology and apologetics called theodicy, man’s effort to explain why horrendous evil survives in a universe created and governed by a benevolent Almighty. The word theodicy literally implies an effort to “justify God”. From C.S. Lewis (The Problem of Pain) to Os Guiness (Unspeakable) Christians have sought to make sense of this horrible riddle. There are typical lines of reasoning suggested in Christian theodicy. I have heard and read these proposed solutions from many sources. In my next post, I will discuss the typical Christian response to the problem of evil, including the response that objects to the notion that we should even ask these hard questions. I will let the reader judge if these responses are rational and satisfying. In a subsequent post, I will reexamine the problem of evil in light of the earlier posts on entropy, and suggest a new understanding of the place of evil in this cosmos.