GREAT piece on God...Goodness...Evil...Love...and 'why?'

[dmp]

I found what this guy writes to be spot-on.

...we have this idea that if God put us here on this earth and created the world for us to live in, then it seems to make sense that the summum bonum-the greatest good-is our immediate sense of personal pleasure and satisfaction. Therefore, if there is some circumstance in which we can't have immediate satisfaction, then God must either have abandoned us, not exist, or be evil for allowing such a thing.

Last weekend I had a conversation with a young man about homosexuality. He challenged me with this point: Why would God create people as homosexuals if He didn't want them to experience the pleasure of homosexual sex?

Now, of course, I didn't agree with Him that God created people to be homosexuals. It wasn't God's design that they have this desire. But even if I conceded such a thing, why must I admit that-since one was created with a capacity for pleasure-only a mean, cruel God would allow conditions in which they'd have to say no to that pleasure?

When you think about it for a moment, doesn't it strike you as odd that we've developed a view that in order for us to acknowledge God as good, He must give liberty to all of our passions? And if God doesn't give liberty to all of our passions-if He doesn't allow us what we want, when we want it-if He ever asks for self sacrifice, if He ever allows a condition in which we hurt, in which we suffer, in which we are inconvenienced, if He ever allows a circumstance in which our bodily desires are not given full reign, then certainly He must be a cruel God? Isn't that an odd view?

Do you know what kind of person thinks that way? A child. A child sees what it wants and goes to get it, and if it's stopped, that child puts up a fuss.

I was with a little two-year-old today who wanted to go into the house while wearing muddy shoes. She was stopped, and she put up a fuss when her shoes were removed. Mom and Dad knew, though, that there were other things more important than their daughter's desires at that moment. Now she didn't understand it. All she knew was what she wanted (understandably, by the way, she's a two-year-old; that's the way two-year-olds think).

Unfortunately, we've bred a society that are, in many ways, like a bunch of adult two-year-olds, grown-ups who believe it's their divine right to feel every pleasure they can possibly feel, to never encounter any difficulty, any pain, any suffering. And if they do, then God must be a cruel God.

Now I realize that some of you might be thinking, Come on, Koukl, you're really whitewashing this, aren't you. How can so much egregious suffering be justified?

I don't at all mean to brush away the terrible impact of evil on people's lives. But I'm talking about a frame of mind that we do seem to have, a frame of mind that we are first and our pleasures are first and God owes that to us. And if He denies us our pleasures to any degree, then there must be something wrong with Him.

Now if God is a good God, and He denies us our pleasures, then I'll tell you one thing, there's a good reason He does so. That's what it means to be a good God. I'm not going to buy the idea-the infantile idea that Americans have-that in order for God to be considered good, He has to give me everything I want, when I want it, or conversely, He must protect me from every injury and every difficulty. No, it's fair to say that God has allowed suffering in the world for very good reasons, even though we're not clear on all of those reasons.

By the way, what's the alternative? If you conclude there's no God because of the existence of evil, then there's no possibility of ever redeeming that evil for good.

British philosopher Bertrand Russell said that no one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God. My response to Mr. Russell is, "What would you say to a dying child?" What could an atheist say? "Too bad"? "Tough luck"? "Bum deal"? You see, in that circumstance, there's no possibility of redemption for that evil. In fact, it doesn't seem to make sense to even call it evil at all if there is no God.

But with God, at least there's the possibility that the evil can be used for good. That's the promise of the Scriptures.

And so, instead of the syllogism, "God created all things, and evil is a thing, therefore God created evil," we start from a different point. "All things God created are good-which is what the text says-and evil isn't good, therefore God didn't create evil." Then we can progress to, "If God created all things, and God didn't create evil, then evil is not a thing."

You see, those two syllogisms are just as valid as the first one (if God created all things, and evil is a thing, then God created evil), and it seems that the premises are more reliable. The premises seem to be accurate and true.

The questions we have to ask ourselves are: Do we have reason to think that God is good, and do we have reason to think that evil is not a thing? If we have good reasons to think those two things, then our new set of syllogisms work.

We can then strongly trust that when God does allow a privation of good (evil) to influence our lives, He does it not for evil designs, but ultimately for good purposes.

 

[wade]

This whole argument is flawed. It does not answer the question of why the innocent are made to suffer, it talks only about unfulfilled desire. What about the child born with a horrible disease? What about the torments of the totally innocent?

If this kind of thinking is to even be considered, these questions must be answered - and they cannot be because a fair and just God would not allow such things. There are only two answers that are reasonable:

1) There is no God.

2) God cannot intervene, for whatever reason.

Any other answer implies a cruel and unjust God.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I found what this guy writes to be spot-on.

YAY! I'm quite pleased with the form of this article. Seems the author had some training in philosophy and logic. I don't necessarily agree with the content but the form is nice.

I wish we could all argue as logical and civil.

Do you have the link to the website so I can get the whole article?

 

[5stringJeff]

This whole argument is flawed. It does not answer the question of why the innocent are made to suffer, it talks only about unfulfilled desire. What about the child born with a horrible disease? What about the torments of the totally innocent?

If this kind of thinking is to even be considered, these questions must be answered - and they cannot be because a fair and just God would not allow such things. There are only two answers that are reasonable:

1) There is no God.

2) God cannot intervene, for whatever reason.

Any other answer implies a cruel and unjust God.

Great question, and one that deserves an answer I don't have time to give right now. MTF.

 

[5stringJeff]

Hey Darin...

 

[dmp]

I posted the link...pay attention people.. :funnyface

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I posted the link...pay attention people.. :funnyface

Where? I'm either unable to find it or it isn't there.

 

[insein]

will one of you change your avatars. Your confusing the hell out of me.

 

[dmp]

Where? I'm either unable to find it or it isn't there.

quote my original post or hover over the smilie

 

[Zhukov]

No, it's fair to say that God has allowed suffering in the world for very good reasons, even though we're not clear on all of those reasons.

I for one would like to know 'all of those reasons' and I can't conceive of what they could possibly be.

My response to Mr. Russell is, "What would you say to a dying child?" What could an atheist say?

We lie, just like everyone else.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

quote my original post or hover over the smilie

Ah...the smiley...clever. How does that work?

Thanks

 

[MissileMan]

Last weekend I had a conversation with a young man about homosexuality. He challenged me with this point: Why would God create people as homosexuals if He didn't want them to experience the pleasure of homosexual sex?

Now, of course, I didn't agree with Him that God created people to be homosexuals. It wasn't God's design that they have this desire. But even if I conceded such a thing, why must I admit that-since one was created with a capacity for pleasure-only a mean, cruel God would allow conditions in which they'd have to say no to that pleasure?

When you think about it for a moment, doesn't it strike you as odd that we've developed a view that in order for us to acknowledge God as good, He must give liberty to all of our passions? And if God doesn't give liberty to all of our passions-if He doesn't allow us what we want, when we want it-if He ever asks for self sacrifice, if He ever allows a condition in which we hurt, in which we suffer, in which we are inconvenienced, if He ever allows a circumstance in which our bodily desires are not given full reign, then certainly He must be a cruel God? Isn't that an odd view?
Do you know what kind of person thinks that way? A child. A child sees what it wants and goes to get it, and if it's stopped, that child puts up a fuss.

I was with a little two-year-old today who wanted to go into the house while wearing muddy shoes. She was stopped, and she put up a fuss when her shoes were removed. Mom and Dad knew, though, that there were other things more important than their daughter's desires at that moment. Now she didn't understand it. All she knew was what she wanted (understandably, by the way, she's a two-year-old; that's the way two-year-olds think).

Unfortunately, we've bred a society that are, in many ways, like a bunch of adult two-year-olds, grown-ups who believe it's their divine right to feel every pleasure they can possibly feel, to never encounter any difficulty, any pain, any suffering. And if they do, then God must be a cruel God.

No, it sounds like a perfectly logical question and stance. What possible purpose is there in suffering, especially the suffering of the innocent? If an infant contracts measles and is rendered blind and retarded, what possible purpose can there be for that? It can't be to test the faith of the infant, so perhaps it is to test the faith of that infant's parents. So your argument is that god is condemning this baby to a life of darkness, but it's ok, because god has a purpose. Or maybe your argument is that Evil did that to the infant and god let it happen as part of his grand plan. Either way it works out the same.

That point of view sounds more childish and naive than the 2-year old. Bad things happen, Good things happen, it's called life! I believe that some people are evil. I do not however believe in Evil as an entity in itself. I also believe that some people are good on the opposite end of the spectrum, Mother Theresa comes to mind. I believe most of us go through life somewhere in the middle whether you are religious or not.

 

[wade]

No, it sounds like a perfectly logical question and stance. What possible purpose is there in suffering, especially the suffering of the innocent? If an infant contracts measles and is rendered blind and retarded, what possible purpose can there be for that? It can't be to test the faith of the infant, so perhaps it is to test the faith of that infant's parents. So your argument is that god is condemning this baby to a life of darkness, but it's ok, because god has a purpose. Or maybe your argument is that Evil did that to the infant and god let it happen as part of his grand plan. Either way it works out the same.

That point of view sounds more childish and naive than the 2-year old. Bad things happen, Good things happen, it's called life! I believe that some people are evil. I do not however believe in Evil as an entity in itself. I also believe that some people are good on the opposite end of the spectrum, Mother Theresa comes to mind. I believe most of us go through life somewhere in the middle whether you are religious or not.

Well said MissileMan.

Earlier in this thread I stated there were only two reasons I could see for suffering of the innocent. Well, I've thought of a third. The reasons are:

1) God does not exist.

2) God cannot, for whatever reason, intervene on behalf of the innocent.

and the new reason...

3) Only I exist - everyone else is just an illusion created to test me. So no one is really suffering, with the possible exception of... ME!

 

[alien21010]

Wade, what makes you any more real than me, or the person sitting next to you? For all we know we could all be separate programs in some computer, that may or may not exist. That is the true question. Whether or not we exist.

I like how this author likens Atheism to a two year old. However, most atheists derive their beliefs based upon evidence, or the lack there of for various deities.

Two year olds believe in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy, both of which are far more plausible than God to one who can examine the evidence objectively.

 

[wade]

Wade, what makes you any more real than me, or the person sitting next to you? For all we know we could all be separate programs in some computer, that may or may not exist. That is the true question. Whether or not we exist.

I like how this author likens Atheism to a two year old. However, most atheists derive their beliefs based upon evidence, or the lack there of for various deities.

Two year olds believe in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy, both of which are far more plausible than God to one who can examine the evidence objectively.

The only person I know to really exist is myself. Everything else is just sensory experiance. Now I personally choose to believe that others exist, but the only experiance I have is my experiance.

As for the authors arguments against Atheism - they're pure bunk. Only the non-objective reader will find anything in them at all.

 

[sagegirl]

there are so so many assumptions being made here that any interpretation is totally illogical. I am agnostic, I think the concept is absolutely beyond our capacity. It is certainly fun to postulate on all the possibilities but dont take yourselves too seriously. We are indulgent, this is a physical existence. We see, we smell, we touch, .....we contemplate our purpose....enjoy the exerience, dont be too judgemental about what someone else chooses to do. If you believe in God, leave that up to God.

 

[wade]

there are so so many assumptions being made here that any interpretation is totally illogical. I am agnostic, I think the concept is absolutely beyond our capacity. It is certainly fun to postulate on all the possibilities but dont take yourselves too seriously. We are indulgent, this is a physical existence. We see, we smell, we touch, .....we contemplate our purpose....enjoy the exerience, dont be too judgemental about what someone else chooses to do. If you believe in God, leave that up to God.

I to am agnostic. I hope there is a God, but it really depends on how you define God for me to say if I believe in God or not. I believe that it really doesn't matter, we should all live our lives rightly regaurdless of if there is a God or not.

What I find funny is that people who are so sure there is a God almost always end up arguing that there must be a God because there is no way the Universe could have happened randomly - there must have been a creator. Well, to me that would make sense, if they could just answer the question: And who created God?

 

[5stringJeff]

I to am agnostic. I hope there is a God, but it really depends on how you define God for me to say if I believe in God or not. I believe that it really doesn't matter, we should all live our lives rightly regaurdless of if there is a God or not.

What I find funny is that people who are so sure there is a God almost always end up arguing that there must be a God because there is no way the Universe could have happened randomly - there must have been a creator. Well, to me that would make sense, if they could just answer the question: And who created God?

As to your first point, Wade, why would you live rightly if there is no God? What motivation is there to live a righteous life if there if no afterlife or consequence for living a certain way?

As to your second point: who created God? God, as defined in the Bible, has no beginning or end. He is a being outside of the confines of time. He is the First Cause, the thing which causes all other things.

 

[wade]

As to your first point, Wade, why would you live rightly if there is no God? What motivation is there to live a righteous life if there if no afterlife or consequence for living a certain way?

Because it's the right way to live. I don't choose not to steal because I think I might get caught, I don't steal because it is wrong. I don't need to believe in God to believe that my fellow man should be treated with honor and respect. Why do you?

As to your second point: who created God? God, as defined in the Bible, has no beginning or end. He is a being outside of the confines of time. He is the First Cause, the thing which causes all other things.

And that's my point. If that is your answer, then the original "proof" for why there must be a God - because someone had to have created us and the world, is fallacious. Do you not see the flaw in the logic?

 

[5stringJeff]

Because it's the right way to live. I don't choose not to steal because I think I might get caught, I don't steal because it is wrong. I don't need to believe in God to believe that my fellow man should be treated with honor and respect. Why do you?

I choose not to steal because the Bible, which I take as God's Word, tells me not to steal. My question to you is, if you are an atheist (or agnostic) and believe that there is no God, no afterlife, no consequences for what we do on Earth, then what causes you to believe that others "should be treated with honor and respect?" If you say that it's the "right way," how did you come to that conclusion? It certainly goes against the theory of naturalism, which states that you should act in your own self-interest, and the people in your way be damned.

And that's my point. If that is your answer, then the original "proof" for why there must be a God - because someone had to have created us and the world, is fallacious. Do you not see the flaw in the logic?

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that there has to be a First Cause for the universe. I say that the First Cause is God.