 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
||
Does Evil Disprove Posted to talk.atheism and
talk.religion.misc on March 24, 1996 Is the existence of evil a fatal counter-argument to Christian claims of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God? As John Hick points out, the problem of evil has been a
constant preoccupation for Christian theology. Augustine made it the central theme of his theology in the fifth century and Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, considered it one of the two strongest arguments against
the existence of God (John Hick, _Evil and the God of Love_ Rev. Edition, 1978) p. 3. Thomas Aquinas presents the argument he intends to contest: Article 3. Is there a God? THE THIRD POINT: 1. It seems that there
is no God. For if, of two mutually exclusive things, one were to exist without limit, the other would cease to exist. But by the word " God" <lb> is implied some limitless good. If God then existed,
nobody would ever encounter evil. But evil is encountered in the world. God therefore does not exist." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Volume 1: The Existence of God, Part One: Questions 1 - 13, Image
Books, 1969) p. 67. It is a simple enough case to make: 1. If God were omnipotent, he *could* prevent evil, and 2. if God were omnibenevolent, he *would* prevent evil, yet
3. evil (natural as well as moral) exists. God is either able to prevent evil, yet won't, or is willing to prevent evil, yet can't. In either event, we are left with a " sub-Christian" understanding
of God which limits God's goodness or power. Or perhaps we can take St. Augustine's tack, and question the existence of evil? Maybe there is no evil, there are only greater and lesser goods? While this argument may
have merit from a metaphysical point of view (i.e., denying the ontological status of evil), it hardly seems convincing from an experiential point of view (Hick) p.58. It is only in the realm of theoretical argument
that one can consider a concentration camp as a " lesser good" . Rather than attempt to deny any of the three legs of this argument, I will try to produce a counter-argument that says the three legs *are*
consistent. I will not resort to one particular traditional Christian counter-argument that solves the problem through reference to some transcendent realm beyond our immediate experience - whether that realm is
conceived as spatial (heaven) or temporal (the 2nd Coming of Christ). The counter-argument will be based on the paradoxical experience of transcendence in *this* world. But on the other hand, I will attempt to provide
a counter-argument that is recognizably Christian. And that answer will probably not be palatable to skeptics. Actually, I don't find it particularly palatable myself. It is an argument that underscores the particular
way in which God transcends humanity. It is, I believe, the truly offensive character of the gospel - and it is as offensive to Christians as it is to anyone else. If one seeks a firm foundation for the rejection of
the Christian world view, one has come to the right place. The first thing I'm going to suggest is that the argument as presented is out of order, at least from a Christian point-of-view. The experience of God,
IMHO, is directly connected to the experience of evil. Evil may pose a problem regarding belief in the Christian god, but it may be the experience of evil in the first place which raises the question of god(s). I will
re-present and expand the first two points of the argument from my point-of-view as a Christian. 1. We experience evil as a threat to the ultimate meaning, value and purpose of life. Evil is *not*, IMHO, suffering and
death. Animals experience suffering and death, but I do not believe they experience evil. To experience evil, one must be capable of symbolically conceptualizing suffering and death - as abstract realities - as a threat
to ultimate meaning, value and purpose. Without this ability to abstract suffering and death as symbols or concepts, it is hard to see how suffering and death would pose any additional problems to humans than it does
to the other animals. Like them, we would merely suffer and die without any particular anticipation which threatens our sense of meaning, value and purpose. 2. Christians experience evil's threat to the ultimate
meaning, value and purpose in life as being overcome. Since they see nothing in natural reality capable of overcoming evil, they experience the source of this overcoming of evil as supernatural. 3. Because this
overcoming of evil is experienced as something which transcends the possibilities of natural reality, God (as the supernatural source of this experience) is believed to be omnipotent. That is not to say that God has a
lot of power, it is to say that the grid of natural and human power which *we* must contend with is not a restriction for God. This, to me, is similar to saying that a three dimensional object transcends a two
dimensional shape - not by having those two dimensions to the nth degree, but by having a third dimension that the two dimensional shape does not. 4. Because this overcoming of evil is accomplished on our behalf, and
because this overcoming is experienced as the central aspect of our experience of God, God is believed - by Christians - to be omnibenevolent. Having re-stated and expanded the first two points of the argument (God is
omnipotent, and God is omnibenevolant), where does this leave us with regard to the third (evil exists)? For even if Christians, on occasion, experience the supernatural overcoming of evil in this world (which, I
suppose, is one possi- ble interpretation of the word " miracle" ), how does one explain the vast majority of non-miraculous events in which suffering and death threaten ultimate meaning, value and purpose?
There is, IMHO, a hidden assumption in the original argument. The original argument presupposes that if there was a God, and God was all powerful and all benevolent, then God would overcome evil the same way an all
powerful and all benevolent person would. And this is precisely what the Christian gospel claims God does *not* do in this world. The Christian gospel does not primarily know God as one who is omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, the Christian gospel primarily knows God as the one who is revealed in Jesus Christ. " Jesus Christ" is the metaphor which controls the interpretation of the metaphor " God" .
And so, when a Christian claims God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, one must go to the biblical presentation of Jesus Christ to find out what they mean. I believe what I am claiming about the Christian proclamation
can be supported from the main body of the New Testament. But I will look at only three texts. [BTW, I am not assuming that because something is presented in the Bible, it is necessarily a historically recoverable
event from the life of Jesus. I'm not even assuming it is true. But although this is being posted to talk.atheism and talk.religion.misc, and although I understand many of those readers do not consider the writings of
the New Testament to be authoritative, the point of my argument is to present a counter-argument that is demonstrably Christian - and it is for *that* limited purpose that I introduce biblical texts. Besides, I don't
want my friends on talk.atheism to assume I wouldn't know a Bible if I tripped over one, which, based on some of their veiled references to my " alternative" interpretations of Christianity, I suspect
they believe. :-)]
And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, " Who do men say that I am?" And they told him, " John the Baptist; and
others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets." And he asked them, " But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, " You are the Christ." And he charged them to
tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
And he said this plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disci- ples, he rebuked Peter, and said, " Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of
men." And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, " If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his
life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. (Mark 8:27-35) RSV
The point of all this is simple. Peter, the disciple portrayed as the *first* disciple to recognize Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah, of God, is also portrayed as rejecting the idea of a Christ who does not resist
suffering a humiliating death at the hands of his enemies. Jesus' accusation: " You are on the side of men, not God" shows the degree to which God's solution to the problem of evil differs from our preferred
solution - which, in the movie version, would cast Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, or Sylvester Stallone in the role of Jesus :-) In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, overcomes suffering and death through
voluntary submission to it. And this is done on behalf of the world. The second example is from the (almost certainly authentic) writings of St. Paul. In his roller coaster dealings with the young Corinthian
community, he is confronted with " super-apostles" , who support their claims to authority through powerful, polished proclamation of their gospel, personal testimony regarding their exalted spiritual
experiences, and lists of mighty miracles they have performed (attested by letters of recommendation from other Christian communities). In short, they demonstrate the supernatural character of their gospel through the
conquest of an earthly life involving suffering and death. And it is to this that Paul responds when asked to justify his authority based on the same criteria of worldly power.
I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool, in this boastful confidence;
since many boast of worldly things, I too will boast.) For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on
airs, or strikes you in the face. To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever any one dares to boast of - I am speaking as a fool - I also dare to boast of that. Are they Hebrews? So am I.
Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one - I am talking like a madman - with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless
beatings, and often near death. Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a
night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from rob- bers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at
sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon
me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the
Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the
wall, and escaped his hands. (II Cor. 11:16- 32)
Paul goes on to describe his own spiritual experience of being caught up in the third heaven, but distances himself from it by telling it in the third person (" I know a man in Christ..." ). He says he will
boast on behalf of this man, but not himself.
On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so
that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to
keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, " My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will
all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am
weak, then I am strong. (II Cor. 12:5- 10)
In Paul's sarcastic presentation of himself, he not only has no " mighty miracles" to show (beyond his daily sufferings, toils and dangers) - his prayer for his own healing isn't even effective! And when
pursued by an unbelieving governor, he escapes through being lowered ignominiously from the city wall in a basket so that he may flee for his life. No. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood or Sylvester Stallone will not work in
this role, either. In conclusion, at least one Christian response to the question, " If God is all powerful and all good, why doesn't God overcome evil?" is that God in Christ *has* overcome evil. For the
Christian, the experience of suffering and death has paradoxically become a place where one finds the ultimate meaning, value and purpose of human life radically established rather than radically threatened:
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange was happening to you. But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also
rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. (I Peter 4:12-13) RSV
Or, in the words of the late William Stringfellow (discussing loneliness as a foretaste of death (as evil)):
In the submission of Christ to death, the power of death is dissipated. In the subjection of Christ to death, the dread is taken out of loneliness. Christ suffered loneliness without dispair. In the radical
loneliness of Christ is the assurance that no one is alone. In surrender to death, in hell, in the event in which the presence and power of death is most notorious, undisguised, militant, and pervasive, the reality
and grace of God are triumphant. In the event in which you are alone with your own death - when all others and all things are absent and gone - God's initiative affirms your very creation and that you are given your
life anew. In the moment and place where God is least expected - in the barrenness and emptiness of death - God is at hand. It is in that event that a person discovers it is death which is alone, not he. (William
Stringfellow, _Instead of Death_, 1976) pp. 32-33.
In this sense, the Christian position is midway between an overly optimistic heroism which conceives the conquest of evil as a human possibility in the natural world and an overly pessimistic Stoic resignation which
sees evil as something to be endured rather than conquered. And it is in this way that Christians consider the statements: 1. God is omnipotent, 2. God is omnibenevolent, and 3. Evil exists to constitute a coherent,
Christian view of reality. Return to top of page
. Return to Return to Return to The Inclusive Christian |
||
Return to top of page. |
||