On Fri, 22 Mar 1996 01:32:05 -0700 (MST) you wrote to Norm Smith:
NS>Thanks, Bill, for that response about God and a billion years of
>death....The notion that it might be the evil one who has been messing
>things up here for a billion years is an fascinating possibility....At
>any rate I am not yet as comfortable as you indicate with the idea
>that God would tolerate pain for a billion years....That runs against
>my notions of Christianity but I realize it might not be troubling
>from other viewpoints.
TM>Hmm, I've always been confused about the "pain" issue of
>Christianity and an old earth. I've heard atheists argue strongly
>that if evolution is true, then the Christian god must be false
>because of this issue. However, I've seen it also used by Christians
>as an anti-evolution point.
Firstly, even if "the Christian god" was "false", that does not rule
out the existence of God, so it is not support atheism. God could
still be an all-powerful Creator, who is indifferent to the suffering
of His creatures. OTOH God might be a good God, who is not
all-powerful. While we might not like the first God, or respect the
second God, such a God He could still exist, and atheism be false.
Secondly, Christians have always recognised what C.S. Lewis called
"The Problem of Pain". How can a good, all-powerful God, allow evil?
Either God is not good or He is not all-powerful. The argument has
merit, indeed it is IMHO *the* single most difficult argument against
the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
The first point is, where did this idea of "good" come from. It is a
moral absolute, and therefore requires the Christian God to support
the argument. This is the point that William Lane Craig made in his
debate with Frank Zindler on the video "Atheism v Christianity". The
idea of absolute goodness *requires* the Christian God. If atheism is
true, then there is no absolute good. The problem of pain is a
problem *only* for Christianity. It is a non-issue for atheism. Ravi
Zacharias relates a humorous story:
"Let me narrate an interaction I had with a student at the University
of Nottingham in England. As soon as I finished one of my lectures,
he shot up from his seat and blurted out rather angrily, "There is too
much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God." I asked
him to remain standing and answer a few questions for me. I said, "If
there is such a thing as evil, aren't you assuming there is such a
thing as good?" He paused, reflected, and said, "I guess so. " "If
there is such a thing as good," I countered, "you must affirm a moral
law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and
evil."...."When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is
good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a
moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and
evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral
lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not
prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If
there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there
is no evil. What, then, is your question?" There was a conspicuous
pause that was broken when he said rather sheepishly, "What, then, am
I asking you?" (Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God", Word
Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p182-183)
TM>I have several problems with both these issues someone might be
able to enlighten.
>
>First, since "good" is subjective, pain and suffering can be "good,"
>depending on the outcome.
No. On Christian premises, "good" is *objective* being grounded in the
will of a good God.
Indeed, it is precisely because there is this "good" God (Mk 10:18),
Christians can be sure that "all things work together for good" for
them and that in the end "God will wipe away every tear from their
eyes" (Rev 7:17; Rev 21:4).
TM>Second, the Christian god did intentially inflict pain and
>suffering on people in the Bible, and many claim today that their
>pain and suffering is a test of faith by God.
There is an important point here. The Scriptures emphatically reject
the idea that God personally inflicts pain and suffering on people.
For example, James 1:12-13 says "Blessed is the man who perseveres
under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the
crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. When
tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot
be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone...". God may *allow* pain
and suffering, but He does not personally inflict it.
TM>Hugh Ross, for example, argues that natural disasters are "good"
>even though they inflict heavy damage, suffering and loss of life.
If Hugh Ross says that, then he is IMHO wrong. Nowhere does the Bible
say that natural disasters are "good", although they might lead to
good outcomes.
TM>I guess my point is, if pain and suffering can be "good" depending
>on the outcome, then the objection to God by atheists because of the
>pain and suffering, and the objection to evolution by Christians
>because of pain and suffering becomes severely weakened....
Agreed. It is part of apologetics to try to explain the purpose of
"pain and suffering". IMHO the "pain and suffering" argument of
atheists and YECs (strange bedfellows? <g>) is overdone. Each
individual animal only feels its own "pain and suffering", and this is
normally brief and insignificant in the context of the animal's total
life. We anthropomorphise much of the "pain and suffering" animals,
when clearly they do not have the nervous system and imagination that
human beings have. The Bible is mainly concerned with the "pain and
suffering" and death of man who alone is made in the image of God.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------