So we’re at the place where we can say a couple-four things from the existential side of the problem of evil:
[1] from the perspective that pain exists, and we perceive it, we as human beings (you could say “people”) have an urge to do something about it when we see it.
[2] that urge even extends to the pain of others; we have the ability to empathize with the pain of others and therefore want to do something about it as well.
[3] Often – and I would make the case that almost always — the problem of pain results in our having to choose to suffer a greater loss to end one kind of pain or suffering. For example, to end the holocaust and the death of 6 million Jews, people were willing to pay the price of over 60 million deaths.
[4] Atheism in general doesn’t give us the philosophical tools to sort out when a greater loss is worth the price of ending the suffering of others – and in fact it can create dilemmas like the problem of what to do with children who are being indoctrinated by their parents into ideas we do not agree with.
And the atheist, as we have noted, would say this: “yes, fine – but that doesn’t get your idea of God off the hook. God should be good enough and smart enough and strong enough to have made a universe in which we shouldn’t have to choose between bankrupting a prosperous nation and feeding all the hungry children in the world. Your ‘God’ should be clever enough to sort out how to have made all of us all happy all the time – and in the very least, He didn’t. So in the best case for you, He’s not all you have cracked Him up to be.”
Yes, well: let’s hold the horses here. Before we stampede all over God’s goodness or wisdom or power, I think the Atheist has frankly left his barn door open before he can get to this critique.
Let’s consider something: if in the atheist existential case we can admit that in order to achieve outcomes which we desire we often have to pay a steep price for the sake of achieving what we intend to achieve, why must this be ruled out in the case of God? That is: let’s imagine for a moment that there are outcomes in the purpose of the universe for which God requires that there be some suffering. In order to achieve some of the goals of the universe, God may require that people suffer.
See: the atheist can look at this, and even imagine it, but in his mind the only way to judge this is to say, “if that’s so, God must be evil. Any God which requires suffering to make His objectives into reality is a cruel God who somehow enjoys our pain.”
The problem, however, is that the atheist, in saying this, credits God with less than the atheist would credit to himself. The atheist would admit that it is better to dig out a splinter than to let it fester and infect its victim – in fact, the atheist would call a doctor who refused to dig out splinters a cruel doctor for refusing to treat his patient. The atheist would demand that the law-breaker who committed a crime be incarcerated for his crime – even though the time of rehab or punishment would be far longer than the time it took to commit the crime, and the prime the criminal paid would in fact be far higher than the pain he inflicted.
At the same time, I suspect something about our hypothetical atheist: he would call the doctor who forbade all carpentry (as an example of splinter-causing events) cruel or inept; he would call the government which eliminated convenience stores for the sake of eliminating convenience store robbery oppressive.
Knowing this, it is a false accusation to posit that God is cruel if pain exists. The only way to know why pain exists in a theistic framework is if God tells us why pain exists, and at that point we have to assess only if God is telling the truth or if God is a liar.
And this is why we turn the corner from assessment of the atheist complaint and his own solution to the problem to actually advocating for God: theism – particularly, those who say, “know for certain that Jesus is both Lord and Christ” – have an obligation to speak to the problem of evil not merely from a philosophic standpoint, but from an existential standpoint. We have an obligation to tell people what God has actually said about this matter – because he has said something, and His view of things are authoritative because He’s the author.
February 18th, 2010 | 10:07 am | #1
Frank,
Are you planning to connect this discussion with theodicy as offered in Job?
February 18th, 2010 | 11:52 am | #2
Does Job even teacha theodicy?
February 18th, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #3
Adam –
Um, yes?
_________________________
Mark –
Job is where everyone goes. I think the Scripture pretty much screams out from about every third page an answer which we don’t need Job to tell us.
For the record, I think Jesus and the Gospel do a better job of making sense of suffering from a top-down standpoint than we get from Job.
Job makes good use of Job’s place in creation, but in Job, God says to Job, “dude: if you think you can do a better job, I’ll ask your advice when you can answer my questions.” I think the rest of the Bible says something a little more revelatory and Christ-centered.
February 18th, 2010 | 1:31 pm | #4
The problem of evil: a really big problem if you blame God for it.
February 18th, 2010 | 1:43 pm | #5
Frank,
I have not really been following this very closely, so I may be out of turn here, but I think that Job gives the highest and most profound answer to human suffering. The point of the Book of Job is that it is not our place to understand why God allows human suffering, but it is our place to trust Him that He has His good and perfect reasons for allowing what He allows. His ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. His purpose in allowing human suffering is far above anything that we could possibly conceive. Job’s error was that his own reasonings led him to accuse God of being unjust. This is where all depraved human reason will lead, if not taken captive by the Word of God (2 Cor. 10:4, 5).
Stuart
February 18th, 2010 | 2:15 pm | #6
Stuart –
Since we haven’t actually covered the Biblical case in this series yet, there wasn’t anything for you to miss yet.
:-)
God’s rebuke of Job, and Job’s repentance, are only one aspect of the picture of human suffering in the Bible. They are a serious and substantive piece of the puzzle.
But Paul tells Timothy, for example, “all who live a godly life will be persecuted.” And in that, Paul’s view of persecution and suffer is not limited to the reaction of men in unbelief toward those who are bringing the Gospel.
That is a perspective on suffering which is Christ-centered, and is a necessary part of the Christian understanding of the human condition.
I ask you to simply read the rest of the series before you call Job “the highest and most profound answer to human suffering”. It’s a necessary component. It’s a vital component. It’s not hardly the one which reveals all aspects of what God reveals in Scripture for us about the human condition.
February 18th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #7
Thanks, Frank,
That’s helpful. There are instances of suffering where the Scriptures themselves reveal to us the specific cause (as in the example you give – and actually in Job’s case as well). But the reason that I like the point of the Book of Job is that its application goes way beyond just the issue of human suffering. It applies to all of our natural thoughts. It is the presumption and arrogance of fallen human reason to think that it can and must know all of the answers. Our natural mind is as depraved as our natural will, emotions, passions, etc. We really can’t know anything with absolute certainty that hasn’t been revealed by God in His Word. Luther once said (concerning human reason) that as plain and indisputable as it is that 2 plus 2 equals 4, if the Word of God said it equaled 5, he would maintain that as the truth to his dying day. Another man was once asked if he really believed that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and he said, “I believe it so much, that if the Bible had said that the whale was swallowed by Jonah, I’d believe that as well.”
Stuart
February 18th, 2010 | 3:25 pm | #8
Frank said,
“Job makes good use of Job’s place in creation, but in Job, God says to Job, “dude: if you think you can do a better job, I’ll ask your advice when you can answer my questions.” I think the rest of the Bible says something a little more revelatory and Christ-centered.”
See, that is why I wonder if Job teaches theodicy :)
February 19th, 2010 | 1:29 am | #9
I think Job is anti-theodicy. I’d suggest this introduction to Job by evangelical scholar John Hobbins:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/files/IntroJob.pdf
Here’s a tasty morsel from the article that gives you something to think about:
“A theodicy is an attempt to justify the ways of God to men. The book of Job is an anti-theodicy. According to the book of Job, unjustifiable suffering takes place in the world. Those who claim otherwise “do not speak the truth about [God]” (42:8). Defense of man before God (anthropodicy), not defense of God (theodicy), is appropriate when suffering occurs. Job’s friends should have defended Job against God rather than God against Job. The apologetics of Job’s friends do not do justice to the status of the
sufferer in God’s sight. If the book of Job is taken as a model, the right response to undeserved suffering is to vindicate the sufferer even if that means calling God’s actions, or inaction, into question. The God of the book
of Job vindicates Job. Before doing so, that same God puts an end to Job’s revolt against him.”
February 22nd, 2010 | 9:11 pm | #10
[...] Turk at Evangel is doing a short series on theodicy. I asked him how/when he would connect his discussion with Job [...]
February 22nd, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #11
[...] and Christian Theodicy By Mark O. Frank Turk at Evangel is doing a short series on theodicy. I asked him how/when he would connect his discussion with Job [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact