Non-Christian perspectives from Woods

Conwy Gardens, Wales 2001 (photo from thekingpin68)


Conway overview, Wales 2001 (photo from thekingpin68)

My camera was not Y2K ready and therefore the dates on the photos are incorrect.

I am revising with final reads, 350+ pages of Ph.D. thesis. I am attempting to have very few reviewer revisions. My MPhil as posted is too long of a read for most, and so here is another section I hope one finds interesting to read and comment on. The section is from Bobby (B.W.) Woods, who was a Pastor of First Baptist Church in Oklahoma. He wrote the book Christians In Pain.

MPhil 2003

In Chapter 1, entitled The Non-Christian Perspective, Woods discussed alternative viewpoints concerning the problem of evil and pointed out their deficiencies.

Atheism: Woods demonstrated that human existence would be largely meaningless if atheism was philosophically true. He stated:

Atheism sees suffering as another proof in its portfolio that life and history are meaningless. . . . Atheism has nothing to offer to those in the throes of suffering except to say that the sufferer merely bolsters its argument–an argument which, if won, would only bring a reward of utter emptiness. In his attempt to live without recourse to God by denying His existence, the atheist creates a much greater problem than that of suffering. He is left with the problem of how his own personality and rationality could have ever arisen in an impersonal and irrational world. Woods (1974)(1982: 16)

Regarding Woods’ first comment, I doubt that a typical atheist, or even Atheism as a movement, sees life and history as meaningless. Instead, they see life as temporal and not everlasting. This lends some validity to Woods’ comment since the depth of meaning of anything temporal is questionable. However, if life has temporal meaning leading to everlasting existence, life truly has more importance. I agree with Woods’ second comment. If through Atheism we accept that God does not exist, we are still left with the problem of suffering, but a much greater problem exists. The problem being how it would be possible for rationality and personality to arise from scientific explanation alone, outside of an existence of a rational first cause Creator.

The Atheist is also left to make huge assumptions with limited knowledge concerning the idea of God. Thiessen stated: "Limited knowledge can infer the existence of God, but exhaustive knowledge of all things, intelligence, and time is needed to state dogmatically that there is none." Thiessen (1956: 66).

Apart from Scripture, on philosophical grounds alone, Atheism is not convincing. It makes a claim that it cannot prove by stating there is no God and/or a belief that there is no God. It seemingly requires a scientific explanation for God’s existence. An infinite, nonphysical God could never be proven this way, although creation which is physical, seemingly needs a creative mind behind it. If God was to be considered philosophically as a viable option, cumulative points would have to be considered, such as a need for a first cause and a personality to direct creation. When considering the infinite God as a concept, Atheism is not cautious enough. Since we are finite beings, our knowledge of an infinite God, if he existed, would be limited, and yet, at the same time, explaining the Universe without such a being seems untenable.

It should be noted that there exists an anti-clerical bias with some critics of Christianity in western society. There is a distrust of organized religion, and this viewpoint is likely a factor for many who choose Atheism as a philosophy. This is a mistake because many in the Christian church can see the errors within it, including the failings of the clergy, but Christianity and a belief in God is primarily about Christ’s work on earth and in heaven. It is not primarily about the conduct of God’s representatives on earth. In other words, instances of bad or even false representation of God and Christ on earth do not make Christianity invalid. Christianity should be examined by the words and philosophy in Scripture. Within the Bible it clearly points out that human beings cannot match God’s standards. This means that critics should judge the faith primarily by God’s standards in Scripture, and not by the standards of struggling Christians.

Escapism: Interestingly, Woods tried to categorize eastern religions as one group who did not deny God but attempted to escape suffering. Woods made two valid points in regard to Islam and Hinduism, but it must be noted that they are different in that Islam is a monotheist faith, Hinduism being polytheist. The fact that they have drastically different concepts of God alone means that they do not fit under the same religious umbrella. A concept that both faiths have in common is the denial of Christ’s work alone being essential for salvation, but these denials are true of all non-Christian philosophy.

Woods described Islam as deterministic, and thus the concepts of evil and God were difficult to intellectually separate. This thought needed to be articulated, however, Woods did not provide this work. If he was going to philosophically place Islam with Hinduism in regard to the problem of evil, some further explanation was needed. Not only are Islam and Hinduism under different religious umbrellas in regard to the concept of God, but Hinduism does not share the deterministic tendencies of Islam. Hinduism does not believe in one God who has preordained everything but, instead, the cosmos must work itself out.

He also mentioned the Hindu and Buddhist principal of reincarnation: "The only answer is to try by good works to be reincarnated in an ever higher existence until at last one can escape the cycle of life and find oblivion through union with the great world principle." Woods (1974)(1982:18).

Simon Blackburn defined reincarnation, also known as metempsychosis. "The transmigration of the soul, whereby upon death the soul takes up residence in a new body." Blackburn (1996: 241).

I will offer two objections to reincarnation. One is Biblical and is provided by R. M. Enroth.

Biblical Christianity, in contrast to reincarnational teaching, emphasizes grace, atonement, and forgiveness for fallen humanity through the once-for-all death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Christian’s disavowal of reincarnation is anchored in the biblical assertion that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." (Heb. 9:27). Enroth (1996: 926).

Clearly the Biblical world view opposes reincarnation, as a spirit belongs to a body for everlasting existence after resurrection. There is the earthly life and then the afterlife. One’s position in the afterlife is judged by God. A belief in Christ means forgiveness of sins, disbelief in Christ means judgment for those sins. Judgment of sins means guilt and separation from God. There would thus be no need for reincarnation as a person’s destiny had been determined by their one earthly life.

Two, existence of the human spirit cannot be proven empirically, but in Christianity, at least there is Scriptural evidence of Christ’s bodily resurrection in which his body contained his spirit. Scripture states that believers will experience the same type of resurrection. Philosophically, it does not seem far-fetched for human beings in the afterlife, if it existed, to contain the same, yet altered (for everlasting life) spirit and body; however, in my view, there is neither empirical nor deductive evidence to support reincarnation.

Empirically, there would seemingly be no scientific way to prove reincarnation since spirits are seen as entering new bodies with different genetic code, each body thus appears to be distinct from another. From a deductive perspective, most people can barely remember their own past, let alone past lives. For people who claim to remember past lives it would be extremely hard to prove that they lived these lives, for those past lives would probably not be documented to see if they were actual, and if they were, it could be thought that perhaps the person claiming to have had a past life was simply using historical information.

As well, with the idea of reincarnation and karma ("the universal law of cause and effect, as applied to the deeds of people") Blackburn (1996: 206-207), without a clear recollection of past lives, I doubt that people can learn from past failings and achieve oneness with God. How can one learn from past mistakes which one cannot remember? It makes much more sense for one to be judged by God for earthly life and then receive a reward or punishment in understanding.

Reincarnation as escapism does not free one from the problem of evil. I cannot see a human being overcoming evil without God’s direct intervention, and without a conscious understanding of their own personal evil, as well as a need for divine deliverance. Even if reincarnation was true, all I could see occurring would be the continuation of everlasting evil as one would keep on committing the same mistakes over and over again, not having learned from unknown number of years of wrong actions.

Hedonism was also discussed by Woods. James A. Montmarquet defined Hedonism in the following way: "the view that pleasure (including the absence of pain) is the sole intrinsic good in life." Montmarquet (1996: 311).

Woods provided a similar definition: "Hedonism is a broad term used to encompass all theories that see pleasure as the ultimate goal of life and criterion for conduct. Anything that is fun is good. Anything that is not fun is bad and should be avoided." Woods (1974)(1982: 18). Basically, Hedonism sees pleasure as the most important thing in reality. Interestingly, Woods mentioned Playboyism, and stated of Hugh Hefner, Publisher of Playboy Magazine: "Hefner rejects any philosophy that holds a man must deny himself for others. The Playboy outlook says a man should love himself preeminently and pursue only his own pleasure." Woods (1974)(1982: 108).

Woods noted that happiness should be a result of a responsible life. Hedonism is not responsible since ones pleasure often exists at the expense of someone else’s pain. For example, considering Playboy, where women are viewed as objects sexually by both Hefner and the willing women participating, this magazine brings its participants money, fame and sexual gratification, but the Playboy philosophy represented in the magazine, through mass media influence, also causes women in society to be viewed as objects by many men. This can cause many women to be overlooked for their intellect, and looked upon more for their sexual beauty.

So, in a subtle fashion, the Playboy philosophy can bring pain to many people in society because Playboy Magazine exploits sexuality when, in reality, sexuality belongs in the context of marriage/committed relationship where the inner beauty of the person is more important than their outer image. With the Playboy philosophy, the outer beauty is far more important than the inner beauty.

It must be admitted that Hedonism is pleasurable to people. For example, as a pastor of a local church recently stated, most men struggle with pornography at some time. An advocate of the Playboy philosophy may state that its critics secretly desire that lifestyle. There can be an element of truth in this, but a wiser person, and certainly a Christ-centred person, should see that sexual conduct outside of a healthy marriage can lead to many destructive things such as divorce, abortion, venereal disease, HIV, and public disgrace. Only sexuality in commitment leads to something fulfilling over a long period.

The Hedonism represented with Playboy is irresponsible in that it hurts people and puts short term pleasure before long term fulfilment. Thus, it escapes the struggle of a serious relationship leading to long term fulfilment and instead seeks easier, shorter relationships. This, in no way, avoids evil. It simply promotes more evil in that extreme human selfishness just leads to more people being hurt.

Stoicism: Woods described Stoicism as follows:

In direct contrast to escapism stands Stoicism. Founded by Zeno, in
300 B.C., . . . With regard to suffering, Stoicism is apathetic. Without knowing it, many people follow the basic philosophy of Stoicism. Suffering is to be faced with a spirit of self-sufficiency. . . . The Stoic determines to live so that no person or thing is essential to his existence. He strives to arrive at the point where he does not care what happens to anyone, including himself. Woods (1974)(1982: 19-20).

Woods noted that Stoicism lead to the idea of not caring about oneself or others but this is not a solution to the problem of evil. Stoicism is merely a coping mechanism. I admit it can work to some degree, and one can be shielded from a lot of pain; however Biblically, Christians are not to be stoic but are to be aware of pain, to learn from it, and to seek to lessen it where possible. A danger of Stoicism is that the need for salvation through Christ could ultimately be overlooked, as well as the welfare of others.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Karma’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 206-207. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ENROTH, R.M. (1996) ‘Reincarnation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MONTMARQUET, J.A. (1996) ‘Hedonism’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.


The University of Wales, Lampeter 2004 (photo from thekingpin68)


The University of Wales, Lampeter


Warwick Castle, England 1995 (photo from thekingpin68)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/04/would-you-swim-in-devils-pool.html