False assumptions (secular, Christian and worldview)

Stanford University

1. The following is from my MPhil (2003). Now, of course I have progressed since then and so my views now will be similar and not identical in some cases.

MPhil

2. My previous article on this blog is on my recent tour to the new local LDS Temple, and it has done fairly well on Google rankings. There have been some controversial comments made by the public in the comments section. The topics of race and rudeness have been raised.

LDS Temple

3. On my less citation orientated satire and theology blog I provide my most recent audio post. I may or may not have a face for radio but many people state I have a nice and pleasant voice.

Because, of course, I am much more than just a another pretty face.

Now, no question, there is a challenge presenting academic theological, philosophical and Biblical concepts in an interesting way that does not make people sleepy sort of like the old Joy of Painting program with Bob Ross would. The content of the audio post actually somewhat connects to the LDS Temple tour post.

Short audio lecture

My MPhil was written with a certain strict adherence to British English which I now do not use.

3. False Assumptions

Secular Errors

From the secular view, Carson listed five false beliefs concerning evil and suffering. First, that a certain type of evil should not occur in my area, i.e., my realm:

"That sort of violence should occur only in black neighborhoods, in the slums, in the Third World, or among drug addicts; it is outrageous that it should happen in decent, white, upper-middle-class suburban areas." Carson (1990: 23).

Carson noted with this philosophy that the harshest evil is reserved for other people, and there is no understanding of radical human evil of which humanity cannot rid itself. The Apostle Paul stated, in Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." New American Standard Bible (1984). All groups of people are evil. All are fallen, not one person is righteous, as it says in Romans 3:10, so evil is universal in humanity. It should be no great surprise when, from the human perspective, the most intense evil such as murder, for example, takes place in so-called respectable "white" neighborhoods. Culture and neighborhoods can vary so that one area appears more evil than the next; however, the human sin condition exists in all neighborhoods. Therefore, great evil should be of no shock in any neighbourhood.

Second, money can buy security. "I want to believe that my money can buy me security. I trust no one but myself and my resources; God is among the first I will blame if something goes amok." Carson (1990: 24). Carson mentions that there are always greater calls for security when great evil occurs. These are often reasonable; however, his point seems to be that money and the security it buys does not change the human condition, so evil will continue to exist in human beings.

Third, the evil we know is worse than the evil we do not know. "The death of my child is far more important than the deaths by starvation of hundreds of Ethiopian children every week." Carson (1990: 24). Carson noted that this kind of separation is natural for human beings. Human beings cannot care for everyone so they will care primarily for those within their circle of influence, but this narrow way of approaching evil means that most of the wickedness that occurs in life is not thought about in a serious manner. In reality, there is much more suffering in the world than the typical western mind comprehends, westerners are shielded from some evil, such as mass starvation, first hand. This is due to some superior aspects of western culture which negate some evil; however, the capacity for evil in the entire world remains the same, as does its inability to heal itself.

Fourth, evil and circumstance. "Any notion of radical evil, of a fallen world, must be qualified by how good I am." Carson (1990: 24). Carson’s point here was that many people fail to see the world’s radical evil because they compare themselves to others who are suffering more; however, he mentions the importance of a person putting oneself in another person’s shoes. In other words, circumstance greatly dictates the type of evil that one suffers and the type of evil that one perpetrates, so those who live in the west, in middle and upper-class cultures, may not necessarily react better than those in cultures struggling more, providing the circumstances were the same. People do not think deeply enough about this issue. Fallen human nature exists throughout the world. Different circumstances determine how radical evil plays itself out.

Harry Blamires made this fascinating point on modern man’s view of evil: "Simply this: that modern man thinks, not in terms of good and evil, but in terms of the normal and the abnormal." Blamires (1957)(1981: 13). This point roughly relates to Carson. Carson believed that many in the west falsely assumed themselves good compared to those seemingly suffering in greater measure, but this is somewhat similar to Blamires idea of normal versus abnormal. Modern humanity, however, misunderstands radical evil and thus considers itself good compared to others perhaps less fortunate. This is not an objective type of goodness based in comparison to God and his nature, but a comparison to other people.

This concept of normal and abnormal can be seen in western society’s acceptance of, for example, abortion on demand and the deaths of the unborn; homosexuality as normal, when in fact homosexuality opposes nature in that it cannot reproduce human beings through union, and divorce when one party is no longer happy. Is not love a commitment first? Should not happiness be a result of mutual giving in commitment? It is not my place in this paper to debate these three complex issues; however, I do not think the western world has struggled with these issues and what a Biblical world view might do to challenge these viewpoints. In other words, I think society has missed the depths of evil in these three issues and others, largely by accepting things because large segments of society think they are permissible; however, permissiveness and "normal" does not equal goodness.

Carson’s fifth point, when prayers are offered they are too focussed on physical and not spiritual well-being. "Among those who were religious, the prayers offered up for protection had to do almost exclusively with physical safety, property, and natural well-being." Carson (1990: 25).

In the Book of James it states: "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches and your garments have become motheaten." Chapter 5:1-2 New American Standard Bible (1984). James is speaking to the rich but he is mentioning how material things fade away. They fade away because material things decay. They are temporal, not everlasting. So when tragedy strikes it should point people to the limitations of their material well-being. Tragedy has demonstrated that a person should not put trust in physical things. Spirituality must be considered if there is to be a lasting meaning to existence.

Christian Errors

Misunderstanding of Scripture is first. Carson noted the tendency within western Christianity to emphasize the positive in Scripture rather than the negative. I, myself, have encountered this in the Evangelical Churches I have attended. As Carson suggests, there is often a tendency to desire to teach the nice stories in Scripture in order to build up the congregation, and be attractive to non-Christians in order to bring in new attendees. I am sympathetic to creating a positive Church environment. For some people it is a safe haven from an outside world of sin and negativity; however, I conclude that Scripture must be preached in balance, and good people do suffer in Scripture.

Second, people want instant relief from their suffering. Carson discussed the fast paced modern world and contrasted it with Moses’ forty years in the wilderness. It is my view that when Christians suffer, it is usually God’s will for them to suffer for a time, and not usually his will for them to suffer to be instantly healed. I realize it is natural for human beings to want to be pain and suffering free, but I think there are lessons to be learned in suffering which usually take time as opposed to being learned through healing after a short period. Much seems to be learned through struggle. It is true, Jesus healed people at times. Some of them suffered for long periods, perhaps some did not, but quick healing and relief from suffering is always possible. We may desire God’s urgent help, but often he may be desiring our patient endurance.

Third, interpreting Scripture with selfish motives. Carson mentions Romans 8:28 where it is stated that all things work for the good for those who love him, according to his purpose, but this should not be interpreted, according to Carson, in selfish materialistic ways because, humanly speaking, bad things still will occur. The key to the text is that good things will be brought about by God even through suffering. The evil that strikes will be used for the greater good for those in Christ.

Fourth, there is an acceptance of theology with all the answers. Carson stated: "It becomes important, then, to decide just where the mysteries and certainties are. Christianity that is nothing but certainties quickly becomes haughty and arrogant, rigid and unbending." Carson (1990: 27). Carson noted that when these certainties within crises are proven untrue, then a person’s Christian faith could suffer. In Scripture, God tells us about his character. He promises Heaven and Hell judgement and salvation for those who believe and seek him. From a human perspective a great deal of evil can still befall people, though theologically we should not be certain about the type of evil that will or will not befall a person. Christians should, instead, be certain that God has promised in Scripture that he will always be with those who believe in him.

Fifth, the cross is seen as providing salvation, but the suffering of taking up the cross for Christians is sometimes overlooked. Carson noted that many Christians struggle with the concept of dying daily and suffering as Christ was willing to suffer. This problem may be due to a lack of emphasis on discipline in the Church which must go hand in hand with belief. The believing part is not as difficult as the discipline part, as discipline often requires pain which people naturally like to avoid.

World View Errors

First, atheism and a mechanistic Universe. In fairness, the following is a definition of atheism from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:

Atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one. In the Apology Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods. Some distinguish between theoretical atheism and practical atheism. A theoretical atheist is one who self-consciously denies the existence of a supreme being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no god. Pojman (1995)(1996: 51-52).

Carson stated on atheism:

There are many variations on this worldview. The basic problem with it, as far as the subject of this book is concerned, is how to avoid depreciating evil. If there is no God and no criterion of goodness outside the universe itself, if all that happens is simply the wastage of evolution, the chance bumping of atomic and subatomic particles, what rational person should feel any outrage before ostensible "evils" at all?

Atheism holds no attractions to the committed believer. What we must see, however, for our own peace of mind, is that it offers no solution to the problem of evil. It "resolves" the problem by saying, in effect, that evil is not there. Christian witness must press the matter home: atheism has often challenged Christianity with the problem of evil, but its own version of the same problem is surely less believable, at the end of this violent twentieth century, than any difficulty that must be faced by Christians. Carson (1990: 28)

Concerning Carson’s point on evolution, I think what he says is valid. Without a creator God, the Universe is just a chance happening, and a rational person should not be outraged about things occurring which some may call evil. If things occur by chance without a creator, then there is not a mind behind them. There is thus not a creative mind present who will possess morality.

Creation will exist not via a moral creator, but via amoral evolution. Therefore, morality cannot be imposed on this chance creation and evil, technically, would not exist at all. In other words, for evil to exist, it must have a moral good standard to be compared to. Without the existence of God, the idea of morality is left to human thinking which is on shaky ground, rejecting God as the absolute moral authority.

An atheist can be moral, but I think this morality is not based on a solid foundation without a belief in an objective God who is the final source of universal law.

A few years ago, I debated this point with an atheist acquaintance and he stated that, for example, it was wrong to kill a human being because he/she was sentient which meant that he/she had the power of perception. I think the term rational would have been a better word to use in this case. It would better separate humankind from animals, as human beings have higher reasoning power than animals with the ability to set up civilizations and write history, to name two examples. His point, however, was that human beings with higher rational thought should not be murdered, and that nature showed that this was wrong. I agreed with him but then asked how would we know that all rational human beings have equal value. Many people are mentally disabled and not fully rational in a sense. By his model, some observers with extreme views could consider these mentally disabled people less valuable and worthy of murder.

I noted that if, instead, we accepted that all humanity was made by God and that all people had equal value because God had made them, and if as stated (in Scripture) it was wrong to murder, then we would have a solid reason not to murder. God could have made mentally disabled people with a purpose, and perhaps with the idea of eventually correcting their problem in this life or the next.

My atheist acquaintance was wise enough to admit that my point was valid, and that even though he and I had a similar morality on the issue of murder, that his concept had a weak intellectual foundation. The key was to make God the highest moral law, and not purely human rationality.

Concerning Carson’s statement on atheism, he noted that atheism solves the problem of evil by denying it, yet it must be said that Christianity is criticized by some atheists because of suffering. So it is assumed by these critical atheists that suffering is wrong, but again where is the moral basis for this assumption?

Second, God as less than omnipotent. Carson first set out to mention, what I have already discussed in this thesis, that God could not commit the logically impossible. Carson then stated: "By confessing that God is omnipotent, then, we mean that God can do anything that is not logically impossible". Carson (1990: 29). He then mentioned the idea that many people have sought to "solve the problem of evil" by denying that God is omnipotent. Thus, "God they say, does not stand behind evil in any sense. If evil and suffering take place, it is because someone or something else did it". Carson (1990: 29).

Carson gave a variety of variations of this view, and then stated that they cannot be squared with Scripture. He discussed these verses in his Chapter 11, where he stated that God’s sovereignty is compatible with human choice and responsibility. This will be discussed later in this thesis.

However, when I examine the Book of Job for example, I see in 1:8 God mentioning Job to Satan, it seems that God was desiring Satan to take action against Job. Indeed in 1:12, he allows Satan to destroy Job’s possessions, and later in 2:6 Satan was allowed to harm Job but not take his life.

This story certainly seems to demonstrate God’s power over Satanic evil. God is sovereign over it and indirectly sanctions it.

Erickson stated, concerning the problem of evil and God:

God is like a counterpuncher or, perhaps more accurately, like a judo expert who redirects the evil efforts of sinful men and Satan in such a way that they become the very means of doing good. We must recognize here the amazing nature of divine omnipotence. If God were great and powerful, but not all-powerful, he would have to originate everything directly, or he would lose control of the situation and be unable to accomplish his ultimate purposes. But our omnipotent God is able to allow evil men to do their very worst, and still he accomplishes his purposes. Erickson (1984: 400).

I agree with Erickson here in that God is redirecting the works of evil for good, and that he must be omnipotent to do this with complete success; however, when looking at Job, it appears that God does more than merely redirecting evil. He initiated the situation with Satan and Job. So to use Erickson’s martial arts analogy, God can counterpunch and redirect evil, but it seems he actually challenged the opponent. Therefore, like a martial artist who challenged another martial artist to a fight and then counteracted the attacker, God challenged Satan in regard to Job, and then turned the evil committed towards good purposes. It can clearly be seen here that God is in ultimate control. He initiated the situation in which evil would befall Job, and then used the work of the evil one for good purposes.

Third, Deism. Carson stated:

A deist believes there is a transcendent god, and may hold that this god is a person, but denies that this god reveals himself personally. The deist thinks of god as the creator who set this universe on its present way, in much the same way as a watchmaker takes care to produce a well designed and working mechanism but has no interest or control in his product once it has left his hand. This god is too "big" and transcendent to bother with little things like human beings and what we perceive to be "evil" and "suffering" in much the same way that we human beings do not give a lot of thought to whatever suffering and accidents may befall, say slugs or head lice. Carson (1990: 31)

David A. Pailin stated:

‘Deism’ is now used to refer to belief in the existence of a supreme being who is regarded as the ultimate source of reality and ground of value but as not intervening in natural and historical processes by way of particular providences, revelations and salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148).

Carson noted that deism was not Scriptural as God is continually seen in Scripture as caring for and interacting with his creation. Carson also stated: "Like the god who is not omnipotent (if for different reasons), the deist god is unable to offer any solace to those who suffer." Carson (1990: 32).

I agree with these points. For a person to hold to deism, he/she for the most part, must reject the supernatural revelation which inspired Scripture and the supernatural presence of the prophets, Christ, the Apostles and modern works of the Holy Spirit. Deism thus largely becomes a philosophical viewpoint separate from any type of divine revelation. Its findings are merely deduced by human reason and God is viewed as not demonstrating himself to the creation in a personal way. Therefore, evil is not something that God can be held responsible for. It is a result of nature and bad human choices.

Fourth, Pantheism. Carson stated:

Once again, there are many variations. The heart of the matter, however, is that this structure of thought insists that "god" and the universe are one. There is no chasm between creator and created. All that is, is god; god is whatever is.

In this worldview, not only adopted by most Hindus but the working assumption of the entire New Age movement, god is not a transcendent "other" who is personal, who can come from beyond to help us. The entire universe belongs to one order. Within this universe, however, there are levels of attainment. What Christians see as sin or evil, pantheists are likely to see as imperfections in reality that need to be removed by progressive self-realization, progressive self-improvement. The goal of human beings is not to have their sins forgiven and to be reconciled to a God who holds them to account, but to spiral up the cycle of life, perhaps through reincarnation, but certainly through meditation, self-focus, self-improvement. Carson (1990: 32) Simon Blackburn stated concerning pantheism: "The view that God is in everything, or that God and the universe are one." Blackburn (1996: 276)

There are two major reasons why I, philosophically, dismiss pantheism. One, to me it is illogical to propose that an impersonal God can create, or somehow cause, personal beings. It makes sense that an infinite personal being could create finite personal beings with some similar characteristics, but for an impersonal being to create beings with personality seems untenable.

Two, Carson mentioned that the removal of evil in pantheism is believed to take place through self-progression. Without an objective personal God, however, what basis does pantheism have to call something evil? How is pantheism to determine what is out of order with the cosmic order? It would seem to me that an impersonal "it" that creates the Universe does not have character and is amoral, and thus it is neither good nor evil. The cosmos resulting from it would be amoral and nothing should be seen as evil within it.

It should be noted that there is a difference between God being in everything in pantheism, and God being omnipresent in Christianity. Pantheism assumes monism, God and Universe are one, God is everywhere and in everything so that each human being is in fact God. Christianity assumes God is everywhere but yet separate from his creation. What is the difference? Why am I not God? God is present where my spirit and body are present, yet he wills that I have a will separate from his, a life separate from his, the same is true for all his created beings. Therefore, I could, hypothetically, think that there is no God. As well, I could disobey him and sin.

Whereas in pantheism, those who do wrong are considered to be misunderstanding what they are a part of, however, I think this is untenable. If indeed we were part of God we could not depart from what we were, and there would be no fracture. The fact that we sin demonstrates that although God is infinite we still have the power to will not to be one with him in obedience, and thus evil exists.

The evil that exists in the world is a much greater testament to human separation from God as opposed to the concept of human union with God with misunderstanding. Human beings sin against God because their will is apart from him although his infinite being is always present, however, he can be present yet still have disobedience exist in his creation. To make a convincing argument of how humanity, being divinity, fails to realize this fact and act accordingly, is very difficult. For divinity to remain pure and able to reincarnate human beings, for example, seems almost intellectually impossible to accomplish, when human beings within divinity continue to commit wrong actions. Pantheism does not make sense because it fails to separate God’s nature from that of his creation. If the nature was indeed the same, there would be no fracture.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Pantheism, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLAMIRES, H. (1957)(1981) A God Who Acts, Ann Arbor, Servant Books.

CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press.

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

POJMAN, L.P. (1995)(1996) Atheism, in Robert Audi (gen.ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.