The philosophical problem of evil

New Westminster, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Please note, although this was written in 2003, it is still a major focus of my current secular PhD work.

From MPhil

2. The Philosophical Problem of Evil

McGrath pointed out a weakness with the philosophical discussion and stated his desire to concentrate on a theological remedy to the problem of evil within his work.

Quote:

Many of the theological and philosophical texts I have wrestled with seem to be much more concerned with upholding the integrity of a God who seems to allow suffering, than with saying anything helpful to those who are bewildered and confused by that suffering. I can think of few things less helpful to someone going through pain than a sophisticated theological defence of the integrity of God, or even a gentle romp through the subtle logic of necessary evil.

Now that kind discussion needs to take place. But it happens too often without any consideration of the anguish of those who need comforting and reassuring in the face of their sadness. Suffering is a pastoral and spiritual issue, not just a theological problem. In the book, I have not the slightest intention of presenting myself either as a spokesman or as some kind of defence attorney for God. God is perfectly capable of looking after himself. The real issue is not about defending God’s honour or integrity, but about making sense of our experience. McGrath (1992: 8-9).

McGrath is espousing a viewpoint similar to one that I took with my Graduating Essay at Trinity Western University. The philosophical discussion concerning the problem of evil is beneficial but the theological remedy is often overlooked in theological works since the critics of God and Christianity have, in the past, attacked the notion of the infinite, omnipotent, perfectly holy God who has evil existing within his creation.

For people suffering with the problem of evil, and that includes all human beings, the theological remedy to evil and suffering through Christ must be a vital part of theological apologetics. It can complement the philosophical discussion, and the revelation of God should be considered.

Carl Henry wrote: "Not even theistic arguments can fully vindicate God’s graciousness in the face of human evil if they appeal simply to empirical consideration or to philosophical reasoning devoid of revelational illumination." Henry (1983: 282).

Henri Blocher had the same sentiment but in slightly stronger terms. In his text Evil and the Cross:

The failure of the explanations of evil that we have examined as exposed in our preceding chapters, taking them according to their fundamental types, shows them for what they are, when confronted with experience and when the concepts are analysed. But it is Divine Revelation which reveals truly and with complete certainty. Holy Scripture, the Word of God, the ‘normative norm,’ is the only standard which allows us to distinguish between those insights which agree with it, and those all too human false trails in those systems of thought. Blocher (1994: 84).

Both Henry and Blocher share with McGrath the idea that in the philosophical problem of evil discussion it is not as central to Christianity as the theological remedy provided through Christ’s atoning work. However, I think Blocher’s words are slightly too strong by calling the explanations of the problem of evil a failure. Yes, the philosophical discussion is limited but it deals with issues not solved within the theological remedy. He is correct in that the theological remedy alone provides complete certainty of the end of suffering. That certainty, however, does not deal with some philosophical questions raised, although it could be argued that the answers to those philosophical questions will no longer matter once people do not suffer. Critics, however, need to see that Christianity is philosophically feasible in order to accept the possibility that divine revelation leads to the defeat of the problem of evil.

I think, however, the philosophical discussion needs to be complemented by the theological remedy. I can understand McGrath’s perspective on suffering as in many post-Enlightenment works the faith has been under attack because of the problem of evil. The attacks were of a philosophical nature and thus dealt with so, but ultimately the defence of Christianity comes down to divine revelation. McGrath stated in Iustitia Dei:

The central teaching of the Christian faith is that reconciliation has been effected between and God and sinful man through Jesus Christ, and that this new relation between God and man is a present possibility for those outside the church, and a present actuality for those within its bounds. McGrath (1986: 1).

Since to McGrath this is the central teaching, it makes sense in apologetics featuring the problem of evil, that the work of Jesus Christ in atonement which includes restoration and reconciliation, must be central. He thus thinks discussions on the problem of evil that do not deal with this in strong fashion, are lacking. Suffering was written to comfort those struggling with the problem of evil and to inform them that ultimate victory over suffering will be had through Jesus Christ.

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

HENRY, CARL. (1983) God, Revelation and Authority: Volume 6: God Who Stands and Stays, Waco, Word Books.

McGRATH, ALISTER. (1986) Iustitia Dei, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.


New Westminster, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

The dangers of theological error...

On a British comedy television program in 2004, Jonathan Ross stated that a Muslim extremist suicide bomber was expecting to be taken to heaven where he would be rewarded with 72 virgins.

Instead he was given a 72 year old virgin.

Among some in the radical liberal church my blogs should be as popular as head lice in a hair salon.

I just posted this on Jeff's blog in comments:

Jeff

The New Testament claims Christ is God, for example: John 1, the word, John 8: 58, eternal.

Islam denies this theological point.

New Testament manuscript and partial manuscript evidence supports traditional Christian theology.

There is no evidence of great significant corruption of historical New Testament documents, in regard to content and theology.

Religious movements that claim Christ as a prophet or being sent from God, and yet deny the New Testament in context, lack credibility.



From Scripture Jesus Christ is noted as eternal (John 8:58) and is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Revelation 22:13). Christ is God. Christ's resurrection from the dead and his overall support from historically based Scripture provides him with a huge edge in the credibility department.

Mr. Avatar Adi Da Samraj falsely claims to be the supremely great spiritual being.

A few thoughts

Quotations and my comments in brackets.

- Save the whales. Collect the whole set. (I keep hearing about saving the gay whales, or it is the gays in Wales?)

- Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? (Hint...those ones are phony.)


CD burner for sale.