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.

John Stuart Mill and omnipotence

John Stuart Mill and omnipotence

Castle Conwy, Wales 2001 

Reformatted: November 30, 2021, original 2009

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Blackburn states Mill is ‘the most influential liberal thinker of the nineteenth century.’[1] He is the son of Scottish philosopher James Mill (1773-1836).[2] George W. Carey (2002) writes that John Stuart Mill reasoned that traditional Christianity needed to be replaced[3] and Mill introduced a concept of a ‘limited God.’[4] Mill reasons there is a ‘final cause’ that appears to be God working within the natural order,[5] but this God was not omnipotent and had limited powers that were incapable of bringing about the full reality of what God wanted.[6] Mill within Theism from 1833 explains that there could be no real belief in a ‘Creator and Governor’ until humankind had begun to understand the confused phenomena which existed around them.[7] 

Humanity must bring itself out of the chaos and confusion of reality to have a workable system in able to work out ‘a single plan.’[8] This type of world was anticipated ‘by individuals of exceptional genius’ but could only become true after a long period of scientific examination and thought.[9] Mill desired to replace the God of Christianity with a Religion of Humanity.[10] He reasoned traditional Christianity had been overrated in its promotion of human virtue and morality in society.[11] The Christian God was not the actual creator of the world.[12] Mill’s views strike me as influential on modern western religious thought. I can support, in limited terms, human effort to understand reality and improve human conditions. Indeed humanity should come together as much as possible to develop a plan in order to benefit all of humanity. 

I would not support a ‘Religion of Humanity,’ but do favour persons of various religious and non-religious backgrounds working together for human benefit. Mill rejects Christianity and traditional Christian doctrine concerning omnipotence. Mill’s deity is similar to the ‘Platonic Demiurge’ and this deity simply develops matter from preexisting chaos and therefore would not only be limited in power but also finite in nature. Mill supports a concept of a first cause[13] as in a series of events[14] but this leaves the nagging question and problem of what was the cause of the Demiurge? An infinite eternal God can be understood as the first cause not needing a cause.[15] 

A finite deity, although admittedly logically possible, requires further explanation.[16] If the being is not revealed through Scriptural revelation, it is a God of primarily philosophical speculation and requires further elaboration on the part of Mill in regard to, for instance, why humanity should believe in and follow this type of deity, assuming that there is not a greater, infinite, eternal first cause that would necessarily exist behind that being. 

[1] Blackburn (1996: 243). 

[2] Blackburn (1996: 243). 

[3] Carey (2002: 115). 

[4] Carey (2002: 115). 

[5] Carey (2002: 115-116). Mill within Theism discusses the need for a cause and beginning to a series of individual facts. Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). Everything persons know of has a cause and owes existence to a cause. He ponders on how the world can be indebted to a cause for which the world has its existence. He deduces ‘that not everything which we know derives its existence from a cause, but only every event or change.’ Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 10). 

[6] Carey (2002: 116). David Gordon writes that Mill believed God was limited in nature and therefore not omnipotent. Gordon (2002: 3). 

[7] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6). 

[8] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6).

[9] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 6).

[10] Carey (2002: 110). In The Utility of Religion from 1874, Mill explains that Christianity offers rewards in the next life for good conduct and the Religion of Humanity would be superior as human virtue would exist for unselfish reasons. Mill (1874)(2002: 16). Although I reason Christians should do what is good and right, just because it is good and right, and not primarily for a possible reward, Mill does not demonstrate in my mind a conclusive argument in how human beings, as they are, can or will ever operate with completely unselfish motives. Is all selfishness wrong, or does some degree of human self-concern and a desire for self-benefit remain an integral part of how God intended humanity to be? [11] Carey (2002: 114). 

[12] Carey (2002: 116). Gordon reasons that Mill was ‘no Christian.’ Gordon (2000: 2). 

[13] Carey (2002: 116). Gordon (2002: 3). Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 10). 

[14] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7). 

[15] God’s essence is eternal and necessary (logically must exist), and the finite universe is temporal and contingent (not necessary). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 191 Volume 1). [16] Hypothetically, humanity and the universe could have been created by a finite God that was created by another cause. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CAREY, GEORGE W. (2002) ‘The Authoritarian Secularism of John Stuart Mill’, in On Raeder’s Mill and the Religion of Humanity, Volume 15, Number 1, Columbia, University of Missouri Press. 

GORDON, DAVID (2000) ‘John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control’, in The Mises Review, Volume 6, Number 1, Auburn, Alabama, Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1833)(1985)(2009) Theism: John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press. 

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(2002) The Utility of Religion, London, Longman, Green, and Reader. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ’Demiurge’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Blackberry photos: September 2009

Niceness does not equal goodness

Waikiki, Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)

From my MPhil of 2003, and once again I am using British English.

MPhil

C.S. Lewis

5. Human Wickedness
Within this chapter, Lewis set out to show the reader that the western culture of his day (1940) had a misunderstanding of human wickedness. He stated that his culture put too much emphasis on kindness being the measure of good, and cruelty the measure of wickedness. Lewis pointed out that this kindness was based on the fact that: "Everyone feels benevolent if nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment." Lewis (1940)(1996: 49).

This is a good point, kindness or niceness is certainly not a measure of goodness. Being nice is a way of dealing with people which is most pleasurable, beneficial and brings about, generally, the most pleasurable and beneficial response. However, someone can be nice with evil intentions, an example would be Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss, or someone can act in unkind fashion but mean something for the good. For example, a Doctor re-broke my nose twice by hand without anaesthetic, after I had been assaulted by a bottle attack. This was cruel treatment and it caused me pain. The first attempt caused blood to pour out, however, the treatment straightened my nose and allowed me to look and breath better while lying down, providing me a better night’s sleep.

As well, kindness or niceness, as Lewis alluded to, often disappears when someone is annoyed. This hardly needs much explanation as we can relate to this with ourselves and others we know. I would think true goodness is an objective standard based on one emulating God, and thus one would be good to others regardless of circumstance. Lewis also stated that human beings needed to better understand that they were sinful and that Christ and Scripture saw them as so.

He noted that a human being could misunderstand wickedness by comparing oneself with someone else, and making a favourable review. Lewis pointed out that: "Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to ‘live up to’ the outward appearance of other men." Lewis (1940)(1996: 53). The reviewer is not fully aware of the sins of the people under review, and at the same time, within public persona, is hiding from the world around him/her, the depth of wickedness within.

Lewis thought that people tend to desire to see wickedness in the sense of corporate guilt. He believed that this was, in a way, evading the problems of individual sin. He noted: "When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we go on to think about corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much." Lewis (1940)(1996: 54).

Yes, it seems rather easy for individuals to allow social systems to do wicked things, and thus have the blame for evil shifted to it. However, Lewis has a point, individuals must take responsibility for thoughts and actions, clean up their own act, and then set out to change systems, if possible.

Lewis, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

Note: I had to have both my nose and teeth redone here in Canada!

As well, I reason as Christians even as we emulate God's goodness, sin will still taint our actions until our death and freedom from this realm.

Maps with agendas.:)


Someone's idea of an American map of the world.


A different perspective on a map of the world. From Oceania perhaps?








Ljubljana, Slovenia (photo from trekearth.com)

These are experimental photographs taken with my new Blackberry Curve. The cell phone shall be used in my eventual job search.

Enlightenment?

Gold Coast, Australia 

From my MPhil 

MPhil 

I realize I used some variant, but correct versions of words from British English back in 2003. 6. Enlightenment? In his sixth chapter, entitled Suffering and the God of the Philosophers, McGrath pointed out that suffering was nothing new in the world. He did state, however, that the philosophical way in which suffering was now discussed, had been changed. He noted: Indeed, I spent many years working through most of the major works on Christian theology written between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and cannot recall any of them treating the reality of suffering as a serious obstacle to Christian faith. McGrath (1992: 40). 

McGrath noted that the change took place beginning in the seventeenth century which led to the era of the Enlightenment. It shifted the defence of the gospel from revelation and Scripture to philosophy. The view was: "To defend the Christian faith, it was advisable to set aside traditional ways of justifying it, and instead to rely upon the wisdom of philosophy." McGrath (1992: 40). 

McGrath was critical of this approach which overlooked revelation and Scripture, and instead looked to philosophy. It changed the God represented from a personal God of Scripture to a perfect philosophical God. He was particularly critical of seventeenth century philosopher Rene Descartes. McGrath thought that the " . . .enormous emphasis which came to be placed upon the perfection of God by Descartes was totally compromised by the undeniable fact of the existence of evil and suffering. How could a perfect being allow such imperfection to exist?" McGrath (1992: 41). 

McGrath believed that this type of thinking, which he described as creating the god of philosophers, put so much emphasis on God’s perfect attributes that it took away from God’s actual experience in suffering as Christ. So when modern critics were criticizing God, they often criticised this perfect, aloof God whom they thought represented Christianity, whereas the God of revelation and Scripture suffered personally on earth. He died for the sins of humanity, was resurrected and will restore creation. Seventeenth century revision of Christian thought was known as the Age of Reason, which led to the Enlightenment. Colin Brown described the Enlightenment as follows: The Age of Enlightenment (German Die Aufklarung) covers roughly the eighteenth century. It is sometimes identified with the Age of Reason, but the latter term covers both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Enlightenment had some of its roots in seventeenth century rationalism, the ideas which characterize the Enlightenment went far beyond the rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and the thinkers of their time. Brown (1996: 355). So from Brown’s idea, the roots of the Enlightenment started with philosophers like Descartes, but went beyond those men. 

Basically the ideas McGrath was discussing took place in the Enlightenment - Age of Reason. David A. Pailin, of Manchester University, stated: The Enlightenment’s criticism of the authority of tradition led to increasing secularization in attitudes and ideas. Nature is seen as an ordered whole rather than as a stage for divine interventions and supernatural happenings. So far as religious beliefs are concerned, claims to revelation are acceptable only when they are rationally justified and their contents subject to reason’s judgement. Biblical stories and accepted doctrines are not immune from criticism. Works like Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary and Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary highlight the faults of revered figures and the questionability of standard doctrines. Historical and literary investigations into the Bible develop. Reports about miracles, especially that of the resurrection, give rise to considerable discussion. There is great hostility to priestcraft and suspicion of ecclesiastical pretensions to guide human understanding. Pailin (1999: 180). 

David Pailin’s comments demonstrate some of the modern assumptions made by philosophers of religion concerning Christianity. As McGrath indicated, there is a distrust of revelation and Scripture. As Pailin pointed out, revelation and ecclesiastical pretensions would often face great hostility philosophically. I agree with the Enlightenment approach to review Christian claims through reason, but it appears that more faith is put in the Enlightenment critics of Christianity than in the people who wrote the original work. Enlightenment thinking is committed to ". . . reason as the proper tool and final authority for determining issues." Pailin (1999: 179). 

Enlightenment thinking has human reason as the final authority, whereas traditional Christianity uses human reason, but it assumes that human nature is fallen and God must reveal himself to that reason. Enlightenment thinking, in my view, rests on the faulty idea that finite man should be able to be the final judge regarding ideas about God. Enlightenment era thinking, which is still prominent in liberal circles today, believes that man has the ability to reason out who God is, whereas traditional Christianity believes that God must reveal himself in order for human beings to come to some understanding of who he is. So the Enlightenment puts greater emphasis on the human mind comprehending God, whereas traditional Christianity puts emphasis on Scripture inspired by God, which must teach human beings about God. Two problems come to mind concerning the human mind’s ability to know God. First, the human mind is finite, God is infinite. It could be said that human beings could only understand God in a limited way. This is not to say that the limited human understanding was in error or without logic, but simply limited. 

For this reason, I think in this relationship God would have to take the initiative in presenting himself to humanity for greater understanding, and this would lead to revelation. Second, I believe there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God. I am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology. 

BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

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

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

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

   

Re: Our after church lunch discussion, this photo is dedicated to Charles I, Charles II, and Trevor.