3:
False Argument 1: “God can't exist because there is suffering”
Have
you heard this one? The general logical structure of the argument is:
1)
God is “all good” and “all powerful”
2)
We see lots of suffering in the world
therefore
3)
God does not exist.
The
fatal flaw, if we treat this as a logical argument, is that line 1)
is a false statement of God's character in relation to line 2) So
the conclusion line 3) is false.
Of
course as a piece of lying propaganda it is quite effective. But
let's rise above propaganda and look for truth.
To
say God is “all powerful” without qualification,
particularly
applied to the state of this world is
false.
1.
There are things God
cannot do. Obviously not the logically contradictory like
making a square triangle, but I mean even things even we humans can
and frequently do do.
God
says he can never tell a lie. God says he can
never break a promise. So God's power is inseparable from his
perfect moral character. Which is why the “absolute power corrupts
absolutely” saying which is so true of humans is not true of God –
his moral character is incorruptible!
However
within the limits of logical possibility and God's own character, he
is never prevented from doing anything he chooses to do by lack of
power.
2.
God's power in relation to observed suffering in the world.
Split
suffering into two types: Man made; and Natural.
Man
made suffering is the result of human decisions. Some are
decisions to do evil things, some are bad decisions based on
incomplete information about the universe, some are negligent or just
plain careless decisions.
How
would you have God exert his power to eliminate all these? The only
logical way would be to remove human freedom of choice: to make us
robots rather than free spirits.
This
God will not do. He will not take away our basic
freedom.
He
made us as moral beings: we must take responsibility for our own
moral choices, even though some of those choices will cause
suffering.
He
gave us creativity: we get to invent, dream, plan, even though this
involves us making choices and some of these choices will cause
suffering. Human authors can choose to write a book like “Uncle
Tom's Cabin” that helps abolish slavery, or one like “Mien Kampf”
which helps cause the deaths of millions of people.
Lastly,
but perhaps most profoundly, God created us humans to enjoy a
friendship with him as free beings. We get to chose whether to love
him or to reject his friendship. That is a sine qua non of
friendship between free beings.
For
very good reasons God will not make us robots or mindless slaves, or
even make us give him the pre-programmed love exhibited by our pet
dog. He wants humans who love him freely.
Natural
suffering is a bit more problematic. Personally I have no
difficulty accepting the current scientific explanation of how
the universe, this planet, and life on earth developed. The question
science can never answer is why.
The real “why”
is because God said: “Let there be
...”.
Modern
scientific theory looks for the “how” but can only see the
effects after God had set the ball rolling so to speak. That
scientists find compelling evidence that things developed over many
millions of years does not cause me any problem.
I
would think it quite consistent with what we know of God that he
might start with the scientists' postulated “big Bang” then let
things develop over billions of years according to the processes that
we call natural laws, which he had built in to the
system. I realise that many devout Christians believe otherwise, but
since I am making this argument, I will do it for the scenario I
believe most likely.
On
my view, that science is probably right about how the planet evolved
into a habitable biosphere, we see that God set up the system pretty
effectively. It works.
So
you don't like earthquakes and tsunami's. True, but are they not
unavoidable consequences of the earth's basic geology? Of course when
we do unwise things like building cities over geological fault lines
part of the suffering is due to human choices again.
So
we don't like droughts and floods. That's being a bit picky isn't it?
We have a natural system that keeps large areas of the earth supplied
with life giving water, the variations are part and parcel of that
system. Then again, the floods that we find destroy things we have
made, were for ages the very mechanism that kept valley soils in
places like the Nile fertile and so allowed human civilisation to
develop. So the same events can be good or bad for humans depending
on what we are trying to do. Again at least some part of the problem
comes back to unwise human choices that ignore the fact of drought
and flood.
For
instance one Australian pastoralist in (I think) the late 1800's
noted that after a run of good years there was always a drought. So
he limited his stocking levels to what the land could carry in a
drought. So while his neighbours who stocked for the good years had
cattle die in the inevitable drought his all survived.
You
see my point: God set up a universe that in time developed a
habitable biosphere on Earth. The human race has certainly survived
and developed in it. Lots of humans (as well as animals) live in it.
I'd call that a success!
Evolution
seems to have been a stunning success. It is rough on the individual
though. It does involve a lot of suffering. Being eaten by the next
predator up the food chain is not very nice. But as a means of
keeping the system in balance, and as part of facilitating “the
survival of the fittest” it works.
Evolution,
survival of the fittest, and self balancing systems dependant on a
'food chain of animals preying on and eating other animals evidently
work. So you don't like the suffering inherent in this system. Have
you got a better idea? Actually God has, its called heaven! But for
now let's stick to this world. Can you justly criticise God if he
used this system to bring about life as we know it on earth?
Before
you say “Yes we can!” consider this: the motor car. Most of us
have one, they are very utile, they also increase the amount of
suffering in the world.
Just
think of the huge numbers of people who are killed or injured around
the world in motor vehicle accidents. But we keep driving. Obviously,
even if we don't say it out aloud, we think somehow the benefit
outweighs the suffering. Well, maybe God wanted a planet with plant
and animal systems that ran themselves without him micro-managing
them, and this was the best way to do it despite the fact that it
caused suffering.
In
Genesis he says this world is suited to its purpose and in that
respect pronounces is “good”. But Genesis also describes in
detail what flowed from the first human disobedience of God's
commands. God would not micro-manage the natural order to make
it function perfectly.
As
a result of Humans disobeying God, nature had to limp along with self
regulating and self balancing systems. So the cruelty of the food
chain. So drought and flood, so earthquake and wild-fire. We cannot
honestly “blame” God for not micro managing nature for our
benefit when as humans we rejected him and his plans and chose to try
to play the role of gods ourselves.
Of
course this universe is not God's last word.
One
purpose of the world, which it achieves despite our rejection of
God's management of it, is this:
Producing
people who choose to love God: people he
will have live with him forever in heaven.
That
might indeed be its main purpose. It certainly achieves that
effectively regardless of the suffering caused by human choices or
disease or natural disasters. The Bible, ever since the first human
rebellion against God, has described this world as broken. God has
promised the people who choose him that he plans for them to enjoy
one “where there
is no more crying or death or pain, for
the old order of things has passed away.”
One
day this planet will be destroyed. Those who have chosen to love God
will get to inhabit a world which is managed to prevent
suffering. Heaven, God's new creation is the real expression of his
goodness and power.
NEXT
WEEK : False
Argument 2: God cannot exist because there is evil
in
the world.
