Contemplating the Existence of God in the Face of Evil

[2PhiloVoid]

As we all know, our world is beset by the periodic presence of moral and natural evil, some of it is of catastrophic significance, displacing cities, maiming bodies, and at times ending lives. Sometimes tragic events happen that are seemingly unexpected, like a massive tsunami, or surreptitious in nature like the bullets of a homicidal maniac. Whether we like it or not, at some point, all of us will in fact experience the evil of death, a biological phenomenon that has a 1:1 ratio—everyone experiences it.

Yet, in the midst of the various sufferings and other evil that humanity is subject to, Christians of all sorts hold out the hope that the God they worship through the person of Jesus Christ will some day make Good on all of His promises and bring the evils of the world to a final end, a state in which suffering and death are done away.

Obviously, Christians have had to defend the supposed legitimacy of their faith from those who, having not found that the Christian God can be exonerated from having apparently failed to eradicate evil immediately and sufficiently, carry an ongoing critique of the religion that promises so much for the future.

Today, Christian apologists continue to defend the ideas of the existence and the goodness of God, with various arguments and with various results. However, what is not often heard is that evil, or at least some aspects of the kinds of evils we find in the world may actually count, or should count, as evidence FOR God's existence and goodness, rather than against them. In fact, it might not be to much to say that the number 666 in the book of Revelation represents the kind of evil that, if recognized, can count toward the legitimacy of the Bible. And there may be other kinds of evil that also count towrd this as well.

Below, I've placed a 50 minute video of a debate (mock debate?) which took place in 1993 in the time honored halls of Oxford University. The debate includes luminaries on both sides, such as Karen Armstrong (liberal mystic), Peter Atkins and Anthony Flew (atheists), and Peter Vardy, Basil Mitchell, and Richard Swinburne (Christians), among some others. [...and yes, the setting and format in the video is a bit “stuffy”; it is within the Ivy Halls of Oxford we are listening in on, after all. ]

For this thread, I'd like for us to consider some of the arguments presented in the video on both sides of the debate, and I'd like for Christians to offer ways in which they think that evil may actually count FOR the truthfulness of their faith and/or of the Bible.

So, with that, I bid everyone adieu on this Halloween Evening.

 

[cloudyday2]

When there are presidential debates in the US there is always analysis afterwards to tell me who won the debate, who looked the most presidential, what the key moments were, etc. Is there anybody who can tell me what to think about the debate?

Seriously, is there a transcript of the debate, so a person might be able to see the arguments without spending an hour listening to people clear their throats?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When there are presidential debates in the US there is always analysis afterwards to tell me who won the debate, who looked the most presidential, what the key moments were, etc. Is there anybody who can tell me what to think about the debate?

Seriously, is there a transcript of the debate, so a person might be able to see the arguments without spending an hour listening to people clear their throats?

There is a function on youtube where you can bring up what is essentially a 'transcript,' but a youtube transcription isn't a nicely paginated, easily readable instrument. But, it is there. Just click on the elipsis (...) on the right under the video box, and then click on "Open Transcript" in the drop-down menu.

You can look up the video I've posted by using God - For and Against - C4 - 1993 as your search topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When there are presidential debates in the US there is always analysis afterwards to tell me who won the debate, who looked the most presidential, what the key moments were, etc. Is there anybody who can tell me what to think about the debate?

Actually, the purpose of this thread is for "US" to analyze, ponder and offer our own views (and debate/discuss) as we react to what is said by all those Oxford dons in the video.

 

[cloudyday2]

Actually, the purpose of this thread is for "US" to analyze, ponder and offer our own views (and debate/discuss) as we react to what is said by all those Oxford dons in the video.

Well, I've skimmed about halfway through the youtube transcript. Was there a particular idea that you thought was interesting in the debate? Maybe you can give the minute marker in the video?

I don't think anybody brought this up in the debate because the proposition was so narrowly defined, but the "problem of evil" is easily solved by beliefs such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and atheism that have no concept of good and evil. Our concept of evil is only the consensus view of what we humans think is desirable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I've skimmed about halfway through the youtube transcript. Was there a particular idea that you thought was interesting in the debate? Maybe you can give the minute marker in the video?

Nope. I'm interested in everything the Oxford dons have mentioned, both pro and con, as well as in any extension from their comments that those of us here on CF might want to offer. So, was there any tidbit(s) in the video that you haven't heard before or that you think is particularly persuasive in regard to the presence of various kinds of evil in the world and the possible existence of God (in Christ, specifically)?

I don't think anybody brought this up in the debate because the proposition was so narrowly defined, but the "problem of evil" is easily solved by beliefs such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and atheism that have no concept of good and evil. Our concept of evil is only the consensus view of what we humans think is desirable.

...well,you're welcome to make recourse to philosophical Eastern concepts, if you wish, but what matters here is what you REALLY intuit to be true or highly relevant. Do you really 'feel' that humans don't perceive 'evil' and that ends the discussion? Does the evil in the world obscure the truth of Jesus Christ for you? [Just some questions to think about, Cloudy ... ]

 

[cloudyday2]

So, was there any tidbit(s) in the video that you haven't heard before or that you think is particularly persuasive in regard to the presence of various kinds of evil in the world and the possible existence of God (in Christ, specifically)?

No, I guess the omni-this-and-that God that they put on trial in the debate is not a very plausible or interesting hypothesis to me. I wish they would broadened the discussion to talk about other possibilities for God.

...well,you're welcome to make recourse to philosophical Eastern concepts, if you wish, but what matters here is what you REALLY intuit to be true or highly relevant. Do you really 'feel' that humans don't perceive 'evil' and that ends the discussion? Does the evil in the world obscure the truth of Jesus Christ for you? [Just some questions to think about, Cloudy ... ]

Humans perceive evil just as cats perceive evil. My cat perceives evil when I forget to keep his food bowl topped-off or when I am slow to get his "Da Bird" cat toy out when he is feeling frisky. Should an omnibenevolent God strike me with lightning for failing to live up to my cat's expectations sometimes?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I guess the omni-this-and-that God that they put on trial in the debate is not a very plausible or interesting hypothesis to me. I wish they would broadened the discussion to talk about other possibilities for God.

For the most part, the 'trial' was placed in a Christian context, even if Jesus didn't get mentioned a whole lot. My purpose for choosing that video is to reflect specifically on how the presence of evil may or many not impact or perceptions and conceptions of the person of Jesus Christ. For instance, one of the examples they kept bringing up was the historical relevance of the suffering and evil that is represented by the Holocaust. So, to you, does something like the Holocaust, among other things, count FOR or AGAINST the person of Jesus Christ?

Humans perceive evil just as cats perceive evil. My cat perceives evil when I forget to keep his food bowl topped-off or when I am slow to get his "Da Bird" cat toy out when he is feeling frisky. Should an omnibenevolent God strike me with lightning for failing to live up to my cat's expectations sometimes?

Before you can say we, or animals, perceive evil, you have to define it. But, if you don't believe that evil has a specific essence or moral quality, then your statement about your cat is questionable, isn't it?

 

[cloudyday2]

So, to you, does something like the Holocaust, among other things, count FOR or AGAINST the person of Jesus Christ?

The Holocaust seems neither "for" or "against" the claims regarding Jesus. What I see working against the Jesus claims is the idea that Christians are more or less arbitrarily granted forgiveness while non-Christians are punished. Also the history of Judaism and Christianity works against the Jesus claims. But there are many different spins on Christian theology.

Before you can say we, or animals, perceive evil, you have to define it. But, if you don't believe that evil has a specific essence or moral quality, then your statement about your cat is questionable, isn't it?

No, I don't think a subjective perception of "evil" means that evil has an objective meaning that would be relevant in a debate about God.

 

[ananda]

First, "evil" must be defined, and "God" as well.

Per my understanding of Buddhism: "Evil" = any unskillful activity which causes or increases experiences of suffering in one's self or others.

Given that definition, I don't see how the presence of evil either proves or disproves the existence of "God" (an Infinite, Almighty, Active Consciousness?). It only evidences the existence of consciousnesses who perform evil.

If we presume that there is a "God", the idea that it is active, yet also infinite, results in the conclusion that it must be the Prime Source for all evil. The Buddhist concept of Pari-nibbana/Enlightenment/Awakening/Buddha-hood would thus be its polar opposite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

First, "evil" must be defined, and "God" as well.

Per my understanding of Buddhism: "Evil" = any unskillful activity which causes or increases experiences of suffering in one's self or others.

Given that definition, I don't see how the presence of evil either proves or disproves the existence of "God" (an Infinite, Almighty, Active Consciousness?). It only evidences the existence of consciousnesses who perform evil.

If we presume that there is a "God", the idea that it is active, yet also infinite, results in the conclusion that it must be the Prime Source for all evil. The Buddhist concept of Pari-nibbana/Enlightenment/Awakening/Buddha-hood would thus be its polar opposite.

Ok. That's an interesting answer, ananda, but how would you address Karen Armstrong's objection given during the first several minutes of the video in the OP that the kind of concept of God, or the actual God Himself, who basically doesn't 'do' something about evil in the world is impotent and basically a waste of our time (with the attending inference that most religion, by proxy to this notion she presents, is also a waste of time for each of us)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Holocaust seems neither "for" or "against" the claims regarding Jesus. What I see working against the Jesus claims is the idea that Christians are more or less arbitrarily granted forgiveness while non-Christians are punished. Also the history of Judaism and Christianity works against the Jesus claims. But there are many different spins on Christian theology.

Interestingly enough, and from what I gather from the reading of various Jewish rabbis, a good portion of the Jewish people today no longer have ANY faith in God, let alone much in the way of any remaining empathies for Christian beliefs. So, since the Jewish people are the ones who directly suffered in the Holocaust, and now today, partly due to the amount of suffering involved at that time, they consider Karen Armstrong's initial critiques at the beginning of the video to be quite valid, how would you address her?

No, I don't think a subjective perception of "evil" means that evil has an objective meaning that would be relevant in a debate about God.

If a part of suffering and evil is our experience of it, and we can all mostly agree that all of this kind of thing is permeated by pain, recognizably our own pain and that of others who cry "OUCH"!, how can evil then be merely subjective? Shouldn't we say that evil is at least InterSubjective, and partly objective? And if it is even a bit objective, then where does this leave God and Jesus in the equation of human suffering? [Again, I'm just prompting some thoughts here ... ]

 

[ananda]

Ok. That's an interesting answer, ananda, but how would you address Karen Armstrong's objection given during the first several minutes of the video in the OP that the kind of concept of God, or the actual God Himself, who basically doesn't 'do' something about evil in the world is impotent and basically a waste of our time (with the attending inference that most religion, by proxy to this notion she presents, is also a waste of time for each of us)?

Action is inherently "evil", because it results in and perpetuates suffering, to a greater or lesser degree

We (Buddhists) trace the issue in this manner: the root cause - ignorance > (causes) activity/action > consciousness > craving > clinging > rebirth > aging, death, suffering.

That is why I wrote that an active - "doing" - God must be the Prime Source of evil.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Action is inherently "evil", because it results in and perpetuates suffering, to a greater or lesser degree

We (Buddhists) trace the issue in this manner: the root cause - ignorance > (causes) activity/action > consciousness > craving > clinging > rebirth > aging, death, suffering.

That is why I wrote that an active - "doing" - God must be the Prime Source of evil.

Ok. So, in what may be a philosophically indirect way, you do think that evil counts against God as well as againt the divinity and goodnes of Jesus. And I'm guessing that your switch to Buddhism was partially 'caused' by such things as the verse I noticed that you quoted in your signature (i.e. Luke 19:27). So, would you say then that you agree with the atheists, or with Karen Armstrong's argument, in the video?

(Again, this OP is centered upon the video, so if you could interact with that a bit, then that would give me some indication that you are thinking about the purpose for which I've created this thread. It's also why this isn't in the Christianity and World Religions forum, but rather in the Christian Apologetics forum.)

 

[ananda]

Ok. So, in what may be a philosophically indirect way, you do think that evil counts against God as well as againt the divinity and goodnes of Jesus. And I'm guessing that your switch to Buddhism was partially 'caused' by such things as the verse I noticed that you quoted in your signature (i.e. Luke 19:27). So, would you say then that you agree with the atheists, or with Karen Armstrong's argument, in the video?

(Again, this OP is centered upon the video, so if you could interact with that a bit, then that would give me some indication that you are thinking about the purpose for which I've created this thread. It's also why this isn't in the Christianity and World Religions forum, but rather in the Christian Apologetics forum.)

I would say I do not concur with the bulk of the arguments on any side in the video

 

[cloudyday2]

Interestingly enough, and from what I gather from the reading of various Jewish rabbis, a good portion of the Jewish people today no longer have ANY faith in God, let alone much in the way of any remaining empathies for Christian beliefs. So, since the Jewish people are the ones who directly suffered in the Holocaust, and now today, partly due to the amount of suffering involved at that time, they consider Karen Armstrong's initial critiques at the beginning of the video to be quite valid, how would you address her?

The youtube transcript doesn't say who is speaking, so I'm not certain what Karen Armstrong said aside from your paraphrase in post #11 ("[a God who] doesn't 'do' something about evil in the world is impotent and basically a waste of our time"). There are lots of possible reasons to attempt to interact with God. A punishment can be as persuasive as a reward. Or in the case of gravity, its affects are neither good nor evil but we must respect gravity. Also there is the possibility of rewards and punishments after death to motivate an interest in God.

If a part of suffering and evil is our experience of it, and we can all mostly agree that all of this kind of thing is permeated by pain, recognizably our own pain and that of others who cry "OUCH"!, how can evil then be merely subjective? Shouldn't we say that evil is at least InterSubjective, and partly objective? And if it is even a bit objective, then where does this leave God and Jesus in the equation of human suffering? [Again, I'm just prompting some thoughts here ... ]

The Jews had a covenant where God promised to reward them and punish them collectively if they followed the Biblical laws. There was probably an increase in atheism among Jews prior to WW2, so the Holocaust could be seen as God's punishment of Jews collectively for allowing unobservant atheist Jews to fester among them. The conquest of Israel by the Assyrians and Judah by the Babylonians was justified in a similar way. (Of course I don't think God sanctioned the Holocaust as a punishment, but I also don't think God sanctioned the conquests by the Assyrians and Babylonians as a punishment.)

In the case of Jesus there is a promise to clean up the mess when He returns from heaven. So that's not a problem either.

I don't think there is a problem of evil.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would say I do not concur with the bulk of the arguments on any side in the video

Can you imagine what either (or both) sides in the video would say in response? Might they both ask how it is you've come by your definition of "evil"? And might they suggest that in some way, the Argument from Evil is something that nudged you away from Christianity and toward a form of Buddhism?

 

[ananda]

Can you imagine what either (or both) sides in the video would say in response? Might they both ask how it is you've come by your definition of "evil"? And might they suggest that in some some, the Argument from Evil is something that helped to nudge you away from Christianity and toward a form of Buddhism?

Probably so. My definition of "evil" seems to make the most sense to me. Otherwise, it's basically "my god says X is evil".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Probably so. My definition of "evil" seems to make the most sense to me. Otherwise, it's basically "my god says X is evil".

Well then, OK! I'd say that the central problem in this thread isn't a problem for you because you've found a 'solution' in one of the forms of Buddhism, and so, for you, that's takes care of that.

However, in this case, the context is defending the Christian point of view, and although I don't know all about your case, I'd say that perhaps when you were formerly a Christian, then the Problem of Evil caused you some personal concern as you may have seen suffering in the world around you. Would this be incorrect, ananda? Or, did you just kind of trade out Christianity for Buddhism like a wornout pair of old socks for new?

 

[ananda]

Well then, OK! I'd say that the central problem in this thread isn't a problem for you because you've found a 'solution' in one of the forms of Buddhism, and so, for you, that's takes care of that.

However, in this case, the context is defending the Christian point of view, and although I don't know all about your case, I'd say that perhaps when you were formerly a Christian, then the Problem of Evil caused you some personal concern as you may have seen suffering in the world around you. Would this be incorrect, ananda? Or, did you just kind of trade out Christianity for Buddhism like a wornout pair of old socks for new?

Perhaps so. I would say that I came to the conclusion that the core problem was suffering, and not evil per se. That led me to Buddhism.