NO GOD SUFFERING DOES NOT PROVE THERE IS SCOTT M. SULLIVAN WHY INTRODUCTORY COURSES IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

Transcription

1 Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil. SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS WHY SUFFERING DOES NOT PROVE THERE IS NO GOD INTRODUCTORY COURSES IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS SCOTT M. SULLIVAN

2 As Augustine says, Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil. This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good. Saint Thomas Aquinas (S.T. I.2.3 ad. 1)

3 DOES SUFFERING PROVE THERE IS NO GOD? I. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL A. This is one of the most discussed issues in the philosophy of religion God is supposed to be all good and all powerful, yet if He is these things, WHY IS THERE EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD? B. The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God and so it deserves attention by every theist. It should be admitted that the argument from evil is the best weapon in the atheist s arsenal. It is perhaps the most commonly cited reason from the average man in the street as to why they do not believe in God. The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God and so it deserves attention by every theist. C. But what exactly is the argument from evil? iv. God is all powerful v. God is all good vi. Evil and suffering exists D. The claim of the argument is that the third is incompatible with holding the first two, thus the name problem of evil E. So the problem of evil is how, given that there is a God who is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, can there still be evil in the world? vi. We find in the world physical evil such as pain, disease, suffering, earthquakes, etc. vii. We also find in the world moral evil such as murder, genocide, torture, rape, and unspeakable crimes committed against innocent children, etc. viii. How can the existence of God be reconciled with all of this pain and suffering we know to exist? F. Is a good God compatible with suffering and evil? Shouldn t goodness wipe out as much evil as it can? G. What would you think of a man who just sat there and watched a child drown when he could have easily saved him? Would you call him a good man? 3

4 H. The Argument From Evil summarized; i. This argument claims that given the existence of evil and suffering, it is improbable that an all-good and powerful God exists. ii. There is probably not such a God given how much suffering there is in the world iii. Thus, either evil and suffering do not exist (which is clearly contradicted by our experience of the world and thus absurd) or an all good and powerful God does not iv. There is a big incompatibility between the existence of evil on one hand and the existence of an all-powerful and good God on the other. Something has to give, and since it is OBVIOUS THAT SUFFERING EXISTS, THAT MEANS AN ALL GOOD AND POWERFUL GOD PROBABLY DOES NOT. II. WHAT MUST WE ADMIT? A. Christians must admit both that they think both, that: Christians also must admit that not only does an all good and powerful God thinks there should be evil and suffering in the world, but more particularly that GOD WILLS physical evils to happen. i. An all-powerful and all-good God exists ii. Evil exists (evil is not an illusion) B. In other words, Christianity holds both of these to be true. But more than that. Christians also must admit that not only does an all good and powerful God thinks there should be evil and suffering in the world, but more particularly that GOD WILLS physical evils to happen (physical evils don t fall outside of God s control) and PERMITS moral evils to happen (God cannot will sin for He is all-good but He can and obviously does allow it to happen.) i. GOD WILLS THE LAWS OF NATURE THAT CAUSE EARTH- QUAKES ii. GOD WILLS THE LAWS OF CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY THAT RESULTS IN DISEASE iii. GOD PERMITS THINGS LIKE MASS KILLINGS, TORTURE, RAPE AND GENOCIDE etc. C. So, should we think i. That God is unable to stop this stuff (therefore not omnipotent)? ii. That God is unwilling to stop this stuff (therefore not all good)? C. Either way it would be true that the Christian God does not exist. D. Or is there a way around this argument? 4

5 III. SOME PRELIMINARY ISSUES A. Important Distinction - the emotional problem and the intellectual problem ii. The intellectual problem of evil concerns how to give a rational explanation of how God and evil can co-exist. iii. The emotional problem of evil concerns how to dissolve people s emotional dislike of a God who would permit suffering. Pastoral/spiritual problem that is only solved by personal holiness and growth in sanctity. iv. We discuss here only the intellectual problem DOES EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD PROVE THERE IS NO GOD? B. Disclaimer: i. EVIL IS A MYSTERY we can know a little why God might allow it, but we don t know everything and do not know the particulars with certitude. ii. It s not like we can say for certain that the reason evil is allowed is because of this or that. God hasn t told us all of the particular reasons why He allowed the Holocaust. Nobody knows this! iii. The answer is obscure, our ignorance gets in the way, but there are glimmers of light that point us in the right direction. iv. We are forced to rely on general answers and then that s enough. v. The goal here is to play philosophical defense and show that no compelling argument from evil succeeds. IV. RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT FROM EVIL A. What Kind of Argument is this anyway? i. The Argument from Evil is an argument from probability. Given the evil in the world, a good God probably does not exist. So in order to properly respond to this argument we need to offer considerations that would offset that probability. ii. Christian theists have at least three responses that OFFSET the claimed probability that God does not exist B. GOD MAY HAVE MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR PER- MITTING EVIL EVEN THOUGH THESE CANNOT BE SEEN USING OUR LIMITED PERSPECTIVE God may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil even though these cannot be seen given our limited perspective. 5

6 i. Should a good person always wipe out as much suffering as they can? a. Doctor example: Cutting off someone s arm is bad and causes pain and suffering, but what if I m a doctor doing an amputation? Is that morally wrong? b. Parent example: Suppose a parent knows that some suffering would help their child develop and that they could take that suffering away if they wanted to. Is a parent bad if they let the child suffer? Maybe a good parent does not eliminate as much suffering as she can! It s not bad to aim at something bad if there is a good that comes out of it that could not be achieved otherwise. ii. The parent and doctor examples show that a good person can reasonably allow suffering if there is a higher good attained from it that would not be otherwise attainable iii. No Pain, No Gain/Higher Good Arguments It s not bad to aim at something bad if there is a good outcome that could not be achieved otherwise. iv. It is not at all clear that a pain-free world would be better overall. v. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A PAIN-FREE WORLD WOULD BE LIKE vi. In fact, anyone who works in sales knows that PAIN is what BEST MOVES PEOPLE TO ACTION. TRIAL, WORK AND TOIL BUILD PATIENCE, CHARITY, etc. vii. The easy life is no school of moral progress a. Is heroism possible in happy world? Is sympathy for others possible in happy world? Would people make great strides in action without the occasion of pain to stimulate them? viii. In such a world there could be no courage, temperance, etc. since you would never get hurt no matter what you did. Would a pain-free world produce spoiled children with little character development? ix. NO GRIT nothing to bump up against when life is just a bowl of cherries? Evil gives a chance to improve in important areas. x. This was the position of St. Thomas Aquinas a. If all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe. A lion would cease to live, if there were no slaying of animals; and there would be no patience of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. I.22 ad.2 6

7 b. Many good things would be taken away if God permitted no evil to exist; for fire would not be generated if air was not corrupted, nor would the life of a lion be preserved unless the ass were killed. Neither would avenging justice nor the patience of a sufferer be praised if there were no injustice. S.T. I.48.2 ad. 3 c. God is so good that never would he allow evil to exist, unless he were so powerful as to be able to draw good from evil. Hence it is due to neither impotence nor ignorance on God s part that evils occur in the world, but it is owing to the order of his wisdom and to the greatness of his goodness, whence come the many and divers grades of goodness in things, many of which would be lacking were he to allow no evil to exist. Thus there would be no good of patience without the evil of persecution, nor the good of the preservation of its life in a lion, without the evil of the destruction of the animals on which it lives. - Aquinas De Pot III.6 God is so good that never would he allow evil to exist, unless he were so powerful as to be able to draw good from evil. xi. Our purpose seems to be to work out our lives in a world where chance danger and challenges lurk. THIS IS THE THEATER OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Objection: Ok, sure, there may need to be some evil but not as much as we have. Response: How much evil is too much? How much less evil do you think there should be? Where does that line of reasoning stop? Slippery slope once you say God shouldn t have allowed X where does that line of reasoning stop? Maybe God has already stopped a tremendous amount of horrific evils? Objection: Well there may be good reasons for some evils, but there are others that do not have any good reason. Response: How do you know that some evils have no purpose? We have absolutely no way to weigh the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur. Given that humans are finite creatures with an extremely limited outlook, we are simply not in a position to know these things. xii. Given our extremely limited perspective, we shouldn t expect these morally sufficient reasons to be known to us xiii. God in His providence sees all of history from beginning to end, and wisely orders all events to achieve his divine plan. xiv. Evils that may very well look pointless to us from our limited outlook may seem entirely purposeful and justly permitted from God s larger perspective. 7

8 It is completely futile for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. xv. Nose on a painting xvi. It is completely futile for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. xvii. So, the atheist is in the impossible position of having to show that God probably doesn t have a morally sufficient reason for permitting the suffering that occurs in the world. Given our extremely limited perspective, there is simply no way this can convincingly be done. And unless this can be done, there argument from evil cannot establish its conclusion. xviii. The burden of proof falls on the atheist. He is the one saying evil shows God does not exist, so he owes us an argument showing that these evils cannot have a higher purpose. V. THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO THINK THAT GOD EXISTS AND THE ARGUMENT FROM EVIL FAILS TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE A. The argument from evil assumes an insufficient amount of evidence because it only considers evil. But clearly an accurate assessment of probabilities must include all the relevant background information. B. Example: the winning lottery number C. In the same way, if all you consider for background information is the evil in the world, then it s hardly surprising that God s existence appears improbable in relation to that. But surely that s not the real question. The real question is whether God s existence is improbable relative to the total evidence available. The theist claims that when you consider the total evidence available, then God s existence becomes quite probable. What is that evidence? Namely, it s the positive arguments for God s existence, for example, arguments like a. The Cosmological Argument God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe b. The Design Argument God is the best explanation for the order in the universe c. The Moral argument God is the best explanation for objective morality. d. Again, here the atheist must take on another tremendous burden of proof in having to show that these arguments 8

9 fail before he can prove that evil shows that God probably doesn t exist. VI. CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES SHOW THAT SUFFERING IN THE WORLD IS NOT NECESSARILY INCOMPATIBLE WITH GOD A. If certain Christian doctrines are true, then the existence of evil and suffering are not improbable in relation to the existence of God. What are these doctrines? B. The Purpose of Life If certain Christian doctrines are true, then the existence of evil and suffering are not improbable relative to the existence of God. i. A lot of light is cast on this question when we look at it from the point of theology this life is a temporary period of probation God is our end and whatever best gets us to that end is what is best for us PERIOD! ii. It could very well be that evil and suffering are incompatible with God if the purpose of life is happiness in this world, but on the Christian view, the goal of life is not happiness in this world, but to come to know, love, and serve God in this life so that we can be with Him forever in the next. iii. IF PHYSICAL SUFFERING IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN HELPING PEOPLE AIM THEIR LIVES TOWARD THIS END THEN IT BECOMES VERY CLEAR WHY GOD WOULD AL- LOW EVIL a. Missiology statistics seem to prove this (nations with the most suffering are also where the most people freely convert to Christianity). iv. The Christian view is that this life is not all there is. Jesus promises eternal life and joy to those who put their trust in him. This eternal life makes the evil and suffering in this world increasingly small by comparison v. SUFFERING SEEMS TO MOTIVATE MANY PEOPLE TO AIM FOR THEIR TRUE END IN LIFE. IF SO, THEN SUF- FERING SERVES A GREAT PURPOSE. vi. Not only that, but suffering in this life can be easily overcompensated for in the next. The promise of eternal life can compensate for any loss acquired here a. St Paul - We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory be- 9

10 C. The Fall yond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen, for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal (II Cor. 4:16-18). b. From the point of view of eternity, even a lifetime of suffering seems like nothing more than a bad night in a hotel. i. Christian doctrine teaches that mankind is born in a state of sin and rebellion against God and therefore, we shouldn t be surprised at all to see the human evil in the world. On the contrary, it should be expected! The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen; He does not interfere to stop it, but lets human depravity run its course. D. Spiritual Merit Thus there may be some evils that have absolutely no purpose in this life but the purpose can be derived from the spiritual merit gained for the next life. i. Catholic doctrine of coredemption - The spiritual merit of suffering when born with trust and confidence in God ii. Suffering with Christ, offering up one s suffering for spiritual merit when there is rectitude of intention iii. Thus, there may be some evils that have absolutely no purpose in this life but their purpose can be derived from the spiritual merit gained for the next life. E. The point here is that if we have good reason to think that these doctrines are true, then again, this goes a long way in understanding why there is evil in the world. Thus, in order for the problem of evil to be successful, the atheist must deal with the arguments from Christian apologetics that show Christian revelation to be true. VII. SUMMARY A. The problem of evil occurs because of the apparent incompatibility between the existence of evil and suffering in the world with an all-good and powerful God. B. Atheists claim the existence of evil and suffering in the world show that God probably doesn t exist. C. But, in order to show God probably doesn t exist, we must consider all of the data. i. God can have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. The atheist is simply not in a position to say this isn t the case. 10

11 ii. There are other good reasons to think God does exist. The argument from evil fails to consider all of the relevant background information such as powerful arguments for the existence of God and iii. Christian doctrines help show that suffering is not necessarily incompatible with God. Given the truth of Christian doctrines (as argued for in apologetics) the existence of evil and suffering are not surprising at all, but rather are expected. D. Therefore, the argument from evil does not succeed in showing there is no God. Given the truth of Christian doctrines (as argued for in apologetics) the existence of evil and suffering are not surprising at all, but rather are expected. VIII. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL: WHY DID GOD CREATE THOSE HE KNEW WOULD GO TO HELL? A. Very difficult question. We don t know for sure. Here are some possible answers: i. Aquinas answer will never be popular, but that doesn t mean it s not true ALL PEOPLE WILL GLORIFY GOD those in Heaven glorify God s mercy, those in Hell glorify God s justice. Thus, even those in Hell fulfill the very purpose of creation. ii. Secondly, it seems unfitting for sin to have veto power over what God wants to create. There is something unfitting that a creature s bad choices should determine God s creation, for the the perversity of the creature to prevail against the goodness of the Creator. 1 God alone determines His designs, not a creature who chooses to abuse the gift given to him. 1 The sole reason, which is fully conclusive, would seem to be that were God to abstain from giving existence to a soul because He foresaw that that soul would choose the path to evil, the perversity of the creature would have prevailed against the goodness of the Creator, and human wickedness have compelled God to modify His purposes. Such a state of things, it would appear, is repugnant to reason. It belongs to God to determine His designs in accordance with perfect wisdom and perfect goodness, but in supreme independence of creatures. These are of necessity wholly subordinated to Him. Just as there can be nothing which does not come from God as First Efficient Cause, nor anything which does not tend to Him as the ultimate Final Cause, so it is impossible that those purposes in regard of the creature which He has made with supreme generosity and wisdom should admit of alteration because He foresees that the creature will abuse His gifts. Joyce SJ, George Hayward ( ). Principles of Natural Theology (Kindle Locations ). Veritatis Splendor Publications. Kindle Edition. This argument is found in St. John Damascene, De Fide Orth., IV., c. xxi. (P.G. xciv., 1197) 11

12 iii. Third, it could be better for God to create Judas and have His offer of Heaven rejected, than to have never offered it to him at all. The opportunity for Heaven, although rejected, may be better than never having offered it. God loves and shows His love, even when He knows it will be rejected. B. But couldn t God have just created people directly in Heaven? The existence of moral evil must ever remain the greatest of the world s mysteries: and it is idle to imagine that we can remove entirely the difficulty which we feel in its regard. i. In such a case they would have no opportunity for independence from their maker their will would be locked and fixed on Infinite Goodness. ii. They would never be able to CHOOSE to worship God. In order that they could freely come to him there needs to be a situation where God is not overwhelmingly present to them! iii. The run up of this life gives them a chance to say no. The existence of moral evil must ever remain the greatest of the world s mysteries: and it is idle to imagine that we can remove entirely the difficulty which we feel in its regard. Yet we know well that our human intelligence is limited in its scope, and that we must not expect to solve all problems. It is no small matter that restricted as our powers are, we can nevertheless shew solid reasons for our conviction that sin, and even the final exclusion of a soul from beatitude, do not stand in conflict with the infinite goodness and infinite wisdom of God. 2 2 Joyce SJ, George Hayward ( ). Principles of Natural Theology (Kindle Locations ). Veritatis Splendor Publications. Kindle Edition. 12