At the age
of five I became a vegetarian because I could not stand the thought of animals
being killed just so that I could eat them. It struck me as odd that other
people did not share this concern, and that a supposedly perfect and loving God
should have created a world where animals had to devour each other in order to
survive. I was often told, in response to my questions, that God had not
originally created the world this way; that it was only after “the fall” that
death entered the world and people (and animals) began to eat meat. However
then it just puzzled me that Christians did not try to live as God “originally
intended,” especially as consumption of meat is by no means necessary for
humans. But, apparently God had said at some point that killing animals was ok,
so that made it alright.
Of course,
once I had realised the truth of evolution these answers were even less
satisfying. Even if Adam and Eve had existed as the first humans with a “soul,”
death must have existed long before they arrived as it was a necessary part of
the evolutionary process which had already been going on for millions of years before
humans evolved. This left me in an awkward position, trying to make sense of the
belief that God had somehow used evolution as a means of creation... but I just
could not square this cruel and ruthless process with a loving designer.
The “Problem
of Evil” is a well known theological problem. It is basically the question of
how to reconcile the existence of evil (or suffering) with that of a God who is
omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent
(perfectly good). I once posed this question to a devout Christian, and the
reply I got was that it is not a problem because God is not supposed to be
omnibenevolent. This just raised more questions in my mind.
Over time, I
formed an image of God as cruel and vain dictator who created people only so that
they could worship him. Despite giving us the “free will” to choose, this God (claimed
by so many to be perfectly loving and good) would condemn any who chose not to
worship him to eternal suffering in Hell. This was because he was “just.” Some
may argue that it is not the crime of “not worshipping” God for which people
are condemned to Hell, but the “sins” of which we are all guilty. They would
say it is by “accepting the gift of Jesus’ sacrifice” that we can be spared this
punishment. However, one has to wonder what “sin” could possibly warrant such a
harsh punishment. (More on this in my next post).
Then I had
something of a revelation: what if none of it was true? I looked at the world
supposing that there was no God, and suddenly everything made sense.
Great post, Sarah. It sounds like you have put a lot of honest thought into this and you truly have not received a good answer to any of these questions. How could a loving God create or permit evil?
ReplyDeleteWell I am going to offer an answer that you may not have heard before (or at least you did not mention it in this post). On a logical level, the problem of evil does not work. Why? It is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil and suffering.
You see, for the problem of evil to succeed on a logical level, it would have to be shown that God absolutely could not have morally sufficient reasons. It is a positive argument against the existence of God, and as such it does bear that burden of proof. But since it is unfulfilled, it is also shown that there is nothing incompatible about the existence of a loving God and the existence of evil.
So I am thoroughly convinced that on a logical level, this problem does not work. But I would like to go even further. You know, CS Lewis had doubts similar yours, in fact, he was an atheist. He believed that the evil and suffering in the world proved that there could be no loving God.
But then he realized: when he called the world evil, he assumed a standard of morality which his worldview does not afford him. He went on to say that you cannot know what crooked is unless you have some idea of what straight is. In the same way, if you know what evil is, you must have some idea of what it means to be good. If there is good and evil, this proves that there is a transcendent standard of morality beyond ourselves.
Here is a brief excerpt from my article "I Think I Am An Atheist" http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/04/i-think-i-am-an-atheist/
How could you convince a person whose favorite kind of ice cream is chocolate, to consider taking vanilla as a favorite type of ice cream? The obvious answer is that you couldn’t. You know that vanilla is better than chocolate, but they just do not agree. It comes down to their opinion.
So the same with our moral values. We know that some action is morally superior or morally inferior to another action. But how can we convince somebody who does not agree? How can I convince a cannibal who wants to kill me and feed their family, to let me go? I could tell them, “No, no! It’s wrong to kill!” to which they would reply, “Well that’s just your opinion. We don’t believe that in this house. You need to be more tolerant of opposing views.”
I say that some action is evil, and they say that the same action is good. Which of us is right? On naturalism, it is just an appeal to each persons’ opinion. Neither is truly right or wrong; all moral actions are equal, because there is no foundation for moral values and duties. This is a point that most atheists agree with, as Richard Dawkins has written, “There is at bottom, no good, no evil, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Despite that, atheists live as if there are moral values and duties.
Hi :)
DeleteThanks for your comment, sorry I have taken so long to respond. Interesting argument that God could have a "morally sufficient reason" to allow suffering. Do you have any ideas as to what a reason could be? The only one I could think of is as some kind of character building during this life... however while this might explain hardships during the lives of individuals, I cannot see how it could possibly explain why countless babies/young children should suffer and die.
In response to your second point... I completely reject the argument that "God" is necessary to have an idea of morality. I read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" a while back and could not get past the stupidity of his argument. It seems fairly obvious to me that an action which causes suffering to others should be considered wrong. Of course there are going to be areas of uncertainty when consequences of actions cannot be predicted or when a decision must be made between two 'less than optimal' outcomes (i.e. when you must choose the 'lesser of two evils')and in that sense you could say there is no "absolute moral standard" which can be applied to all situations - but I don't believe religion would make those moral dilemmas any easier to answer. I actually find it a little alarming when people argue that there is no morality without God, as it seems to imply that without God people would just go round killing each other :S