Since you went there, here is something Steve Martin, an avowed agnostic, wrote.
Steve Martin
Where do reverence and irreverence meet? In greener pastures, according to comedian Steve Martin. Perhaps best known for his work on Saturday Night Live and in feature films such as The Jerk , Roxanne , L.A. Story , and The Spanish Prisoner , Martin is also a prolific author, having written plays, several collections of essays and two works of fiction, Shopgirl and The Pleasure of My Company . He also plays banjo. This essay first appeared in The New Yorker in 1998.
But first here is a quote for the too long; wonāt read crowd from the POV of a talking horse.
Does God exist? This ancient question just wonāt go away. Since human history began, as soon as someone thought he had the answer, someone else came along to challenge it.
ā¦
Ask yourself this: Do I really need to know the answer to this question? I think if you are honest with yourself, you will realize that a yea-or-neigh answer wouldnāt really change your life much. Although a neigh might free up a lot of time now spent worshipping. In fact, I donāt imagine God is really keen on worshipping. You can take it from me, Toby the talking horse ā heās as humble as the next God, and a simple thank-you is all thatās required.
If you ask me what came first, the question or the belief, Iād say that the belief preceded the question. The question does not lead to belief; the question leads to disbelief. The belief, on the other hand, exists in almost every human culture, even though you sometimes get people praying to dolls made of dung. The belief does not so naturally arise in animals, which makes me, a horse, the perfect objective moderator.
Thank you Jim. I confess however, as a non-believer who lost his faith due to the problem of evil, Iām not sure Christians have any answers to this.
The first point about how many viruses there are seems redundant to me. The fact that the vast majority of them do a good job takes nothing away from the fact that some of them donāt. It does not really answer the problem of why God allows them to sometimes mutate into killers. It just moves the problem back one step. Saying itās inconceivable to think of life without viruses which kill humans seems demonstrably false to me as well. All I have to do is conceive of a world where all the viruses do good and donāt mutate into human-killers. What do these mutated viruses do that means they are necessary for life on planet earth? You admit the āgoodā viruses do a highly important job. But what highly important job are the ābadā viruses performing?
Then I see you are essentially using Hickās āsoul makingā theodicy as a response to this virus. But this response has significant problems too. To mention a fewā¦ The distribution of soul making opportunities does not seem fair. Some are given little or no chance to do so (eg. children dying of viruses). If there are beings who can flourish in the next life without enduring suffering in this one then why does anyone need to? The meaninglessness of a great deal of suffering endured by sentient beings. In fact I think the whole evidential problem of evil (as outlined by Rowe and Draper) is under no threat at all. I donāt regard this as your failure personally. No Christian (or any other religious theist for that matter) has been able to solve the evidential problem of evil.
I apologize to Jim for contributing to the tangenting of this thread. But I have started reading the article and hope to offer a more serious response in the near future.
I donāt think Jim was attempting to āanswer the problem of evil,ā in a blog post no less. He doesnāt have any delusions of grandeur as far as I know.
For sure! But I would go further and argue that Iām not sure it even begins to point to a possible way out. (And if Jimās not trying to do that then why write anything in the first place?)
I agree with you that there is no possible way out. If you are a Christian you have to come to terms with the fact that there are no completely satisfying answers to the āwhy evil?ā question. You have to content yourself with the right to protest evil to God in lament, even if that involves calling into question his character and justice (plenty of models of that in Scripture), and you get to take comfort in sensing the presence of God in the midst of suffering. I think that might be the best we can do.
So why write about it? To acknowledge the question is legit, but still find some amount of peace or comfort in reaffirming the truth of beliefs that believers find comforting; God is sovereign, God is working for our good, etc. I donāt think it was an apologetic effort as much as an attempt at encouragement.
Iām very interested in that response on a personal level. What do you say then to the person who was genuinely a Christian and who endured chronic pain for years and who had no such experience of Godās āpresenceā in the midst of suffering?
I donāt understand how any Christian could find peace or comfort in admitting they have no rational response to make to the problem of evil but simply have to shrug their shoulders.
I say Iām sorry things have been so painful and I donāt know why God did not meet you there. I believe that was your experience, and I donāt think it was because you were doing something the wrong way.
For me Christianity is a primarily and foundationally a relational experience, not a rational belief system, so since I rate what I experientially know about God in relationship higher than what I philosophically know about God through reason, reminding me of my past experience is comforting when thinking about my future.
I donāt know if this analogy will make total sense, but Iāll give it a try. I have had close friends go through messy divorces. The fact that their relationships did not work out and caused them lots of pain does not force me to reevaluate everything I believe about love on some rational level, because my own marriage is its own relationship. My marriage is more than me putting what I believe is objectively true about love into practice. My marriage is where I experientially learn what is true about love, not just where I assert my philosophy of love. I think some things are similar about faith and relating to God. There is an experiential, relational, dynamic element that is primary, itās not just a static philosophical belief system. There is some amount of shrugging your shoulders and moving on in any relationship.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
30
Michael Iām not a Christian but I find myself wanting to play Godās advocate regarding your question. One of the reasons Iām not a Christian is that I donāt and never have accepted the enormously high pedestal they place their God upon. Lets look at what we actually know about God. Okay, Iāve got nothing. But really how can anyone know that Godās powers are immeasurable or that He has perfect freedom to create everything anyway He likes? If, like me, you donāt accept the Bible as authoritative youād have to agree that the facts regarding God are not well established.
So maybe God is a genie who can have all things his way with just a wiggle of the nose. Or maybe God has worked like a dog just to make our quality of consciousness possible at all. Maybe God doesnāt create everything. Maybe God comes along at some point in our development when some aspects of consciousness decide to submerge themselves for the good of the whole in order to give us any chance at all, like individual cells did way back when to serve a less exalted role within a multicellular being. We have the experience of free floating awareness but down below all sorts of acts of consciousness go on all the time, preselecting what we become aware of, bringing to mind relevant memories and sometimes bringing together disparate facts which we notice solve a problem. Some think that there is a greater awareness within the totality of our consciousness which requires a wider bandwidth than that which our concsicuos minds can provide. If we call that God then, of course God doesnāt choose to turn the corona virus loose. Not His department. But He is down there below holding together the world so that we with our limited focused attention can tackle that kind of problem, and perhaps kicking in some inspiration here and there where He can. If this farfetched scenario was true, you wouldnāt despise God for not blinking the virus out of existence for us because youād realize no one can do that. Youād just appreciate having such a capable partner on board supporting and making possible your own efforts.
I know it sounds crazy but what is the alternative, supernatural this and omni that? Even without buying into such a cockamamy scheme as mine, if you at least realize you donāt really know what God is or how and why he has figured so prominently in our history, perhaps you should cut him a little slack. It isnāt certain He isnāt doing all that is possible. Okay, I rest my case on the defendantās behalf.
Hi Michael, thanks for joining us. @Christy has been defending me pretty well, but Iāll give it a go too.
No, I donāt think I solved the problem of evil. I admitted (I thinkā¦ perhaps I need to reread to see what actually made it from my thoughts onto the pageā¦ ) that no matter what position you take, there are consequences that are going to be problematic ā including yours. And different people will find different problematic consequences more problematic. Everyone has to bite the bullet somewhere.
My position seems to be problematic on the individual vs. the group. If evolution is about āsoul-makingā for a species, then there are going to be individuals who get the short end of the stick. But I think it is most consistent with Christian theology (as opposed to Oprah-influenced pop spiritual thinking with a thin Jesus layer), that God intended to prepare a āpeopleā for a particular role. So then I have to fall back on a hopeful eschatology that all things (even the non-human things) have the opportunity to flourish in the Kingdom of God. (I canāt quite bring myself to be a universalist, because Iām persuaded (along the lines of Lewisās Great Divorce) that some people will always continue to refuse the love of God.)
So, as you say, there is a problematic consequence to this too. As you say:
My response to this is speculative, to be sure, but I go back again to the preparation of a people, not just individuals. Our species had to come through the path we did to have the cognitive capabilities we have. The fact that some individuals have those without having gone through that path just means that we are a cooperative, culture-making and culture-sharing species par excellence. Not every individual has to experience something in order for the āpeopleā or species to be shaped and formed in a certain way.
Again, no claim to a final solution here (and I wasnāt exactly writing for professional philosophers), but I hope it is more than a shoulder shrug.
What bullet do you have to bite in the position youāve taken?
I will be so bold as to resubmit an explanation as to why God created the world that allowed evil and suffering in it. It does not remove our tears, but it helps to understand why God is worthy of the trust we should give him if we are childlike. (It was first drafted as a response to a young earth creationist.):
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
34
If I may James.
Jack Lewis lacked imagination. As well as logic in his apologetic rhetoric underpinning the Alpha course. Even with a triple first.
And what role does God intend for the infinite worlds of people from eternity, in the World?
Thank you for replying. I think the strength of your opinion is also its weakness. Your post didnāt read as a proposed solution to the problem of evil (poe) so no worries there. But, for me at least, it does not add anything to any proposed way out. Itās an epistemically strong position to be claiming not to be solving anything but this becomes a weakness once one is admitting one might not have added anything to the discussion at all. If your position is the latter then Iām not sure why write anything. Surely the only reason to write on the subject is to add something to the discussion? So Iām wondering what it is, specifically, that you (or any philosopher youāre using) is adding.
Iām also not not a great fan of the āeveryone has a bullet to biteā response. Whilst I would not have the hubris needed to accuse a professional philosopher of a tu quoque fallacy, it does sounds like weāre heading in that direction. On one level it is obviously true that any philosophical position on anything is contested and incomplete but that is not necessarily damaging to the proposal to admit that. The evidential poe may have some weaknesses against some versions of Christian theodicy but the question is whether theism or non-theism better explains the poe.
āOur species had to come through the path we did to have the cognitive capabilities we have. The fact that some individuals have those without having gone through that path just means that we are a cooperative, culture-making and culture-sharing species par excellence . Not every individual has to experience something in order for the āpeopleā or species to be shaped and formed in a certain way.ā
So if there are individuals who did not have to go through this experience to flourish in eternity then it follows logically that this experience is not a necessary condition to flourishing in eternal life right? Can we agree on that? And if we can agree on that this begs the question why such experiences of suffering and evil are ever required by anyone. Iām not claiming this as an insight of my own by the way - this is entirely application from Rowe. Iām afraid I donāt see any argument that makes suffering evil necessary for the species as a whole. If this is just a speculation, as you say, fair enough but this is precisely why I find non-theism to be the better conclusion to the evidential poe than theism.
The first argument is based on the cyclical interchange by means of which every quality comes into being from its own opposite. Hot comes from cold and cold from hot: that is, hot things are just cold things that have warmed up, and cold things are just hot things that have cooled off. Similarly, people who are awake are just people who were asleep but then woke up, while people who are asleep are just people who were awake but then dozed off. ā Plato
Or, if good exists the opposite evil must exist also, else how to define (experience) (value) (know) (appriciate) good?
Well that would be another problem for Christian metaphysics rather than a problem for me.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
38
May I Michael?
In another life I would have chosen different parents; much more privilege all round and at least 20 more IQ points and gone for a triple first in philosophy, mathematics and botany and picked up at least ten languages, concert level piano playing, art history.
But as it is, at 65 and fading fast, Iām in the shallow end and looking out at intellectual leviathans frolicking in the deep. I mean Lacan, I ask you. Makes Kant look sophomoric. Kindergarten.
There is no theodicy, no answer to POE, it therefore becomes a non question. The question only exists if thereās a God and if there is, there is no possible answer at all. Yet here in the wee-wee end of the pool I try and come up with a justification of God.
He has no choice.
The material world is the only possible breeding ground for the transcendent. And it has to be left alone from the ground of infinite, eternal being up. Because once you start, where do you stop? Apart from acts of incarnation. Of intrusion, confrontation, solidarity, (sharp intake of breath) apology; love. Apart from them, once per peopled world, there is obviously, honestly, cognitively unbiasedly, minimally epistemologically, no intervention at all beyond ineffable mutual yearning.
None of which answers POE. Why canāt God create happy shiny people direct in the sublime, in transcendent paradise?
Kidās stuff I realise. Are you able to stoop to my level? I suspect the answer is aye: non-theism.
Not sure you understand the nature of this website. We are not a philosophy journal for professional philosophers. If I had submitted my article to Philosophical Review or even Faith and Philosophy I expect it would be rejected for the reasons you cite. But it turns out that most of the people reading the BioLogos website are not professional philosophers, so we think there is some value in discussing things here for a different audience that has probably never heard of (let alone read) William Rowe.
Iām not a great fan of turning informal fallacies into formal ones. That is to say, the mere fact that some one says āYes, I have problems, but so do youā does not thereby disqualify a piece of argument. We have to evaluate such cases themselves, rather than formalizing every instance as logically fallacious. And Iāll argue that when weāre talking about the āproblemā of evil, it is fitting and proper to admit the bullets one has to bite in opting for a preferred solution (or at least a preferred response).
Iām afraid we donāt agree on this, as I think there is a problem with parts and wholes. Letās say the ultimate desired condition, C, is a āpeopleā who are capable of reigning and ruling with Christ in eternity. My claim is that there very well could be a requirement for a substantial number of the members of C to have some property, P, but that not every member needs to have it.
To show this is formally possible, consider if C is a winning NBA basketball team. Then, I submit it is necessary for a substantial number of the members of C be over six foot tall; but it need not apply to all of them. So it is not a necessary condition for any one person in C to have P; but it doesnāt follow from that that P is not required of any members of C. (and of course, Iām not talking metaphysical necessity here)
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
40
If I may James.
From the wee-wee end. It is necessary that all will know suffering because thatās what material existence entails. There is no morality in that. There are no Brownie points in it. It doesnāt qualify one for anything; itās collateral damage for being a conceptus, a maggot to transcend. So every member needs to have it.
What is this āa āpeopleā who are capable of reigning and ruling with Christ in eternityā? Is there some moral developmental threshold in this life for that? Reigning and ruling over those below it?
He doesnāt have any delusions of grandeur as far as I know.