Faith vs. Apologetics

[pacificmaelstrom (Jamie)]

It sounds like you agree with me then about the physical reality. My preferred metaphor is more along the lines of video games or virtual reality. For example you could say that our bodies are like video game characters in an online game and our souls are like the people behind the computers, we can’t see anything except for the “game” so to speak. Many people and even probably the vast majority of Christians consider the “game” to be a real physical world that is able to stand on its own without a computer operating system or administrator. Or programmer for that matter. As a result they don’t consider that they are dependent on God for their continued existence not just their beginning and what happens when they die. They also don’t consider that science can only teach us about the game itself not the programming or operating system that is it’s Ultimate Reality. This is because we cannot see beyond our experiences.

I would agree that the problem of evil is probably more important on an emotional level and an emotional level is ultimately the most important to most people. But the problem of evil itself is grounded in the notion of the physical reality. And more importantly it lacks an eternal perspective.

Here’s what I mean. I believe that suffering is ultimately reducible to a difference between what someone desires and what one experiences. Buddhists address the problem of suffering by trying to eliminate desires but as Christians we are able to frame our experiences in an eternal perspective. We know that no matter what happens to us during our time on Earth our souls are safe and we will experience an eternal reward. Returning to the video game example, a person does not suffer when their Avatar is injured because they are safe behind the screen. With faith we can respond in the same way to the troubles of this life. We can experience any pain without suffering, instead remaining joyful. Therefore suffering is due to a lack of faith in a good God rather than God’s lack of goodness. All suffering due to physical pain and mortality can be attributed to this.

All other suffering is due to our relationships with other beings. This is not merely a matter of perspective but rather a consequence of love. If we desire something of another person then we open ourselves and make ourselves vulnerable to suffering when that person acts against our desires. The only way to avoid this kind of suffering is to avoid personal relationships of any kind. By creating us with the desire that we should love him, God open himself to suffering as a result of our sin.

There’s no problem of evil. The man who does not love God and yet would expect that God should continue to sustain his existence indefinitely is demanding nothing less then that God should suffer indefinitely on his account. By eliminating the notion of the physical reality we see that this is not simply a live-and-let-live situation. We are debtors with no right to existence. We do not exist if God does not sustain our existence. And yet none of us truly love God with all our hearts. But in order to have a relationship with us God is willing to forgive us and the suffering that we cause him. That is what we see in the cross. Those who do not accept God’s gift are then separated from him eternally. We don’t really understand what this means, fire is used as a metaphor, but we can only speculate. Perhaps God allows those who reject him to continue exist isolated from him. Or perhaps they are removed from existence. In either case the result is eternal. If the first, once someone is isolated from God, God will no longer hear their cries whether they are cries of hate or cries of repentance.

[Josh]

@nathansmart, I think I am with you on some of your reflections on apologetics, at least in its popular form that you seem to be describing (and that I am used to). It seems that it is not that often one is argued into the Christian faith. I do think apologetics has its place, as our faith is based in real history on a real person who was physically here, and sometimes reminders of physical evidences and facts can be very encouraging. But it seems very unlikely that apologetics in any form has the power to, say, rationally compel people to put their faith in Christ. I have also been wondering recently if the intangibles such as the moral law, the sense of longing, and the explanatory power of the gospel (C.S. Lewis: “because by it I see everything else”), are the more potent reasons for keeping the faith. Perhaps it depends on the person.

As to the nature of faith, I’m not convinced the absence of proof is set up to “reward” our faith in the face of that absence. (I’m not fully sure what you mean by “reward” in your post–I am guessing you don’t mean salvation, since we likely agree that is not a reward for anything on our part, but perhaps you mean some other sort of favor in God’s eyes? Something sort of blessedness, like “blessed is he who believes without seeing”?). But maybe there is some other reason that we see in a mirror dimly right now. Stealing a bit from this Biologos post on divine hiddenness, perhaps some level of hiddenness is somehow the very best way for God to relate to his people, for him to make himself known in the universe he has created.