Is God to blame for evil? A conversation with a former student
Hey
Dr. Pendergrass! I've been reading the links you put up and watching the videos
you've posted, and I have a 2 questions that I can't find any good answers to,
and I was wondering if you could give me point me to some material to read up
on them.
1) Why does the Former Christian God avoid negative responsibility if He has the power to stop evil (omnipotence) and chooses not to? My thinking so far is that God allows evil to exist because of the free-will God gives humans, and He is not the causal agent of evil. Still, it seems that even in the Bible God intervenes at certain points to stop evil either through direct intervention (Saul on the road to Damascus to stop the massacre) or through humans, so why not do that in every case? A few answers I've heard are that 1) God allows evil and suffering so that some good can come of it that would be impossible to produce otherwise and we just don't know how it works, and 2) evil and
suffering allow for virtues such as long-suffering and courage to exist because without anything to suffer long or to be courageous about, those virtues would cease to exist. Still, it seems that answer 1 is just a cop out and even inappropriate to say in some cases and that answer 2 isn't a good answer either because in the original and perfect creation, there was no need for those virtues so doing something which gets rid of them is not bad. Honestly, I don't see why Atheists don't use the problem of evil to argue against a good God rather than the existence of God all together. The former seems much more persuasive to me, at least at this point.
2) Is there any Biblical basis that "God has a plan for each of us," and if so, what does that even mean? Jeremiah 29:11 seems pretty clear to me that it is specifically addressed to the exiles in Babylon, and I find it difficult to believe that it can be applied directly to every Former Christian and possibly every human being. One answer I've heard is that God doesn't have a specific plan for our lives, but that His "plan" is for people to grow their relationship with God in every circumstance and obey His commandments to develop morally good characters. However, in Dr. Craig's video on failure in a Former Christian's life, he specifically argues against that saying that God's sovereignty to carry out His will through the free actions of humans and His promise to "make straight our path" suggests that God does have a specific will for our lives. I'm not sure if Dr. Craig's answer is correct (at the moment I am taking the safe bet and agreeing with him), but I am not understanding it very well.
MY RESPONSE IN BLUE
1) Why does the Former Christian God
avoid negative responsibility if He has the power to stop evil (omnipotence)
and chooses not to? My thinking so far is that God allows evil to exist because
of the free-will God gives humans, and He is not the causal agent of evil. Negative responsibility is for when someone should have done something moral but
didn’t. If I saw my child drowning but did nothing to help, I’d be morally
culpable for not helping. Why? Because I
have the moral duty to do so. But this is not the case for God saving every
human at all times.
It’s important to remember that
moral values (good/bad) and moral duties (right/wrong) are not the same. Or, to
use the terms I taught y’all: ethical rules (duties) have various “weights.”
So, it’s always good to be honest, preserve human life, serve others, etc.
These are moral values that don’t
change. However, sometimes we do not have the moral duty to tell the truth when another moral value is at stake (e.g.,
lying to save your family’s life). That is, moral duties—what to do in that
situation—changes depending on the situation
and the person. Another example: It’s a moral value to take care of
children/preserve human life. Yet, it’s my
moral duty to take care of my children; it’s not your moral duty to take care of my children.
This is key (and William Lane Craig
helped me see this): we have no reason to assume that God has the same moral duties as humans do. E.g., humans are told
never to kill innocent human life. God is under no such moral obligation, no
more than I’m under moral obligation not to slash my truck’s tires. I can
give/take away whenever and whatever I want from something I own. God is the author of human life; He “owns” us and
is under no obligation to make certain we survive beyond one more breath. Life
is simply a gift.
He is not under the same moral
duties/obligations that we are, even though He
does possess the same moral values that humans do. And since He is a
perfectly moral Being, we can know for certain that whatever He does is
perfectly moral, even if we don’t
(completely) know the reasons or ultimate consequences of God’s choices.
Moreover, God is under no obligation
whatsoever to preserve us from the consequences of free-willed evil choices. He
has no negative responsibility for what a free-will moral agent does with
his/her choices. Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson hold no negative responsibility
for all of the murders that have taken place because of a Smith and Wesson fire
arm.
Saying it like this might “sound”
like God is some dispassionate robot letting us do our own thing, crossing his
arms, saying, “I’m not to blame!” Yet, the Bible makes it clear that God hates—HATES—all
the crap that humans do to each other (like I hate to see my kids fight). God
is not dispassionate; He’s hurt and apparently angry (so-to-say) that humans do
such evil. He’s been shouting, “Stop!!” for centuries.
Why does free will matter so much?
Presumably it’s because God values moral autonomy (remember that He is morally autonomous too!). This is intuitively convincing to me. I value freedom too (as
I mention in my book), and see that while I might be safe in a snuggly padded
cell all my life, I’d rather be in the “real world,” able to be hurt by others
in the process. No matter how safe I’d be in the cell, it’s much better to be free than guaranteed safe. Such it is
with genuine moral freedom. And of course, like I said in class, genuine
freedom is the only way to freely love and be loved (and freely loving others
is certainly the greatest moral value
that exists! As Paul says several times in the New Testament).
Still, it seems that even in the
Bible God intervenes at certain points to stop evil either through direct
intervention (Saul on the road to Damascus to stop the massacre) or through
humans, so why not do that in every case? You’re asking why there aren’t more miracles. Because (1)
constant miracles rob us of natural/logical consequences, and God designed the
universe to run on consequences; (2) constant miracles would no longer be
miracles (i.e., special); (3) God genuinely wants humans to develop moral
character and act like Jesus in every event. Miraculous interventions, like
with Saul/Paul, are very, very rare and are, of course, miracles. They are to help change the course of history to achieve
the desired results that God wants. Remember that He’s the boss: working every
free-willed and miraculous event, like the Christ-event!, to one main desired
outcome of history. As Lewis said, sometimes you give up your chess pieces and
placement in order to set up the board
the way you want it. You can’t give up pieces all the time or you’d lose.
A few answers I've heard are that 1)
God allows evil and suffering so that some good can come of it that would be
impossible to produce otherwise and we just don't know how it works, and 2)
evil and suffering allow for virtues such as long-suffering and courage to
exist because without anything to suffer long or to be courageous about, those
virtues would cease to exist. I think I gave
y’all about five or six reasons in class from the Bible for possible outcomes
of evil/suffering. I’ve already covered evil: evil is a by-product of allowing
for genuine, free-willed moral autonomy, which
is a central moral value in God’s character (who is also a free-willed
Being). Why suffering? It can be punishment for sin, a “testing” of our faith,
the results of nature, the results of someone’s evil choices, the ability to
develop/mature moral values in a person’s character, etc.
Still, it seems that answer 1 is
just a cop out and even inappropriate to say in some cases I’m not sure why this is a “cop out,” nor why it’s
“inappropriate to say.” If I told my child that I caused them to hurt by giving
them a shot that immunized them from smallpox, would they be justified in
calling my reason a “cop out?” It seems to me that making us genuine
free-willed moral agents is a genuine moral value and simply awesome.
If what you mean by “inappropriate” is
“not the pastoral thing to say in disaster,” I completely concur. But, that’s a
different issue. We’re discussing the logical/theological aspects of
evil/suffering, not what to say to a person who is experiencing grief. I’d be
happy to chat about that if you’d like, but in short, I don’t recommend
discussing the “value of suffering” with a person as they go through it because
that’s not what they need at that moment. J
and that answer 2 isn't a good
answer either because in the original and perfect creation, there was no need
for those virtues so doing something which gets rid of them is not bad. I’m not sure what you mean here about “original and
perfect creation.” Apparently, one of the very first things the first moral
autonomous being did with his/her free will was to disobey a moral duty. So, as
long as there’s been humans, there has been a need for virtues/duties.
Honestly, I don't see why Atheists
don't use the problem of evil to argue against a good God rather than the
existence of God all together. The former seems much more persuasive to me, at
least at this point. I would absolutely
agree if “good God” implied something
like, “a God who disallows evil and suffering in the world.” But, I just
see no logical or theological reason to assume that “good” should be defined
that way for God as I’ve already (tried to) explained. I really don’t. Now, I
don’t like suffering and evil. I just
don’t see why God’s “goodness” is impugned if humans are genuine free-willed moral agents and acts of nature
cause suffering. Though, I guess God could have designed the universe such that
tornadoes don’t occur. . . I don’t know. J Though, the real problem, in my experience, is the suffering
that is caused from a human’s evil choices. And, I don’t get why people (not
you) incessantly blame God for people’s choices. I don’t get it. Again,
no one is OUTRAGED at or ceases to believe in the existence of Smith and
Wesson, no matter how many times their guns are used to murder people. Again, the
moral character of the human persons, Smith and Wesson, nor their existence, is
ever called into question. They are simply not to blame for what a human
chooses to do. The same guns can be used to kill animals to feed the starving .
. .
2) Is there any Biblical basis that
"God has a plan for each of us," and if so, what does that even mean?
Jeremiah 29:11 seems pretty clear to me that it is specifically addressed to
the exiles in Babylon, and I find it difficult to believe that it can be
applied directly to every Christian and possibly every human being.
You’re right about Jer. 29:11. In my
view, the Bible demonstrates that God has two kinds of desires: (1) what humans
should be and (2) what humans should do. What humans should be is clear: like Jesus. This is the
essence of virtue ethics. We should value the same things Jesus valued and
implement His teachings. What humans should do
is typically clear: with rare exception, humans should simply put into practice
the teachings of the Bible, especially those of Jesus. If God wants a person to
do something special, He lets them know. That’s it. There’s no ambiguity. We’ll
receive an angel, dream, etc. if He wants us to do something different than
work on our “Jesus character” in normal life. There is no reason to think that
God gives a rip about what toilet paper to use, etc., as long as we’re applying His teachings. So, we should be good
stewards, give to the poor, not be greedy, etc. But, it is irrelevant if I buy
a red shirt vs. blue shirt.
One answer I've heard is that God
doesn't have a specific plan for our lives, but that His "plan" is
for people to grow their relationship with God in every circumstance and obey
His commandments to develop morally good characters. However, in Dr. Craig's
video on failure in a Christian's life, he specifically argues against that
saying that God's sovereignty to carry out His will through the free actions of
humans and His promise to "make straight our path" suggests that God
does have a specific will for our lives. I'm not sure if Dr. Craig's answer is
correct (at the moment I am taking the safe bet and agreeing with him), but I
am not understanding it very well. I also found this point unconvincing/confusing! He created a
false alternative: God can be mostly concerned with our character forming and work within us/inspire us so that
out free-willed choices bring about the consequences that God wants.
Furthermore, I see no reason (along with nearly all OT scholars) to read the
Psalms as promises of God. It’s a psalmist declaring how delighted he is that
he has the Torah and that following it helps us succeed in life. We shouldn’t
read the Psalms as “God’s guarantees for life.” Their poems/songs, and that’s
all. They’re great and rich, but not God’s promises for life.
OK. I’m sleepy now. J If you want, let me know what you think,
Dr. P
FROM
STUDENT
On
question 1, the analogy about God's possible negative responsibility I was
thinking of would be more like if a robber was holding a gun to an innocent
person and someone else with the ability to stop the murder did not stop it.
Practically, I suppose this would be God's decision not to use His power to
stop all cases of evil. However, I guess I was making the assumptions that A) I
knew better than God what moral was taking precedent in the circumstance (free
will v "innocent" human life) and B) God might not have the same
order of importance for moral values. My only concern about assumption A is
that saying "God always does what is moral, therefore He is moral"
seems like it is assuming the conclusion (that God is perfectly moral) when
God's morality is what is in question. On B, I have never heard that point made
before, but it seems like a pretty powerful argument. It makes sense that since
we are His property, in a sense, and He has the moral authority to do what He
wants with us. Another assumption I was making was that His choice to create
free-willed moral agents somehow gives us the irrevocable right to life liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Typical American...
On question 2, I agree with your critique of Dr. Craig's point. Even though I still have no idea how God is able to accomplish all His goals through free-willed human choices, I agree that God's inspiration to choose certain actions over others is a great way to both accomplish His means and respect the free-will of His creation. Also, I almost find it disturbing that I have never thought of Psalms as humans' praises and prayers to God instead of God's promises to humans. Just thinking back at how poorly I've read the Bible over the years gives me the chills.
On question 2, I agree with your critique of Dr. Craig's point. Even though I still have no idea how God is able to accomplish all His goals through free-willed human choices, I agree that God's inspiration to choose certain actions over others is a great way to both accomplish His means and respect the free-will of His creation. Also, I almost find it disturbing that I have never thought of Psalms as humans' praises and prayers to God instead of God's promises to humans. Just thinking back at how poorly I've read the Bible over the years gives me the chills.
MY RESPONSE
I
didn’t meant to suggest circular reasoning. I said that because we know that
God is perfectly moral He will always make the moral choice (not the other way
around). We know God is perfectly moral because (1) He is the greatest
conceivable being (called “Perfect Being Theology” as made famous by
Anselm), and the greatest conceivable being would be perfectly moral; and
(2) the Bible demonstrates that God is perfectly moral.
Good
point about your two assumptions (A and B). That’s right: God has no moral duty
to preserve human life at all times (no more than I have the moral duty to
preserve my truck tires at all costs). Instead, God considers it MORE valuable
to have genuinely free moral agents who can do genuine good and genuine evil.
And this is also why God will punish those who choose to do evil (i.e., it
doesn’t go unnoticed).
Good
points about being American and proper exegesis of the Psalms! :) Brother, I’ve gotten the “chills”
over my ignorance for years!
Keep up
the great thinking!
DP