Evil and God

Evil and God:

It has often been said "how can a good God allow so much evil in the world, therefore i can not believe in His existence" 

It has also often been said in the same breath: "The God of the Bible is genocidal, racist, sexist and generally a harsh and cruel God, especially when he murders his own Son, i can not believe in this God"

Two very powerful and emotionally charged statements. I can genuinely sympathise with the "feeling" of them - conjoined at the philosophical hip.   Either God is impotent or He's a tyrant. 

There are many variations of the afore mentioned statements, but i think it reasonable to agree that they are variations on a common theme/objection : I don't believe in God because He's useless and if he does exist he's too harsh. 

There is in general two aspects to such a question/problem statement that humanity brings to it: first there is the philosophical and rational response, that is the very fact that the statement / objection is an argument against God is premised on the foundation of a rational argument and a moral doctrine. The second is the very real and genuine emotional aspect - tied to our humanity and also linked to our heart and head via a moral doctrine. The latter i suggest is probably the stronger of the two but the former is just as important because essentially we are desire a coherent answer to an emotional reaction. That is we reject God's existence because we can not find a coherent answer to the question - i.e. who wants to believe in a contradictory God?

In essence both statements have a moral doctrine, for all denunciation requires a moral framework from which to denounce another, and both offer opposite ends of the spectrum as to what God "ought" to do in the face of evil. The ought is inextricably tied to the moral doctrine of which we have two competing and diametrically opposed frameworks: one is that He ought to stop evil but doesn't and is impotent, the other is that He stops (supposed) evil but we do not like the method or the outcome.

Now the moral denunciation is an interesting argument because as it requires a moral justification to denounce anothers as immoral. In doing so when we reject God's existence on the basis that He is breaking a moral code we have imposed on Him then we have to ask ourselves : which doctrine is the correct one if it's not God's and more so which one given God does not exist? If you are like me you tend to take morality for granted and as "assumed", but when you really really reflect on it, morality is extremely subjective to the individual that there is little in common to the person next to us. It is like the statement: all religions are essentially the same just different on the outside. But i would strongly contend that all religions (including atheistic and agnostic world views) are all inherently very very different with few similarities on the surface. For example they all differ on God(s), heaven hell, salvation, morality, death life, origin and purpose. Much the same with morality - sex, marriage, words, lying, refugees, environment, money, tax, friendship, parenting, education, health care, social welfare, business ethics, war and defence, scientific discovery, sexuality, drug use, alcohol consumption, capital punishment etc.  So before the rejection of God is concluded based on his non existence on his non existent moral code we start to deflate our reason for rejecting him because He didn't do something He "ought".  

What i think many (not all) are actually suggesting is that they reject the God of the Bible and Jesus because he's broken a moral code, but hope for a better God somewhere else.  But let us park that for today. 

When i read the Old Testament in particular, if we read especially the historical records (i.e not Proverbs, or Song of Solomon) of the OT, then we are witnessing ("supposed" to the skeptic) actual events, of person place and activity. Writings of events, no matter how young or old, are always incomplete in describing and recording every detail. And so when read God ordering the Jews to "drive out" the Canaanites or destroy the Amalkalites in Deuteronomy and 1 Samuel,  in a few chapters it is difficult to comprehend. More so difficult to reconcile such behaviour with a God who is (to our liking) to love and be peaceful - like Gandhi or our impression of him anyway. 

In essence if God is to be loving and rational and coherent with a moral basis then does this activity seem incoherent? 

For many years what i had glossed over or not appreciated or simply not known is much of the context to these commands, that is the 400 years waiting for the iniquity of the Canaanites to repent, or the 120 years of waiting for the people in Noah's day to repent, or the child sacrifices to stop or the female forced prostitution to stop or the cannibalisation to cease ... Etc etc (these are all mentioned in the Bible and archaeological record).What i also did not understood is the ancient historical findings about the cultures and practices of these states and communities being so debauched. Furthermore an appreciation of language and transliteration of the authors intent, use of language, hyperbole and turn of phrase. (A simple example is when we say: "we destroyed and decimated the opposition", which means we beat them in soccor convincingly, but we did not murder them) 

Habbakuk (as do many many other prophets in the OT) records the lack of action by God well when he says: 

"How long, O LORD, must I call for help? But you do not listen! “Violence is everywhere!” I cry, but you do not come to save. Must I forever see these evil deeds? Why must I watch all this misery? Wherever I look, I see destruction and violence. I am surrounded by people who love to argue and fight. The law has become paralyzed, and there is no justice in the courts. The wicked far outnumber the righteous, so that justice has become perverted." (Habakkuk 1:2-4 NLT)

So indulge me for a minute: let me take a modern day view: if the situation was as egregious and despotic and evil as it was accounted for in certain cultures and practices of that day, what would the UN decide on doing if they existed then ?  That is, what "ought" the international community do ? Which really is what "ought" you and i to do individually and in supporting our governments? If there were nations systemically sacrificing their children on alters and offering up their young girls as temple prostitutes, if they were eating their own flesh, then what would the UN do? 

It is noteworthy that modern history is replete with examples of UN sanctioned invasions to stop Rwanda, East Timor, Bosnia, Sierra-Leone, Bangladesh.... And now Syria.  One of the philosophical arguments (and i am a novice on it) is called the "Just war theory" - the morally correct justification for war. 

If i study and read the Bible in its entirety and study the historical context, time frames, person place and event, and seek to read it through the lens of history, then transpose that a supposed Good God ordered the execution and dismantling of tribes and states that chose to stay and fight, then maybe, just maybe there could be a "just war".  Maybe, just maybe if i saw from "heavens view" all that was going on - then could it be justifiable that some form of intervention be sound?  There were no courtrooms, no jails, no penal correction system, no rehabilitation programs, no child counselling support services, no social welfare, no psychological analysis to explain that the systemic murder rape and child sacrifices of the community was down to poor genes and a psychological disorder known as "x" .... Etc 

But let me park that for a moment. 

Imagine that there is an all knowing, all powerful, all righteous, all loving God who made us for the the specific purpose of relationships - that is we come into existence through a relationship and we have our purpose and reason is fulfilled by relating to one another - with love being the fullest expression of our purpose. 

Now suppose then that the problem with ourselves is that we violate the purpose of our existence. We break relationship with another. For all relationship is dependant on a moral doctrine. Love is considered the highest ethic and it is fullied via a moral code. 

If that is true, then imagine that today this being the bloodiest most violent century than all the previous 19 put together, where babies are aborted and murdered at the rate of 10,000's a day for no other reason than they are a nuisance, wrong sex, possible physical issues.  Where there are 30 million people forced into slavery every year, where 10 million of them are young girls sacrificed on the beds of men who rape them for a few bucks. Where corruption is so systemic in the majority of government systems that laws with millions of pages are needed to try to stamp it out, billions of dollars are spent employing people to administer it and to try to keep it in order. Where 10 year old homeless boys are raped by bus drivers at shelters in cities, where people can sodomise babies after drinking snakes blood and vodka to have their fantasies fulfilled , where people can rape little children and babies in the hope their diseases will be cured, where adultery is so normal that the perpetrator is given more sympathy for their "sickness" than the betrayed, where fathers do not exist in certain communities because they do not accept their responsibilities, where leaders destroy their own people by 10's of millions. Where bombs blast schools, where it just not safe for even young women to walk around at dusk, where 95% of all women are raped or experience violence.  Where virtually every person in certain countries have been exposed to pornography including all their 11 year old children. Where men visiting certain countries are assumed as pedophiles because it is so prevalent.  Where churches and institutions systematically cover up child sexual abuse, the stealing of monies and the psychological abuse of it's members. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ......................... It sounds like the OT does it not? Maybe even worse? 

Now what kind of a reaction should this all powerful all righteous God do? What would be a morally right action to take? What should God  do? And by who's standard? Would it be reasonable to "drive out the child slave traffickers?" The men and women who pay money for the sodomizing of babies? The purveyors of corruption that ensure millions are destroyed and brutalized? Suppose this God Knows all things, can see the actions and thoughts of all and therefore know that Him being the ultimate judge is capable of accurately sentencing them? 

What also if, this God being all knowing and a righteous judge, provided a choice for the children who's lives had been cut short a choice between choosing a relationship with God or not at all in the next life ?

I think it's fair and reasonable that if this God exists then when compared to the OT cultures and times on a macro scale, maybe today's society is not any better than then, possibly even worse (depending on who's standard). 

It reminds me of British writer and social observer of the 20th century Aldous Huxley wrote: 

      

“We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early successes of science, but in a rather grisly morning-after, when it has become apparent that what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimproved or actually deteriorated ends.”

Would it not be reasonable if that be true that God should scatter, dismantle, destroy communities that are doing such acts today? To stop the passing on of evil to the next generation? To stop the evils and travesties that await the next generation and give children a place of peace love and perfection in [heaven]. 

But what if there was 10 innocent people in that community? Or 5 or 1? Would God be wrong to destroy or dismantle them? It seems He would hold back judgment when Abraham asks that of God about the communities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

In Auschwitz, there is a quotation above one of the gas chambers from Hitler : 

"I want to raise a generation of people devoid of a conscious, imperious, relentless and cruel" 

And he was well on his way to achieving that. 

Now imagine he had been successful in "birthing" such a community? 

Do we not see this in micro communities and tribes in parts of Africa and Asia - Child soldiers... Or families selling their children. Or in various European blocks bringing up communities in the child and women trafficking trade. Or sub communities in various parts of the cities we live in? 

What if we knew (as history shows with systematic consistency) that the evil and depravity of cultures are passed on to the next generation and gather in other surrounding cultures to make them submit to a prevailing one. 

This particularly reminds me of the events of the Jews in the OT, where they conquered and drove out tribes and God gave them commandments to not intermingle as they would become corrupted by their culture, beliefs and practices. And that is exactly what happened, time and time again. Israel turns to God they prosper, they get fat and self reliant and they embrace the surrounding tribes by taking on their ways and before you know it they are sacrificing their children on alters again, murdering their own kinsmen for power struggles. 

I think to suggest that a culture and tradition stands still is to forget that when there is not a foundational framework of PURPOSE, then we revert back to our individual desires and proclivities and we bring others in or we get sucked in ourselves. 

I think of various Aboriginal communities that have had generations of self destruction passed on - how do they stop the internal bleeding (so to speak)? Money is not the answer, government programs may help but do not treat the issue. A world view, a culture needs to overtake it, that penetrates the heart and soul. 

So we know that there was not a man made international law court, peacekeepers and armies ready to dismantle despotic regimes and cultures in the OT. But there was God. His actions may seem harsh on the surface but i think there is much much more to it. 

On the flip side the seemingly lack of action of God allowing so much evil to occur, brings with it so many presuppositions into that perspective that deserves a much longer post.

In short when we say evil, what do we mean? When we say "ought" to intervene to stop evil, what defines the "ought". That is on what threshold should God intervene and stop the evil?  Should He stop the evil you and i are to commit and if so how or should He stop evil "out there"? Who's definition of evil are we using and is that the definition God uses?  

I don't ask these questions flippantly or disparagingly, but a recognition they need to be answered before we can coherently begin to answer the question. 

In short i am yet to find a solid reasonable and coherent justification of an objective moral framework without a transcendent author of mankind. It may exist but it has been recognised by many atheistic philosophers like Sartre and Flew that a transcendent being is required. 

The general argument goes as such: 

If there is such a thing as evil there must be a thing as good.

If there is such a thing as good and evil then there must a moral law on which to determine what is good and evil.

If there is such a moral law then there has to be a moral law giver.

Yet that moral law giver (being God) does not exist.

If God does not exist, then a moral author is non existent

if there is no moral author there is no moral law

If there is no moral law then there is no such thing as good and evil 

If there is no evil then what was the non existent God suppose to stop occurring ? 

Philosopher, Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College at Vancouver, John Stackhouse made the comment on ABC's Q&A when asked about the seemingly "lack of" action by God today:

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, that's, I think, the crucial question is that if God wants me to continue to trust him as an all-good and all-powerful God when he manifestly seems not to be one or the other or both, then he’d better give me a jolly good reason to trust him anyway and God hasn't given me any account, any daily briefing about why he is allowing the atrocities here and why he is allowing them there and they go back since the dawn of time.

TONY JONES: Well, is that where faith comes in? Because, as we know, plenty of Holocaust survivors actually lost their faith once they saw the real dark side of human nature and realised that God was never going to intervene?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, indeed, I think that post-Holocaust theology among my Jewish friends is a very daunting and very dark place because, for them, there is no ground on which to continue to believe in God that is strong enough to outweigh the grounds to not believe in God and that, to me, is the real question. It's not necessarily whether God explains to me what he is going to do. I'm not sure I have the mental or the moral capacity to be able to judge whether God is doing a good job in the world. I think he is not doing a very good job often, but I'm not sure I'm capable to judge that. But if he wants my allegiance, he jolly well better give me a very good reason to trust him anyway and for the Christian, that answer is Jesus. That answer is looking at this figure, whom Christians believe is the very face of God. So if God is like that, then I can trust this hidden god who seems to be making a mess of the world. And if he not like that, then I am really in a much difficult situation. So, Tony, for me, as a Christian who looks at the world like anybody else does, if I don't have Jesus, I frankly am going to be an atheist because, like my Jewish friends post-Holocaust, God actually doesn't seem to be doing a very good job running things.

I think Professor Stackhouse summarises the argument succinctly. 

If God paid the highest price for something that He thought and felt was of immeasurable worth: you and me, then even though i can't comprehensively get my head around all that occurs, but presents me with the image of Himself in Jesus, then that gives me enough confidence that He knows what He's doing. 

Moreover if God intervened in various acts of evil, then it would extend that Jesus would never have been crucified.  Yet God did not intervene - for my sake and yours: "Father take this cup from me, but Father not my will but yours be done".

So in conclusion to the question/ objection of not believing in God because a) he's impotent and b) he's way to harsh and contradicts His own commands; i hope we agree that the question is actually very very important and more so the answer. To suggest that because of evil and its treatment by God is inappropriate according to our own sensibilities presents i think a more difficult position to defend. 

For the atheist, they then have to justify many aspects just to get to the starting line of the original objection. 

Fro example: how does the atheist get a moral personal life out of an impersonal amoral first cause and non moral process (evolution)? How does the atheist explain information and intelligence from nothing? How does the atheist explain rationality and reason from chaos ? How do they defend evil when it requires a purpose as defined beyond itself? How can an atheist explain person hood from non person hood? How does evolution bring you to an objective morality? How does an atheist explain an unnatural act when naturalism is all there is?  What is the atheists explanation of the evil in the world and where did it come from? How does the atheist address the malady?  How does the atheist explain the value and belief in a thought as the most powerful attribute of a person yet it has no matter and can not be measured in the physical world? 

For the pantheist or Buddhist or agnostic the same questions apply. 

I do not ask the questions to be arrogant or argumentative. Rather suggesting that though we can negate another perspective, we also need to be able to defend an alternate position. That is we can't just point out others mistakes, we have to also defend our own ground, especially given we are using a moral and rational platform to denounce another, and more so rejecting the existence of a person (God) based on the premise of a morality that we have yet to define and an evil we have yet to agree on that has arisen from nothing to matter + time + chance.