White Rose Review: Christian Challenge Apologetic Series: Week Two

Apologetics Series

April 9, 2021

“Perspectives on the Problem of Evil”

Richard Klaus

1. Review from last week

a. “Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life.”[1]

b. “Philosophy of life” = worldview

c. Worldview: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics

d. Worldviews in conflict and conversation

i. Proof

ii. Defense

iii. Offense

e. Testing for the truthfulness of a worldview

i. Consistency

ii. Coherence

iii. Explanation

iv. Evidence

v. Existential fit

2. Tonight: The Problem of Evil

3. Multiple problems within the Problem of Evil

a. Philosophical: Intellectual and cognitive

i. Logical Problem (deductive): seeks to show a contradiction

ii. Evidential Problem (inductive): seeks to show theism is improbable

b. Personal: Emotional and psychological

i. Within the Christian faith: Psalms 10; 13; 35; 88; Lamentations 3; Habakkuk 1

ii. Outside the faith

c. Practical: Active opposition to evil

i. Personal: Sanctification

ii. Cultural

iii. Spiritual/demonic: Ephesians 6.10-12

d. These are not easily separated; can bleed over into each other—especially Philosophical and Personal

4. Philosophical problem(s) of evil[2]

a. Logical (deductive)

i. Seeks to show a contradiction

ii. “Atheologians have usually construed this as a deductive argument. They have, in other words, attempted to show that a conjunction of the following statements is inconsistent:

(1)God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

(2)God is all-good.

(3)Evil exists.

However, this approach has generally been regarded as unsuccessful. The logical compatibility of (1), (2), and (3) is suggested by the following considerations. (1) entails

(1’) God could prevent evil unless evil was logically necessary.

and (2) entails

(2’) God would prevent evil unless God had a morally sufficient

reason to allow it.

(1’) and (2’) combined entail

(3’) Evil exists only if either God has a morally sufficient reason

to allow it or it is logically necessary.

(3’) does not conflict with (1) and (2).

Because of the failure of deductive arguments from evil, atheologians

have developed inductive or probabilistic arguments from evil for the

nonexistence of God.”[3]

b. Evidential (inductive)

i. Seeks to show that theism is improbable

ii. It is probably not the case that God exists; seems like God does not exist

5. Greater-good defense

a. Greg Welty’s argument

i. God aims at great goods (GOODNESS)

ii. God intends that these great goods come about by various evils (SOVEREIGNTY)

iii. God leaves created persons in the dark about… (INSCRUTABLE)

1. Which goods he is accomplishing

2. How the goods depend on evil

6. God’s goods

a. Last week, spoke of God’s…

i. Unique Nature

ii. Utter Significance

b. Add to that: God’s Ultimate Value (which is his Glory)

c. God’s glory—three aspects

i. Essential Being: Good to own

1. “The glory of God being the greatest end of all things, we are not obliged to assume that this is the best possible world for the production of happiness, or even for securing the greatest degree of holiness among rational creatures. It is wisely adapted for the end for which it was designed, namely, the manifestation of the manifold perfections of God. That God, in revealing Himself, does promote the highest good of His creatures, consistent with the promotion of His own glory, may be admitted. But to reverse this order, to make the good of the creature the highest end, is to pervert and subvert the whole scheme; it is to put the means for the end, to subordinate God to the universe, the Infinite to the finite.”[4]

ii. Excellent Deeds: Good to be shown (Note: Christ and cross; Plantinga: Incarnation and atonement)

iii. Epistemic Goods: Good to be known

7. God’s glory (value) “shown” and “known” in Christ Jesus and the cross

a. Christ and cross-centered greater-good defense

b. Alvin Plantinga explains:

“Given the truth of Christian belief, however, there is also a contingent good-making characteristic of our world—one that isn’t present in all worlds—that towers above all the rest of the contingent states of affairs included in our world: the unthinkably great good of divine Incarnation and Atonement. Jesus Christ, the second person of the divine trinity, incomparably good, holy, and sinless, was willing to empty himself, to take on our flesh and become incarnate and to suffer and die so that we human beings can have life and be reconciled to the Father. In order to accomplish this, he was willing to undergo suffering of a depth and intensity we cannot so much as imagine, including even the shattering climax of being abandoned by God the Father himself: ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?’ God the Father, the first being of the whole universe, perfectly good and holy, all-powerful and all-knowing, was willing to permit his Son to undergo this suffering and to undergo enormous suffering himself in order to make it possible for us human beings to be reconciled to him. And this in face of the fact that we have turned our back upon God, have rejected him, are sunk in sin, indeed, are inclined to resent God and our neighbor. Could there be a display of love to rival this? More to the present purpose, could there be a good-making feature of a world to rival this?”[5]

c. Plantinga argues that even a world in which all of humanity is sinless would not be a better world compared to a world in which God manifests his glory in the incarnation and atonement of Jesus Christ.[6]

d. Note: This Christ and cross-centered greater-good perspective does not necessarily explain the function of any particular evil

i. “Why did I get cancer?” or “Why did that hurricane kill those people?”

ii. It does, however, provide the overall context of God’s plan in which evil plays a part

8. God intends the cross event to come about by various evils (SOVEREIGNTY)

a. Acts 2.22-23

b. Acts 4.27-28

9. Participants are “in the dark” as to what is happening; they don’t see or feel themselves as playing a part in the Divine drama

a. Acts 2 and 4 texts above

b. Acts 13.27-29

c. Some of the participants

i. Jewish leaders

ii. Satan

iii. Judas

iv. Pilate

v. Soldiers

d. We would be ignorant of the larger purposes if we did not have the revelation of Jesus (his words) and the apostles.

10.General framework

a. “In summary, the pain and suffering in God’s world play a necessary role in bringing about greater goods that could not be brought about except for the presence of that pain and suffering. The world would be worse off without the pain and suffering and so God is justified in pursuing the good by these means.”[7]

11.Specific greater-goods that God is pursuing within the general framework of the Christ and cross event

a. Punishment

i. “Suffering is a result of God’s just punishment of evildoers.” (Welty, 123)

ii. Good that God judges sin and manifests his justice

b. Soul-building

i. “God’s painful providences come into our lives to do us good, namely, to shape our character and lead us from self-centeredness to other-centeredness.” (Welty, 126)

ii. Hebrews 12.5-11; Romans 5.4-5; 2 Corinthians 4.17; James 1.2-4; 1 Peter 1.6-7

c. Pain-as-God’s-megaphone

i. “God’s megaphone to get our attention.” (Welty, 129—quoting C. S. Lewis The Problem of Pain)

ii. Romans 2.4; Luke 13.1-5

d. Higher-order goods

i. “At least some goods can’t exist apart from evils because they are defined with reference to those evils.” (Welty, 132)

ii. “Courage [in battle] is a response to danger, sympathy is a response to human suffering, forgiveness is a response to sin, compassion is a response to human need, and patience is a response to adversity. In each of these, you can’t have the first thing without the second. The idea isn’t that these goods have to exist. God could decline to create a universe that had these goods, or even a universe at all. But if God wants these deep good to be in his universe, because they make his universe far more valuable than it would otherwise be, then the evils will be there as well. For the goods wouldn’t be the goods they are if they were a response to nothing.”[8]

12.Ruling-in and ruling-out

a. Christian cannot necessarily “rule-in” any of these answers in specific instances

i. Job’s friends get it wrong about Job’s suffering

ii. Disciples get it wrong about blind man (John 9.1-3)

b. Skeptic cannot “rule-out” any of these answers in specific instances

i. Why is this important?

ii. Skeptic needs to make the case for a universal negative: there is no reason that would justify God permitting evil and suffering

“The reason why the evils in the world are supposed to disprove God’s existence is that such a God would have prevented them if he exists. But he would only have prevented them if he didn’t have a good reason that justified him in permitting them. So the critic has to prove a universal negative: there is no reason that would justify God in permitting whatever difficult case of evil we are now choosing to think about. It is a claim about a certain territory—the reasons God could have for permitting evil—and a claim that the territory is empty.”[9]

13.Objection: “But it seems like there is no good reason for various evils!”

a. Something to this objection that needs to be taken seriously

“For some of these significant cases of pain and suffering (let’s admit it: for many!), it certainly seems as if God could have no good reason for permitting them, reasons which satisfy the weightiness and dependence standards. (An example discussed in the literature: a five-year-old raped and strangled by her mother’s boyfriend). A skeptic might tell a Christian, ‘I’m sorry, but I’ve been thinking about this difficult case of evil for weeks now, and it just seems to me that there could be no justification for permitting it.’ Christians shouldn’t doubt the sincerity of these skeptics! Indeed, they shouldn’t doubt what skeptics report as their seemings. Many Christians, similarly perplexed by the evil in the world, have the same seeming that the skeptic has! These Christians also scratch their heads and come up with nothing that satisfies the doubly austere constraints of theodicy.”[10]

b. “Seemings” are many times correct

i. Elephant in the room?

ii. Look around and it doesn’t seem so

iii. Rational conclusion

1. “Given my perceptual capacities, I would have seen an elephant if one were there. I don’t see an elephant so there isn’t an elephant. Case closed.”[11]

c. But what about discerning the purposes of God? Are we cognitively and perceptually equipped to make the judgment?

i. Example: Getting a Covid vaccine shot. Nurse comes in and picks up syringe off the floor (no cap). You ask, “What about germs?!” She looks at the syringe and says, “I don’t see any, you’re good.”

ii. Why should we think that we humans are in the proper spot cognitively/perceptually to discern that God has no justification for the evil he allows?

iii. Analogies for our cognitive limitations

1. Perceptual analogies: Syringe example with germs

2. Scientific analogies: My lack of understanding of a book on quantum mechanics.

3. Linguistic analogies: Scientist who doesn’t understand Greek being read in an advanced class on Plato’s works.

4. Aesthetic analogies: Lack of musical training and the fail to “see” the deep structure of some of Beethoven’s works.

5. Parental analogies: Small child getting vaccine shots. To her it doesn’t “seem” as if there any good reason for this pain.

iv. “They [analogies] each emphasize our cognitive limitations with respect to discerning goods and connections in territories where we lack the relevant expertise. Once we recognize these limitations, we should also see that certain inferences we are tempted to make about such territories are positively irrational.”[12]

v. “Skeptical theism” or, better, “Sensibly humble theism”[13]

vi. “Disproportionality thesis” or DISPRO

1. “DISPRO: If such a being as God does exist, what our minds see and grasp and purpose in evaluating events in our universe will be vastlyless than what this being’s mind see and grasps and purposes.”[14]

2. “God is bigger than us!”

14.Why do Christians trust that God has good reasons for the evil he allows?

o Many evils experienced are not seen—they don’t appear— to be good-producing

§ Difficult to see how God could possibly redeem or engulf such evil

· “How can God bring good out of this evil!?”

o For the Christian the crucifixion of Jesus—the cross of Christ—is the paradigmatic example of God bringing unspeakable goodness out of the depths of horrendous evil[15]

§ Crucifixion of Jesus is a horrendous evil

§ Through this horrendous evil there flowed profound good…

· Salvation, cosmic reconciliation, and the manifestation of the glory of God

§ What is the mechanism which brought about this turn of events?

· RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ

§ Christians affirm:

· If God is able to exercise his sovereignty in such a way that

o That there is a planned horrendous evil and

o God is able to bring great good out of it…

o Then God can be trusted to bring good out of the evils that beset them and the world.

15.Summary

a. God allows evil for greater-good

b. Manifestation of the glory of God (his character) in Christ and cross is the general framework

c. Specific greater-goods also pursued

d. Even though we don’t know the specific reasons for particular evils, we can trust in light of Christ’s resurrection

16.Philosophical perspective (above) but what about the Personal problem of pain and suffering?

a. John S. Feinberg, “A Journey in Suffering: Personal Reflections on the Religious Problem of Evil” in Suffering and the Goodness of God, editors, Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 213-237.

i. Wife, Patricia, has Huntington’s disease

1. Physical ordeal: Gradual loss of control of all voluntary bodily movements

2. Psychological: Memory loss and depression; can lead to hallucinations and paranoid schizophrenia

ii. “I thought that as long as one had intellectual answers that explained why God allowed evil in the world as long as one could point to specific benefits that might accrue in the life of the sufferer, the sufferer would be satisfied. When I saw others struggle over their relationship with God because of some tragedy, I naively thought that if I could just offer them some answers that would resolve everything.”[16]

iii. Feinberg speaks of his emotional reactions to his wife’s disease

1. Hopelessness

2. Helplessness

3. Sense of abandonment

4. Anger at God

5. Confusion

iv. Background in scholarship didn’t help

1. “If anyone had thought about this and was prepared to face affliction, surely it was I. And yet when the events I have recounted happened, I found little comfort in any of it. I had all these intellectual answers, but none of them made any difference in how I felt. The emotional and psychological pain was unrelenting, and the physical results from the stress and mental pain were devastating.”[17]

2. “All my study and all the intellectual answers were of little help because the religious problem of evil isn’t primarily an intellectual problem but is fundamentally an emotional problem! People wrestling with evil, as I was, do not need an intellectual discourse on how to justify God’s ways to man in light of what’s happening. That’s what is needed to solve the abstract theological/philosophical problem of evil. This, on the other hand, is a problem about how someone experiencing affliction can live with this God who doesn’t stop it.”[18]

v. He writes of things that “didn’t help” and things that did help

1. Community

2. Finding grace and hope in daily things

b. The book of Psalms: songs to sing in the night

i. The “psalms provide a vocabulary and language for expressing pain, a grammar of pain, which continues to resonate for people struggling with difficulties understanding and describing their particular experiences of suffering.” Kristin M. Swenson[19]

ii. “Why?” and “How long?”

1. “Why do you stand afar off, O Lord? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble? –Psalm 10.1

2. ¹How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? ²How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart all the day? How long will my enemy be exalted over me? –Psalm 13.1-2

3. Psalm 88—only psalm that doesn’t move into resolution

4. Psalm 22.1—“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

c. With Psalm 22 we are, again, led to Jesus Christ and the cross

d. For the Christian, God has not left himself immune from suffering

“If the cross of Christ does not unveil the mystery of why God permits so much suffering in the first place… it does reveal his love in becoming incarnate to suffer with us. He is not content to be immutable and impassible, to watch his writhing creation with the eye of cool reason. He unites himself to a human consciousness and takes the suffering to himself. Thus, he knows from experience what it is like for pain to drive everything else from finite consciousness and to press it to the limits of its endurance.”[20]

§ Biblical data:

“For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings… Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in all things, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since he himself was tempted in that which he has suffered, he is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” Hebrews 2.10, 17-18

“For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore, let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time f need.” Hebrews 4.15-16

“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him who has endured such hostility by sinners against himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” Hebrews 12.2-3

o The perspective provides a sense of solidarity with Christ and hope in the midst of suffering

§ The Savior has suffered and he remembers the pain

§ His pressing through the pain even unto death yielded the good of the resurrection

§ This is the Christian’s hope as well

17.Conclusion

a. We engage in rational arguments and weeping

b. We philosophize and sing “How long?!”

c. We hope, together.

[1]Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics(Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 1.

[2]A helpful introduction to the deductive and evidential problems of evil is found in three short video presentations by Greg Ganssle of Yale University. Available online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2014/11/problem-of-evil-videos-by-dr-greg_5.html.

[3]Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press, 1990), 334.

[4]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, [1871], 436. Quoted in Theodore Plantinga, Learning to Live with Evil(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982), 72.

[5]Alvin Plantinga, “Supralapsarianism, or ‘O Felix Culpa’” in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil; editor, Peter van Inwagen (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 6. Available online: http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/FelixCulpa.pdf. Note: page numbers refer to online edition.

[6]“I believe that the great goodness of this state of affairs, like that of the divine existence itself, makes its value incommensurable with the value of states of affairs involving creaturely good and bad. Thus the value of incarnation and atonement cannot be matched by an aggregate of creaturely goods. No matter how many excellent creatures there are in a world, no matter how rich and beautiful and sinless their lives, the aggregated value of their lives would not match that of incarnation and atonement; any world with incarnation and atonement would be better yet. And no matter how much evil, how much sin and suffering a world contains, the aggregated badness would be outweighed by the goodness of incarnation and atonement, outweighed in such a way that the world in question is very good.” Plantinga, “Supralapsarianism, or ‘O Felix Culpa’,” 9.

[7]Greg Welty, Why Is There Evil In the World (And So Much Of It)? (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2018), 14.

[8]Greg Welty, Why Is There Evil In the World (And So Much Of It)? (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2018), 133—emphasis added.

[9]Greg Welty, Why Is There Evil In the World (And So Much Of It)? (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2018), 139.

[10]Greg Welty, Why Is There Evil In the World (And So Much Of It)? (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2018), 139-140.

[11]Greg Welty, Why Is There Evil In the World (And So Much Of It)? (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2018), 140.

[12]Greg Welty, Why Is There Evil In the World (And So Much Of It)? (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2018), 146.

[13]Stephen Wykstra, “A Skeptical Theist View” in God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views edited by Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2017), 111.

[14]Stephen Wykstra, “A Skeptical Theist View” in God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views edited by Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2017), 111.

[15]The notion of “horrendous evil” comes from Marilyn McCord Adams in her essay “Horrendous Evil and the Goodness of God.” She defines “horrendous evils” as “’evils the participation in (the doing or suffering of) which give one reason prima facie to doubt whether one’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to one on the whole.’ Such reasonable doubt arises because it is so difficult humanly to conceive how such evils could be overcome.” She later includes the crucifixion of Jesus in this category of horrendous evil. “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God,” in The Problem of Evil, eds. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) 211, 212.

[16]John S. Feinberg, “A Journey in Suffering: Personal Reflections on the Religious Problem of Evil” in Suffering and the Goodness of God, eds., Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 214. A fuller treatment is found in Feinberg’s book, Where Is God? A Personal Story of Finding God in Grief and Suffering (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2004).

[17]Feinberg, “A Journey in Suffering: Personal Reflections on the Religious Problem of Evil,” 219.

[18]Feinberg, “A Journey in Suffering: Personal Reflections on the Religious Problem of Evil,” 219.

[19]Quoted in David B. Calhoun, “Poems in the Dark: My Cancer and God’s Grace,” in Suffering and the Goodness of God, eds., Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 186—emphasis added.

[20]Marilyn McCord Adams, “Redemptive Suffering: A Christian Solution to the Problem of Evil” in Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment: New Essays in the Philosophy of Religion, eds. Robert Audi and William J. Wainwright (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1986), 260. Thaddeus Williams likewise notes: “Unlike us, God can feel the weight of the cumulative travails and triumphs of billions of people, weeping with those who weep andrejoicing with those who rejoice. His heart is incalculably more adept at complex feeling than our own.” Williams, Love, Freedom, and Evil, 87.

Friday, April 9, 2021

Christian Challenge Apologetic Series: Week Two