The problem of evil as stated in most philosophy classes is one of the greatest counter arguments to the existence of a good God, namely the God Christians believe in. This was the primary topic of Lee Strobel's "Case for Faith", but the book had a better explanation to my systematic mind was I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, the final contributing source to this blog is Switchfoot's The Shadow Proves the Sunshine. Ravi Zacharias very well argues peoples’ true reservations for philosophically denying God's existence is their own will to not want to have to answer for their behavior or submit to something much greater than themselves in The Real Face of Atheism, the presence and problem of evil is still one of the most popular topics of discussion.
I am writing this with an entirely different spin on the point, the "presence" of evil exists. For several years at my current point of maturity I am hard-pressed to say that I actually regret anything that I did. Not because I think I am some perfect being whose sins have not hurt or offended anyone, but because through my failures I have developed to be the person that I am today. If I had never experienced hardships, failure, and trials I suspect I would have a paper thin faith if any at all, at least on the personal level with Christ.
As I have read from several sources in addition to a number of sermons the most common answer to the problem of evil is that evil in itself does not exist. Instead evil is a description much like hot and cold. Cold is not tangible, cold by its very definition is the absence of heat. Just as the definition of darkness is an absence of light, evil is the definition of an absence of good. Philosophically it addresses the problem very well because one of the premises of the Problem of Evil as it is stated in philosophy is that evil exists. By defeating the premise, the argument is void. I think it also has the benefit of showing how we must promote and behave "good" to best combat evil. Although this reason philosophically by technicality is satisfying to some, to the majority of the population that has experienced evil, it is very unsatisfying to the heart.
My next point about the problem of evil, and why I think its feeling confirms the existence of God. People admit to themselves and others that they believe in absolute morals and therefore an absolute moral lawgiver by ones reaction to evil and pain. The best example I have is from a story about a college student and his professor. The student’s final paper was to argue for a point, any point. The student decided to argue against moral absolutism. When the student turned in the paper he was very disappointed with the grade. On the front of the paper it said "F, I don't like blue folders." The folder happened to be blue. Upset the student argued with the professor and claimed that the grade was not fair nor did it merit the F based on the color of the folder. The professor simply smiled and pointed out that, "you argued that there is no such thing as fair, moral, or right, therefore I don't like blue folders so you grade remains an F!" The moral of the story is that by the student’s reaction to injustice, his absolute belief in justice, fairness, and morality was confirmed. It is by people’s reaction to evil that they confirm what good should be.
Most people will argue that because evil exists that God doesn't exist, after all why wouldn't he stop it? Well the Christian answer to why evil is in the world is because sin is in the world. Sinful people commit evil deeds on people. Even more, natural disasters are also the result of sin, perhaps not as directly as a sinful person murdering another person as being evil, but because sin entered the world at the Garden of Eden. All of creation was rocked, the world was no longer as it was meant to be, and that is the world we currently reside.
To further elaborate people confirm what right and wrong is by our reactions to wrong, is the song I mentioned earlier. The Shadow proves the Sunshine I don't think I need to go further than the title of the song for the point to be made. Without the darkness we can't appreciate the good and justness of God. After all, if there was no light how would one recognize it is dark? We wouldn't because that is all that there would be. In the same way, the existence of the shadow proves that sunshine does exist.
Jun 28, 2006
A Theory In Crisis, Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Many of you know how I like to argue things; I have a more distinct fervor for arguing things that I think have a connection with our faith but do not require our faith for the explanation to make complete sense. Something that occurred to me either this morning or sometime yesterday while I was almost a lone ranger on the Hard Core Christians Living Hardcore MySpace forums arguing for Creation against several advocates of evolution. I found it entertaining and somewhat challenging, not so much because they came up with new arguments that I have never seen before, but because I had to explain and come up with examples of evolution's incompleteness. It is not often that an entire debate will end in one sitting in a forum atmosphere but this one did.
I don’t want to keep this blog unreasonably long because I noticed from my previous blog I got a little too excited to dump all the arguments on the table and it only resulted in a really long blog that intellectually vomited on the reader with so many points and arguments. I found as I got to the last several points to fully elaborate would be simply too long. I suppose that is what happens when I try to summarize points made from several books and journals into such a small place like a single blog. So let's see how this one goes.
Oh before I get on with it I also want to through a shout out to Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". This is a very interesting book so far, I am about 1/6 of the way through it, it is through Dr. Behe's style of this read that this blog has really come to be. He does not claim to believe in Intelligent Design or Young Earth theory (the earth is 6k-10k years old) like most authors of material that question evolutionary theory as it stands today. On one hand I feel as though he is arguing for something he doesn't fully believe in, but then it hit me, he isn't really arguing for Creationism as his quotes are being used throughout the world in creation vs. evolution debates. All Dr. Behe is doing in this book, so far, is pointing out that evolution as it stands has issues that need to be addressed.
As simply as I see it in my mind right now it is that evolutionary theory has many problems within itself. So far Dr. Behe has not gotten on a soap box after exposing difficulties with the theory; he has just shown how the current theory is inadequate for what it is. These problems range from: the origin of life, benefits through mutation, irreducible complexity, explanation of the Cambrian explosion, and overall age of the earth in respect to what mutations must exhibit, and the list goes on. Each of these problems I can write a mouthful about it with my limited knowledge on the subject. I know full well I can't explain the complete difficulties and failings of the theory but I can give a good summarization of each of those issues. To get a full explanation the kind that should be the satisfying standard of the scientific world would require some serious post-graduate level explanations.
I am not saying that only people with doctorates can understand or explain the problems, just that the bases of those problems need to be explained at such a level that it takes an expert in that field of science. For example, as a micro-biologist Dr Behe listed on the molecular level a very "basic" version of how sight functions in our eyes. I know I am more current with remembering my college biology and chemistry and even that "basic" explanation had me struggling to get the gist of it. This example of the eye is just one of the many problems found within biology that will need micro-biologists to fully explain the function and possibly its origins.
I am greatly tempted to break out some of the evidence in support of creationism but that would be to miss the point that I want to really elaborate upon. Often within a debate over a controversial issue it comes down to two sides, the majority verses the minority. This is present in every debate setting, but as I pointed out in my abortion blog, there is actually a core issue within the debate. It is not given the attention it deserves instead the arguments dance all around the core topic. Abortion for example is "Is the unborn human?" simple as that. What is the core issue within the creation vs. evolution or ID (Intelligent Design) vs. Evolution argument?
In the midst of the "us vs. them", feel of this debate I think many people over look the true stance of the ID community. It is not so much that we are pointing to evolutionists and saying "you're wrong", we are pointing to evolutionists and saying, “you got problems and contradictions within your theory." In addition we like to add "our explanation through ID fits like this..." That is the heart of the issues as I see it. I think special attention needs to be made to keep this idea in mind because it is so easy to get bogged down in so many arguments which turn into an intellectual shouting match, sometimes not always involving intellect or shouting.
I don’t want to keep this blog unreasonably long because I noticed from my previous blog I got a little too excited to dump all the arguments on the table and it only resulted in a really long blog that intellectually vomited on the reader with so many points and arguments. I found as I got to the last several points to fully elaborate would be simply too long. I suppose that is what happens when I try to summarize points made from several books and journals into such a small place like a single blog. So let's see how this one goes.
Oh before I get on with it I also want to through a shout out to Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". This is a very interesting book so far, I am about 1/6 of the way through it, it is through Dr. Behe's style of this read that this blog has really come to be. He does not claim to believe in Intelligent Design or Young Earth theory (the earth is 6k-10k years old) like most authors of material that question evolutionary theory as it stands today. On one hand I feel as though he is arguing for something he doesn't fully believe in, but then it hit me, he isn't really arguing for Creationism as his quotes are being used throughout the world in creation vs. evolution debates. All Dr. Behe is doing in this book, so far, is pointing out that evolution as it stands has issues that need to be addressed.
As simply as I see it in my mind right now it is that evolutionary theory has many problems within itself. So far Dr. Behe has not gotten on a soap box after exposing difficulties with the theory; he has just shown how the current theory is inadequate for what it is. These problems range from: the origin of life, benefits through mutation, irreducible complexity, explanation of the Cambrian explosion, and overall age of the earth in respect to what mutations must exhibit, and the list goes on. Each of these problems I can write a mouthful about it with my limited knowledge on the subject. I know full well I can't explain the complete difficulties and failings of the theory but I can give a good summarization of each of those issues. To get a full explanation the kind that should be the satisfying standard of the scientific world would require some serious post-graduate level explanations.
I am not saying that only people with doctorates can understand or explain the problems, just that the bases of those problems need to be explained at such a level that it takes an expert in that field of science. For example, as a micro-biologist Dr Behe listed on the molecular level a very "basic" version of how sight functions in our eyes. I know I am more current with remembering my college biology and chemistry and even that "basic" explanation had me struggling to get the gist of it. This example of the eye is just one of the many problems found within biology that will need micro-biologists to fully explain the function and possibly its origins.
I am greatly tempted to break out some of the evidence in support of creationism but that would be to miss the point that I want to really elaborate upon. Often within a debate over a controversial issue it comes down to two sides, the majority verses the minority. This is present in every debate setting, but as I pointed out in my abortion blog, there is actually a core issue within the debate. It is not given the attention it deserves instead the arguments dance all around the core topic. Abortion for example is "Is the unborn human?" simple as that. What is the core issue within the creation vs. evolution or ID (Intelligent Design) vs. Evolution argument?
In the midst of the "us vs. them", feel of this debate I think many people over look the true stance of the ID community. It is not so much that we are pointing to evolutionists and saying "you're wrong", we are pointing to evolutionists and saying, “you got problems and contradictions within your theory." In addition we like to add "our explanation through ID fits like this..." That is the heart of the issues as I see it. I think special attention needs to be made to keep this idea in mind because it is so easy to get bogged down in so many arguments which turn into an intellectual shouting match, sometimes not always involving intellect or shouting.
Jun 6, 2006
Odd Assumptions and Practical Atheism
I had a fun morning today; we were destroying a big display board so we could throw it away. The best part was the conversations we had while we were working on the easy project. I found it profoundly interesting how different I really think from other people and how little faith they have in the power of faith.
It seems every time we get a chance to chat as a group of friends the subject of interest seems to always be relationships or something along those lines. I know I am naive about certain subjects and rather inexperienced in many areas of relationships but I think I am greatly underestimated in many factors of how my future will turn out. I also must say they believe far too much in human nature. According to them as soon as I am de-virginized, I will become some form of man which resembles the rest of the male population whose sole goal in life is to seek anything in a skirt. In addition, any temptation I have will eventually be given into. The most encouraging thing I heard was that the expected length of my "first" marriage was 2 years from one of my friends. I quoted "first" because I do not plan nor do I think it is a wise plan to think of marriages as first or any numerical count. The one semi-accurate thing I think is fair at the very least to consider is that I will be heart broken if/when my first relationship fails.
Oh yea, this weekend I went to a R&R resort hosted by the chaplains. We had a lesson time on Friday (it was thurs-sat), for the single soldiers we watch a few sermons out of Song of Solomon. It was a rather exhaustive approach going through each verse at a time, thus in the three hours we got to the middle of chapter two. So far I must say I that it wasn't that hot'n heavy as I have heard, then again that was just the choosing and courting parts of the book. The one bit that I really agreed with was how to find a Christian mate. The pastor in the videos said “we simply run whole heartedly for Christ and look to our right and left to see who is running next to us, at some point see if they want to run with you”. Many of the other details in the sermons mentioned stuff I have heard and or applied appropriately already, I think.
This was one of those conversations I found both entertaining and sad at the same time. It was quiet funny how they think that everyone has to through life in an aimless search to find what their looking for. Sad because I know exactly what they were searching for at points in their lives and they didn't look in the right place. I have a delicate time with deep conversations like this cause one of my friends is really sensitive to anything almost alluding to a spiritual discussion. I hope in my efforts to love and not shove the Gospel down her throat that I have not been too subtle about it. I think I valued or gave slightly more credit to this conversation for a couple reasons, first they are some of my closest non-Christian friends here, second they are all married, and third it had a certain tone of seriousness that I found rather eerie from some of the stuff they were saying.
A part of me still feels like I am not doing so good at shining bright that others will praise God (1 Peter 2:12, Matthew 5:16). That verse has been such a source of influence in the way I constantly attempt to conduct myself but yet those that verbally notice so often refer to me as being a "good" guy. It irks me so much because being seen as "good" is the exact opposite in my purpose. I know it is up to the individual to see the good works and praise our Father in Heaven, but I can't help but think that they have seen so few earnest Christians that they don't recognize that it is God in me that is so good. There is so much that I have seen that is frustrating, so many people going about their lives in search of what I have found. Yet, since I have not lived through their life I cannot know the solution to their issues.
I have been reading perhaps the best apologetic book yet, called I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist. I am almost completed reading it, somewhere one of the common themes in the apologetics I have been reading is the true answer to why most people deny God's existence. They do not wish to admit nor submit their life to God, simple as that. I have found a new conundrum, as most apologetics are addressed to atheists; what about those that calls themselves Christians. I think the world is far more populated with people that think they are Christians but live without him as an active part of their life. Not to say they are all immoral heathens that live in terrible debauchery, but take their faith to a point similar to Agnostics. The whole "big guy way up there that doesn't really care" ideology seems to me to be far more common than declared atheists. Then when they see the difference that God makes in our lives it doesn't click that our faith is what makes so much difference.
Then again what apologetics are there to logically show more about God than what is revealed through the persuasive arguments and debates? I don't think that form of ministry is a practical use of apologetics. I think conveying the personality and the express uniqueness of our God is something that only we can accomplish both by words but more by lifestyle. I am reminded of the intro to What if Stumble every time I think about that. The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and deny him by their lifestyle. Then to add a bit more, because there are so few Christians that acknowledge Jesus in our lifestyle it is alien to those that see it.
It seems every time we get a chance to chat as a group of friends the subject of interest seems to always be relationships or something along those lines. I know I am naive about certain subjects and rather inexperienced in many areas of relationships but I think I am greatly underestimated in many factors of how my future will turn out. I also must say they believe far too much in human nature. According to them as soon as I am de-virginized, I will become some form of man which resembles the rest of the male population whose sole goal in life is to seek anything in a skirt. In addition, any temptation I have will eventually be given into. The most encouraging thing I heard was that the expected length of my "first" marriage was 2 years from one of my friends. I quoted "first" because I do not plan nor do I think it is a wise plan to think of marriages as first or any numerical count. The one semi-accurate thing I think is fair at the very least to consider is that I will be heart broken if/when my first relationship fails.
Oh yea, this weekend I went to a R&R resort hosted by the chaplains. We had a lesson time on Friday (it was thurs-sat), for the single soldiers we watch a few sermons out of Song of Solomon. It was a rather exhaustive approach going through each verse at a time, thus in the three hours we got to the middle of chapter two. So far I must say I that it wasn't that hot'n heavy as I have heard, then again that was just the choosing and courting parts of the book. The one bit that I really agreed with was how to find a Christian mate. The pastor in the videos said “we simply run whole heartedly for Christ and look to our right and left to see who is running next to us, at some point see if they want to run with you”. Many of the other details in the sermons mentioned stuff I have heard and or applied appropriately already, I think.
This was one of those conversations I found both entertaining and sad at the same time. It was quiet funny how they think that everyone has to through life in an aimless search to find what their looking for. Sad because I know exactly what they were searching for at points in their lives and they didn't look in the right place. I have a delicate time with deep conversations like this cause one of my friends is really sensitive to anything almost alluding to a spiritual discussion. I hope in my efforts to love and not shove the Gospel down her throat that I have not been too subtle about it. I think I valued or gave slightly more credit to this conversation for a couple reasons, first they are some of my closest non-Christian friends here, second they are all married, and third it had a certain tone of seriousness that I found rather eerie from some of the stuff they were saying.
A part of me still feels like I am not doing so good at shining bright that others will praise God (1 Peter 2:12, Matthew 5:16). That verse has been such a source of influence in the way I constantly attempt to conduct myself but yet those that verbally notice so often refer to me as being a "good" guy. It irks me so much because being seen as "good" is the exact opposite in my purpose. I know it is up to the individual to see the good works and praise our Father in Heaven, but I can't help but think that they have seen so few earnest Christians that they don't recognize that it is God in me that is so good. There is so much that I have seen that is frustrating, so many people going about their lives in search of what I have found. Yet, since I have not lived through their life I cannot know the solution to their issues.
I have been reading perhaps the best apologetic book yet, called I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist. I am almost completed reading it, somewhere one of the common themes in the apologetics I have been reading is the true answer to why most people deny God's existence. They do not wish to admit nor submit their life to God, simple as that. I have found a new conundrum, as most apologetics are addressed to atheists; what about those that calls themselves Christians. I think the world is far more populated with people that think they are Christians but live without him as an active part of their life. Not to say they are all immoral heathens that live in terrible debauchery, but take their faith to a point similar to Agnostics. The whole "big guy way up there that doesn't really care" ideology seems to me to be far more common than declared atheists. Then when they see the difference that God makes in our lives it doesn't click that our faith is what makes so much difference.
Then again what apologetics are there to logically show more about God than what is revealed through the persuasive arguments and debates? I don't think that form of ministry is a practical use of apologetics. I think conveying the personality and the express uniqueness of our God is something that only we can accomplish both by words but more by lifestyle. I am reminded of the intro to What if Stumble every time I think about that. The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and deny him by their lifestyle. Then to add a bit more, because there are so few Christians that acknowledge Jesus in our lifestyle it is alien to those that see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)