themattscott

Hi Matt,
Kyle has hit the nail on the head with his arguments. The problem of "evil" is not new to you or anyone else who seriously searches for answers and questions the world we live in. Augustine writes about this issue over and over again. He realized its importance as do you. You presume to have an infinate understanding of all things physical and metaphysical. Now, I am not suggesting that you or anyone stop searching for answers. What I am suggesting is that you don't take yourself so damn seriously! Man has been seraching for these answers for thousands of years (not just 2 thousand either...read some Socrates) and I dare say he will continue for some time. Will we find the unltimate answers to these questions? Probably not. But, the search for truth will lead you in the right direction only if you seek "truth" first reguardless of your predetermined concepts. In the end, however, you must know that ultimately it is God who has the answers, not us.

If you think I'm a young-earth creationist or somesuch thing, you're mistaken. I try to interpret according to literary genre, which is very difficult to pin down for something like a creation account that isn't found elsewhere in scripture, unlike law, prophecy, etc. I don't have much confidence in science (I'm in the rather odd position of finding both the evidence for and against evolution to be equally unconvincing, but I'm not particularly hostile towards the whole idea) but tend to take a more figurative approach to Genesis for literary reasons and philosophical reasons rather than scientific considerations. Notice that my explanation for natural evil - God creating a world that could sustain fallen Man - is quite different from the typical YEC position ("when Adam and Eve sinned, the perfect world was ruined, everything started dying and the whole world changed inexplicably!")

I don't know whether the Creation account is supposed to be literal or figurative, but either way it seems quite clear that whether Adam was one person or representative of a larger population, people fell into sin because they disobeyed God. I read some of the posts you linked to, which were interesting not particularly convincing towards eliminating the idea of sin that the emerging church seems to dislike so much. It seems to be a more effective rebuttal to Calvinistic ideas of total depravity, which I don't hold to, anyway. His main problem seems to be the idea of sin as biologically inherited, which I'm not sure I'd affirm anyway since it seems to be a spiritual malady, rather than physical. Intriguing nonetheless.

Personally I don't find how one interprets the early chapters of Genesis to even be that important when it comes to understanding sin, when it's seen throughout scripture and just as obvious in the contemporary world. I didn't appeal to original sin in discussing manmade evil, anyway; I find the more immediate and observable effects of sin and human evil to be more useful. If the millions (if not billions) murdered by totalitarian regimes in the 20th century aren't enough to convince someone that it's human misbehavior that's responsible for the most of the evil in the world, then I don't know what to say. People are capable of great good, but not often without the framework of religious or philosophical foundations. To me, the need for a savior seems quite apparent simply from the natural world and doesn't stem from some sort of hyper-fundamentalist reading of certain parts of the Bible.

It sounds like you're struggling with the age-old Problem of Evil. Personally I've found the PoE to be particularly forceful, but clearly it's an issue for you. I'll pray that God offers you answers and comfort, and try to offer a small bit of my own insight.

My take on natural evil is that is that God created a world which could sustain humans in a fallen state; the constant churning of the natural world through life, death, storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other disasters seem to me to be the side effects of a world that needs to change in order to support a constantly changing human population. When mankind sinned, we lost our chance for a perfect, cozy life and exited Eden, whether it be physical or metaphysical. And I believe that when God recreates the universe that the nature of existence itself will change to be beyond death and decay.

Your argument seems to be:

1. Nature is evil.
2. God controls nature.
3. Therefore, God must be evil.

But at the very least I dispute the second point. I believe that God created nature but established natural forces to govern it. Personally I find nature to be very ambiguous - at times it's incredibly beautiful, at others, ugly. Just like humans, huh? Seems like a reflection on us more than God.

As far as manmade evil goes, it seems difficult to ascribe the blame to God. Most of the problems with humanity stem from other humans behaving badly, and seem to highlight the need for God's salvation rather than calling it into question. I think it's worth adding that those of us who vote against healthcare (such as myself) do not believe in ignoring the needy, but supporting private organizations instead of the government. I don't think that not wanting to hand over control to the government is tantamount to apathy. But this is, after all, a sociopolitical issue rather than a religious one. I don't think one is any less of a Christian for believing the government should provide for the poor, for example.

Did God withdraw? I don't think so. I think he's the same distance that he's always been, and that it's a mistake to assume he's supposed to be intimately connected with the workings of the world. I wish I could remember the scripture, but doesn't God tell the devil that he's giving him control over the world? Within the context of Christianity, I think the present condition of the world is quite reasonable. I hope this is somewhat helpful as you consider these issues.

The "Problem of Evil," It's called Theodicy (you can see I have tagged this post as such).
When mankind sinned is an interesting statement, implying first sin, or original sin, which doesn't quite jive with me (being an divine-evolutionist and whatnot), but for a better series of posts on the myth of "Original Sin" check out Tony Jone's work through here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2009/01/original-sin-a-depraved-idea.html

I'd respond to more, but that'd entail arguing against the literalism with which you apparently take the Bible, something I have done elsewhere and am in no mood to do right now.

I will make one final comment:
"I think it's worth adding that those of us who vote against healthcare (such as myself) do not believe in ignoring the needy, but supporting private organizations instead of the government."
I'm on quite sure what organizations you're referring to here, be it insurance of NGO's and NPO's that help those in need, but I'll commend you for your stalwart support of this path. It's working out so well right now.

I am too incapable to generate a response that meets the passion of your thoughts, Matt. So, I won't. I'll let Pedro:

And who shall I blame for this sweet and heavy trouble?
For every stupid struggle?
I don't know.
I could buy you a drink.
I could tell you all about it.
I could tell you why I doubt it, and why I still believe it.
And why I need it.
And what the pharisees don't see.

And we'd have more drinks. We'd speak of so many things.
But I don't know you, and you don't know me.

Andrew,

That's a good point. It's interesting to me that we in the West tend to question whether God exists when something terrible happens. Most pagans in Western history, with the exception of a small band of philosophers, interpreted disaster as the will of the gods or God causing the calamity. But their belief in a Divine Power behind life's events was unabated. Yet, in the West, the evils of the world cause us to doubt in God's existence. What has changed?

Not unrelated to the piece I want to write for Open Table Theology this month, but I'm not sure I'll have time.

I'm interested in why you pick on "violence" as the antithesis, as it were, of the gospel (or of something ... not sure I can pick up what). I don't disagree that it sits badly with following the Prince of Peace, but it's never really struck me as the central problem.

After the Indian Ocean tsunami, I remember a bishop being interviewed about whether such things should damage faith: how can there be a God who allows this to happen? His response was to ask whether when we see something good, right, pure, life-affirming happen, we see the non-believer tending to say "how can there not be a God to make this happen". If there's an asymmetry there, it is very interesting. I perhaps mis-remember the precise argument, but it struck me at first as trite and trivial, and later as possibly quite profound.

By the way, to acknowledge my own biases. I think if Naturalism is true, then there's really no point to going on. If I didn't believe in the transcendent value and behind the empirical Universe (notice I'm not saying "my faith in Jesus": I'm talking about something more fundamental than that), everything in my life would crumble to pieces. To me, that's just the logical outworking of Naturalism. Atheists who espouse this philosophy live in complete contradiction when they promote any kind of obligatory behavior from anyone. If there is nothing that has inherent value in and of itself, then there's nothing worth caring about. Period. If a person can delude themselves into thinking that "you make your own meaning" or whatever crap gets them by, fine. But it's just a whisper blown away in the wind. This is it. The end.

So I'm not unbiased. Thus, I would lose my whole world if I came to believe that this is incorrect. So I'm definitely not unbiased. But no one is. Everyone has an emotional investment somewhere. I'm just advocating laying the cards out on the table. But I could deal with that. I would just give up.

However, it's when I confront this bleakness that it becomes apparent to me that this view is wrong. What's communicated through Nature is more than just physical sensations. There's nothing more I could say in defense of it than that: there is more to it than the empirical world. Just look. No arguments here. Just the experience of something beyond, however vague and shadowy it might be now.

I can understand where you're coming from here. It's times when you think and feel things like this that abstract philosophy/theology and textual criticism are pretty empty against the proximate, real-life events unfolding within our immediate experience. And I know that this is, by your own admission, not necessarily thought out and you may have said some things you don't really mean. I can't count the numerous times that I've said things on a post in the heat of the moment and later thought, "Crap...that was stupid." You may still fully endorse what you've posted here in the next week, but maybe not. I just want to clarify that I get this post was you in a moment, not a philosophical treatise for your beliefs. With that understanding, I am responding the spirit of what is contained here and not necessarily to you.

For what it's worth, I've always been of the persuasion that God, whatever It is, is here and aware of what's happening, and that Its hand is moving behind the events of the world. I admit that this a purely existential assertion. But so is everything at the most basic level of existence. So I confidently assert that God (not any particular God, just the Divine Power) is there and watching/acting in some way that doesn't make sense; and that this much at least is knowable of God because it's apparent (as opposed to "believed in on faith"), even if we can't explain what the heck is going on.

As for Christianity, I think you're right in your assessment of Christians here in the States and abroad. But I think a lack of exposure to the larger Body outside the Continental U.S. might have left you a bit jaded. And your particular religious upbringing surely has a lot to do with how you feel--not that this makes what you're saying illegitimate. It doesn't. But I've said for years that nothing makes strong Atheists quite the same way as a good Fundamentalist Church. That’s not a sweeping dismissal of your position, just a tempering counter-balance to it. There’s a lot going on psychologically that causes us to react, feel, and think in certain ways and those things have to be recognized. We all have biases.

For myself, I HATE going to Church for a number of reasons that center around the particular experiences I had with various people/groups over the years--all of which has created in me an anti-authoritarian antagonism I have never gotten over. I have rarely left a church service in the past several years without feeling angry; rightly wrongly. But that doesn’t mean that everything I think about Church can be reduced to unwarranted biases and predispositions. It just means that those aspects need to be accounted for in my assessments of things I feel strongly about. I think the same thing could be said of your post, which I think you already realize.

I’m curious to see where all of this takes you down the road. I could understand if you felt the need to step away from the Christianity altogether and just reassess what you believe. I’m no advocate of simply pushing doubt away. There’s no use in fooling yourself (I’m using the generic “you”). You are where you are and the world is the way it is. Either there is a God, or there isn’t. Jesus rose from the dead, or he rotted in his grave like everyone else. We can’t be afraid to admit the very real possibility that this is all a sham and we’re just a bunch of babies playing a game. I found it difficult to have any kind of genuine faith until I admitted this possibility to myself. But I also found that, once I was truly open, I ended up not disregarding as much as I thought I would.

One thing I would say: God is there. The question of God is real. I admit the possibility that It doesn’t exist. And yet, a Power behind the Universe is present. Not just somewhere out there, but here, proximate. This Thing is doing something. Whether what It's doing is "Good," whatever that means, is another matter. But a Power is there. I think that much is undeniable, despite how often it is denied. It’s not the kind of thing you could point to and go, “There it is!” It’s something more pervasive. More like the simultaneous presence and non-presence of a narrator in a book. It’s just there. That much I do think you could hold onto, and wrestle with, as you progress down your path.