Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Reasons.org: Science, Faith, and the Problem of Pain

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

RTB Visiting Scholar Balajied Nongrum writes:

In his book, Does He Know a Mother’s Heart?: How Suffering Refutes Religion,1 Arun Shourie, a journalist and a former minister for Communications and Information Technology of India, concludes that “suffering and God are incompatible.” When we reflect on both the extent and depth of pain and suffering in the world, whether it is due to moral evil (man’s cruelty to one another) or to natural evil (resulting in natural calamities), people will inevitably question the existence of God or ask, “Why?”

No doubt, many of us have felt the same way and perhaps we wanted to turn away from God. As someone who thinks about these issues deeply, I believe that everyone—regardless of what they believe—must offer a reasonable response to the problem of pain and suffering. In other words, every worldview under the Sun must deal with the problem of pain and suffering.

As a believer in God, I’m persuaded that the problem of pain and suffering, terrible as it is, does not negate God’s existence. On the contrary, I believe that having God in the equation is humanity’s last best hope of making sense of this issue. The Bible tells us that God does not merely exist, but he is also all-good and all-powerful. The Bible also recognizes the reality of evil (moral and natural) and proposes a reality where God will one day end evil and all sufferings.2 

However, I agree that humans may not fully know God’s specific purpose or design and the reasons for his permitting pain and suffering to exist in this world. But to a certain extent, human beings can gain some wisdom from different sources, such as our personal experiences with pain or the experiences of others, and from Holy Scripture. However, this article will offer a scientific view on the purpose of pain.

Pain: Foe or Friend?
In our modern world, pain is often viewed as the enemy that must be done away with or defeated at all costs. At the individual level, just a slight signal of pain such as a severe headache or a body ache is enough reason for us to gulp down an analgesic or pain killer. Readily available medication perhaps explains the hope and growing interest that people place in science and its perceived potential to eradicate pain and suffering.3 Even limiting or managing pain is welcomed. However, while the intention may be good, this goal is sadly shortsighted. This kind of hope in science is misplaced because it ignores the vital role that pain and suffering play in our lives.  

For instance, consider the medical condition seen among patients with diseases such as “leprosy, congenital painlessness, diabetic neuropathy, and other nerve disorders” where their inability to experience pain causes greater harm to them than the disease itself.4 People in such cases end up injuring themselves simply because the pain signal in their body is not functioning. In other words, from a scientific point of view, some pain serves as a warning of danger ahead.

The Gift of Pain, a book jointly authored by world-renowned hand surgeon Dr. Paul Brand and award-winning writer Philip Yancey tells the story of Tanya, a four-year-old girl who was brought to the hospital with a “swollen left ankle.” On further investigation, Brand found out that the “foot rotated freely, the sign of a fully dislocated ankle” and yet to the doctor’s utter shock Tanya was not the least bothered. She did not even exhibit any pain!5

Tanya was later diagnosed with a very rare genetic disease informally referred to as congenital indifference to pain. According to the experts, her overall health was fine except in one area: she did not feel pain! When she injured herself by any accident, all she felt was “a kind of tingling—but these carried no hint of unpleasantness.” It was evident that Tanya “lacked any mental construct of pain.” In other words, she did not have a “built-in warning system” to warn her of any further injuries.6 This case and others led Brand to say:

Tanya and others like her dramatically reinforced what we had already learned from leprosy patients: pain is not the enemy, but the loyal scout announcing the enemy. And yet—here is the central paradox of my life—after spending a lifetime among people who destroy themselves for lack of pain, I still find it difficult to communicate an appreciation for pain to people who have no such defect. Pain truly is the gift nobody wants. I can think of nothing more precious for those who suffer from congenital painlessness, leprosy, diabetes, and other nerve disorders. But people who already own this gift rarely value it. Usually, they resent it.7

This fact made me reevaluate my own painful visits to the dentist. Though the immediate pain of having my decaying tooth rectified was unbearable, the pain nevertheless served a better outcome. My dentist’s good intention kept me from suffering even greater pain in the future. Having come to this point, I could not help but agree with Brand’s conviction that pain truly is one of God’s greatest gifts to us, a gift that perhaps none of us want yet none of us can do without! 

Reasons.org

Even pain can be considered evidence of intelligent design. Although not discussed in the article directly, the pain we feel is exquisitely moderated to adequately warn our consciousness of the level of danger we may be experiencing at the moment. A pin-rick produces modest pain, while hitting one’s thumb with a hammer generates much greater pain. The level of pain we experience most often matches the level of danger to our body. Again, this is consistent with the expectations of a well-designed feedback system.

Comments
"Arguing against Evolution is a losing proposition to 99.9% of the people including those who advocate ID, so why proffer it?" Jerry, This is a distraction. Either you can clearly define Evolution and then demonstrate specifically when and how it happened (and maybe why) or you can't. You ready to do that? Andrewasauber
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Did it happen?
Arguing against Evolution is a losing proposition to 99.9% of the people including those who advocate ID, so why proffer it? Not one of the major ID writers argues against Evolution, just how it happened. One has to believe in a creator whose objective was to really confuse us rather than one who wanted us to examine the evidence for understanding. It’s the ultimate in anti science to suggest Evolution is not real. Take up your position with Behe, Meyer, Richards or Witt or the many others who advocate for ID.jerry
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
"But just how did Evolution happen?" Did it happen? Andrewasauber
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
I highly recommend John West’s YouTube talk. In terms of doubt to origins, the modern culture certainly engenders it as John West lays out in the beginning of this talk. All the powers in education including most religious ones are lined up on one side, anti ID. Then West goes into the purpose of his talk, which is that it was always this way. There was probably a thousand years in between 2000 years ago and now that was not anti design in a lot of the world but it was definitely around in Greek and Roman times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrwjqXNYP2o&t=1718s The interesting thing is that so few ID advocates here can spell out easily why the anti ID position is wrong. Do they fail to understand why they believe what they do? Over on another thread nearly 600 comments have led nowhere. Of course both sides will disagree but no one has presented the killing data in an easily understood form. West refers to a couple chapters in a book he participated in as the defining argument. So I will have to look at it. Aside: I am quite aware that there is no compelling evidence for naturalized Evolution. No one can explain how proteins arose let alone systems of them working together. That is the basis for most of ID even though the characteristics of the universe and Earth must be fine tuned for complex life to happen. But just how did Evolution happen? It seems that the alternative to naturalized Evolution was the continued necessity of some intelligence to make it happen. Not just once but tens of thousands of times. Is it this latter understanding that generates all the doubt about design? That the creator couldn’t get it right so that some intelligence had to constantly meddle to make it happen? ID doesn’t really deal with this and acts as if it doesn’t exist. But that is an explicit implication of ID. Did the creator understand this dilemma and actually want it? Was it part of the design?jerry
August 16, 2022
August
08
Aug
16
16
2022
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Who is Paxx? Because unless he is being sarcastic in his commentary he has proven that: 1. He is the stereotypical, dime a dozen, garden variety atheist. 2. Is guilty of literally the same arrogance he just accused believers of. 3. Has no worthwhile commentary add to the conversation. 4. Belittles everyone else who does not share his highly evolved point of view. 5. Needs to learn how to spell “everone” Unless he is trying to be ClEvEr and insinuate we’re rednecks with a red neck accent. :o Oh Paxx, entertain us more with your insults and insinuations, I do enjoy clowns. AARONS1978 (Have to retype my name in caps to emphasize my importance or help people read my name, learned it from PAXX)AaronS1978
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
:))) Another atheist who tell us that he learned the moral law from hydrogen bonds . Could you explain to us how do you jump from chemicals to fairness and morality ? What is the chemical composition of truth? Fill that gap for us to understand because obviously you are much smarter than people who believe in God . :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Here's the thing folks, if you could prove your viewpoint true, well, by golly, everone would believe it. 2 + 2 = 4 etc But don't be a jackass and expect your huge and gaping gaps in human knowledge (that you fill with mere belief) to be filled in by your beliefs. Not gunna happen. That's just arrogance on your part. Believe what you want, but screw your arrogance. It isn't persuasive to intelligent thinking people.Paxx
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
relatd, Your god is a monster. But, of course, it doesn't exist. You're the monsterPaxx
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Matthew 25:46 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”relatd
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
There is no infinite torture PAXXPaxx
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Jerry at 30, Who the heck is the Jewish God of the Old Testament? He is the same God as in the New Testament. Doubt is the key to nothing. We are saved by faith through grace. Here is what the Bible tells us about faith: Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."relatd
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
it just wasn’t terribly relevant to the focus of his discussion
He essentially misses it. Sewell doesn't see the necessity of doubt. It would explain all his concerns and he gets sidetracked by the bad things that happen to people. That's easy to understand since he is focused on what happened with his wife. She did absolutely nothing to deserve her fate. Bad things happening unnecessarily are necessary to create doubt. But bad things are also irrelevant for the Christian. He doesn't really get there. Nor does nearly everyone else. It's still a great essay and everyone should read it.jerry
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Jerry@30
But he (Sewell) misses a very key part and only refers to it at most peripherally. That is doubt and then faith given this doubt.
I don't think he missed it; it just wasn't terribly relevant to the focus of his discussion. There is no question that faith given and driven by doubt is key to the persistent searching for the meaning, and hopefully the purpose, of suffering, carried out by those few who truly care about such things in our materialistic society. But that is the dynamics of the quest, not the resulting concepts and hypotheses of actual meaning and purpose to be finally proposed, distilled out of countless studies and searchings, which was the focus of his essay. I myself have been somewhat motivated in this quest by doubt (hence my nickname here), showing the wisdom of the Jewish professor's teaching.doubter
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Since Atheists have no empirical evidence whatsoever that the universe, life, the diversity of life, or even consciousness itself, arose spontaneously, (i.e. completely randomly), the Atheist is forced to resort to philosophically, and even theologically, based arguments to try to argue against God. The two most common philosophically/theologically based arguments that atheists use against God are the 'God of the Gaps' argument, and the 'Argument from Evil'. Yet, both arguments collapse in on themselves. And collapse in on themselves in rather dramatic fashions.
Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists - November 8, 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,, What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,, The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism. Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars. https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/elite-scientists-dont-have-elite-reasons-for-being-atheists/
The ‘God of the gaps’ argument from Atheists, and from Theistic Evolutionists, fails on so many levels that it is hard to know where to begin. So let’s start with the origin of the argument itself. The origin of the argument goes back to atheist Friedrich Nietzsche and also to theistic evolutionist Henry Drummond.
God of the gaps – Origins of the term From the 1880s, Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part Two, “On Priests”, said “… into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God.”.[3] The concept, although not the exact wording, goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th-century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man(1904) . He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science cannot yet explain—”gaps which they will fill up with God”—and urges them to embrace all nature as God’s, as the work of “an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology.”[4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Origins_of_the_term
Nietzsche’s claim, “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God”, was a very interesting claim for Nietzsche, a dogmatic atheist, to make. The reason why it is very interesting is because if God is not real, but is merely an illusion as atheists hold, then everything else becomes an illusion for the atheist. Including the atheist himself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
In short, the atheist, in making his 'God of the gaps' argument, is forced into postulating numerous ad hoc 'illusions of the gaps' arguments. Self-refuting 'illusions of the gaps' arguments which lead to the catastrophic epistemological failure of the entire atheistic worldview. Indeed, as I've stated several times before, it world be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic Naturalism and/or Darwinian materialism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
In a very similar manner the atheist's 'argument from evil' also collapses in on itself. Atheists hold that good and evil simply do not exist. As Dawkins himself succinctly put it, the atheist's worldview holds that there is "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
And yet this is, once again, a self defeating position for the atheist to be in. On the one hand, Atheistic materialists hold that morality, i.e. good and evil, does not really exist. Yet in their 'argument from evil', the atheist is forced to hold that, "There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good."
The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism - 2015 Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,, P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good. P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist. C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist. https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/
This is self-refuting position for atheists to be in. As David Wood put their dilemma in the following article, "By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil."
Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist - By David Wood - 2016 Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE, (the argument from evil), grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist/
In short, in order for the atheist to even be able to make the 'argument from evil' in the first place, the atheist is forced to hold that objective moral standards really do exist. As former atheist, turned Christian, C.S. Lewis put the irresolvable dilemma for atheists, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - CS Lewis
Yet, if good and evil really do exist, as the atheist must hold to be true in his argument from evil, then God necessarily exists!
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
As Michael Egnor states in the following article, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,"
The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, - per ENV
Moreover, I hold that it is impossible for atheists to live their lives as if good and evil do not actually exist. As the following article put it, "nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath."
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Shoot, atheists themselves have honestly admitted that it is impossible for them to live their lives as if their atheistic worldview were actually true.
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. - per ENV
Even Richard Dawkins himself honestly admitted that it would be quote-unquote 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true and that there actually was no moral accountability
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
Moreover, this impossibility for Atheists to live their lives consistently as if atheism were actually true directly undermines any claim that Atheism can possibly be true. Specifically, as the "Existential Argument against Atheism" points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
So thus in conclusion, both of the philosophically/theologically based arguments that atheists use to try to argue against God, i.e. "God of the gaps" and the "argument from evil", both end up collapsing in on themselves, and collapsing in on themselves in a rather dramatic fashion.
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
bornagain77
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
a short essay on theodicity by Granville Sewell
Sewell’s essay is remarkable and he gets most of it. I highly recommend that people read it. But he misses a very key part and only refers to it at most peripherally. That is doubt and then faith given this doubt. I taught college business courses in New York City for a short time before starting a new business with my wife and others. Some of the classes were at night. In one night walked an adjunct who was Jewish. We were apparently sharing the same office for the night school. Somehow we started discussing religion which is usually a no-no in polite circles. He pointed out to me that life would be meaningless without doubt. We would be automatons as Sewell points out in his essay several times. Sewell uses free will as the key element but it is not the most important part. The Jewish professor also pointed out that our beliefs would be meaningless without doubt. Doubt was key! He said the key was faith which would have no meaning without doubt. What’s the value of having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow in the east. None! We have knowledge. If our understanding of God was on the same plain our lives would be meaningless. If every Friday, God appeared and punished all who had behaved badly in the previous week, how long do you think anyone would engage in “bad behavior.” But having faith that God exists is definitely based on a doubtful proposition. And as Sewell illustrates in his essay, all the scientific evidence in the world has no effect on many. So this Jewish adjunct said the key is faith given doubt. We are given enough to believe that God exists but not enough that it is a slam dunk. Especially since so many bad things happen in our world. It is interesting that we believed in two different Gods, the Jewish God of the Old Testament and the triune God of the New Testament. But it hit home that he brought up the issue of doubt and faith. Two things - I never saw the Jewish professor again. And I discovered over time that the concept of evil is a red herring as a result of that encounter. Bad things which is what most associate “evil” with are necessary for doubt and then faith and are also trivial given the stakes at play. Aside: Sewell wrote a book from which this essay is excerpted. See how many people bought it. Hardly anyone.jerry
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Doubter at 27, "I reject the strict Christian perspective centered on Jesus’s sacrifice. In particular the belief that all humans that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior are condemned to eternal agony in Hell. Regardless of whether they have loved God all their lives, or that they simply have not been exposed to Christian teachings. Surely an immeasureably unjust and cruel system." These are the words of men. The interpretation of men. The Bible, which is the Word of God, explains why Jesus had to die. A death He freely accepted. The Catholic Church has endured for 2,000 years. God literally knows who was exposed to Christian teaching and those, through no fault of their own, who were not. There will be a final judgment. Here is how it will come about: Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."relatd
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
D: "I reject the strict Christian perspective centered on Jesus’s sacrifice." And yet, more assuredly than any other fact of ancient history, Jesus was crucified.
The Historicity of Jesus Christ’s Crucifixion https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/11/24/jesus-fact-4-crucifixion-full-historical-investigation/
as well, especially considering the growing evidence confirming the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, Jesus most assuredly rose from the dead,
Evidence for the Shroud's authenticity (Timeline of facts) - What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault - November 08, 2019 https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis
A few more notes on the historical reliability of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
On Guard Conference: Gary Habermas - The Resurrection of Jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNdmSQKyzgc Minimal Facts vs. Maximal Data Approaches to the Resurrection: A Conversation with Dr. Lydia McGrew (Two Apologetic Approaches to the Resurrection Of Jesus) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUt3r3dXBr4 William Lane Craig - How Do We Know Jesus Was Raised From the Dead with Q&A (High School Audience)- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33J9uR7ZaWA
bornagain77
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
My point of view on this matter (the ontological nature of human existence and suffering) poses a very different stance than any of the Christian theological ones being discussed, which are I think narrow-minded and are based on fallible interpretations of the Scripture of one religion out of hundreds across the world. In my view there are true victims - they are the human selves of immortal souls, but all suffering is temporary and the highest plan is wise even if very hard for humans to accept. For me, the problem of evil and suffering has to be taken very seriously and requires determined analysis and development of arguments, the action of the reasoning faculty, but not blind adherence to revealed Scriptural exhortations. Unfortunately the latter seems to be becoming more and more the prevailing discourse in this blog. Anyway, I can’t either dismiss the issue of the unjustness of much suffering from some sort of higher perspective of consciousness, or depend on faith. The following is a paraphrasing of a short essay on theodicity by Granville Sewell (https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/the-biggest-theological-objection-to-design/). I think it is one of the best deistic rationalizations of the reality of evil and innocent suffering that I have encountered. Of course there are other rationalizations, and of course the materialist view that no valid rationalization is possible, so “suck it up”. A vast amount of suffering is caused by evil actions of human beings. Second, there is a vast amount of “natural evil” caused by the natural world by things like disease, floods and earthquakes. Any proposed deistic or other solution to the ancient theological problem of suffering has to explain both categories. The basic approach in this essay was to combine various arguments that mankind’s suffering is an inevitable accompaniment of our greatest blessings and benefits, the result of a vast number of intricate tradeoffs in the design or our Reality. Tradeoffs made absolutely necessary by there being countless areas where some of the original "design requirements" conflict with others due to the immutable absolute laws of logic. So that there inevitably had to be a "give and take". Why pain, suffering and evil? Main points that are made: (1) There is the observed regularity of natural law. The basic laws of physics appear to be cleverly designed to create conditions suitable for human life and development. It can be surmised that this intricate fine-tuned design is inherently a series of tradeoffs and balances, allowing and fostering human existence but also inevitably allowing “natural evil” to regularly occur. In other words, the best solution to the overall “system requirements” (which include furnishing manifold opportunities for humans to experience and achieve) inherently includes natural effects that cause suffering to human beings. This points out that there may be logical and fundamental limitations to God’s creativity. Maybe even He can’t 100% satisfy all the requirements simultaneously. Maybe He doesn’t have complete control over nature, because that would interfere with the essential requirements for creative and fulfilling human life. After all, human achievement requires imperfection and adverse conditions to exist as a natural part of human life. (2) There is the apparent need for human free will as one of the most important “design requirements”. This inevitably leads to vast amounts of suffering caused by evil acts of humans to each other. Unfortunately, there is no way to get around that one, except to make humans “zombies” or robots, which would defeat the whole purpose of human existence. (3) Some suffering is necessary to enable us to experience life in its fullest and to achieve the most. Often it is through suffering that we experience the deepest love of family and friends. “The man who has never experienced any setbacks or disappointments invariably is a shallow person, while one who has suffered is usually better able to empathize with others. Some of the closest and most beautiful relationships occur between people who have suffered similar sorrows.” Some of the great works of literature, art and music were the products of suffering. “One whose life has led him to expect continued comfort and ease is not likely to make the sacrifices necessary to produce anything of great and lasting value.” It should be noted that the casual claim that all an omnipotent God needs to do is step in whenever accident, disease or evil doings ensue, and cancel out, prevent these happenings. Thus no innocent suffering. One of the most basic problems with this is that it would make the world and its underlying laws of operation purely happenstance and the result of a perhaps capricious God. There would be no regularity of natural law, and therefore there could be no mastery of the physical world by mankind through science. In fact there could be no science and the scientific method as we know them. And of course, there would be little learning from adversity and difficulty, and therefore little depth of character. Sewell concludes: “Why does God remain backstage, hidden from view, working behind the scenes while we act out our parts in the human drama? ….now perhaps we finally have an answer. If he were to walk out onto the stage, and take on a more direct and visible role, I suppose he could clean up our act, and rid the world of pain and evil — and doubt. But our human drama would be turned into a divine puppet show, and it would cost us some of our greatest blessings: the regularity of natural law which makes our achievements meaningful; the free will which makes us more interesting than robots; the love which we can receive from and give to others; and even the opportunity to grow and develop through suffering. I must confess that I still often wonder if the blessings are worth the terrible price, but God has chosen to create a world where both good and evil can flourish, rather than one where neither can exist. He has chosen to create a world of greatness and infamy, of love and hatred, and of joy and pain, rather than one of mindless robots or unfeeling puppets.” Of course, the brute fact is that the bottom line is there is a huge, egregious amount of truly innocent and apparently meaningless suffering, that our instinct tells us is wrong. Is it all worth it? Yes, there may be a valid rationalization; overall it all may be a vast tradeoff, but some people might conclude it isn’t a good one from the strictly human perspective. The cost is a terrible thing. I reject the strict Christian perspective centered on Jesus’s sacrifice. In particular the belief that all humans that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior are condemned to eternal agony in Hell. Regardless of whether they have loved God all their lives, or that they simply have not been exposed to Christian teachings. Surely an immeasureably unjust and cruel system. But there is another additional spiritual but non-Christian rationalization of the existence of vast amounts of pain, suffering and evil in the world, that would supplement Granville Sewell’s. This is the perspective of the spiritualist, much of the New Age movement, and the so-called Perennial Wisdom. Perhaps full acceptance does finally require faith. But this is a faith that it all is really justifiable from the perspective of the soul, and that we are in some incomprehensible way literally our soul. This is the acceptance of the Eastern conception of reincarnation and that Earth life is some sort of “school” in which souls accomplish the learning that can only be accomplished through suffering. Of course, that is not the only purpose of life on Earth, but it is the primary one. There is also the experience of various forms of deep joy that can only take place in a place of physical limitations, great physical beauty, and opportunity for great creativity. Unlike the afterlife existence essentially in which “thoughts are things”, and the Light of God is always available. This rationalization has the advantage of having a large body of empirical evidence to partially back it up. This would primarily be the very many veridical independently verified NDE experiences, and also the similarly investigated and verified reincarnation memories of small children. Also to be considered excellent empirical evidence is the large body of verified mediumistic communications.doubter
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Querius at 25, The sun could get hotter through purely supernatural means. No need to go into any of the other ways that could happen and which should not be mentioned here because it would just confuse people. If the sun actually got hotter, we would hear about it right away. A nuclear detonation at either pole would have been reckless at best and would not take into account radioactive fallout. Again, further discussion would confuse people. I have found most people are not concerned about what might happen unless they hear about it daily. Like so-called climate change. If they have - good - reason to believe something that impacts their lives is going to happen then that is what they think about. There is no "war" against plant food. No evidence of that. Politicians also need to eat.relatd
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Relatd @24, Yes, indeed. So, how would you interpret Revelation 11:16-18? Does it pertain to humans, angels, or both? Is it possible that what are termed evil principalities and powers in heavenly places do some of their work through people? Please note that I'm also concerned about politicians and bureaucrats waging war against plant food. Fortunately, one climate plan proposed by some scientists in the 1950s or 1960s to avert an imminent ice age, wasn't carried out--namely nuking the north and south poles. How would that have turned out? The global warming described in Revelation is attributed to the sun getting hotter. Aren't there several ways that this could happen? -QQuerius
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Querius at 23, Many events described in the Book of Revelation involve acts made by angels and other events that have no obvious human-caused counterpart. I don't believe current claims about global warming/climate change. Until billionaires start selling their beachfront property in Florida - because, as the claim goes, ocean water levels are rising - then it's safe to say that this is fiction designed to scare people into buying electric cars and trucks.relatd
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @13, * John Calvin facilitated the execution of the Spanish Christian polymath, Michael Servetus, over doctrinal issues. * Martin Luther favored the death penalty for Anabaptists (who held contrary tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration). These behaviors are hardly models of the life and teachings of Yeshua/Jesus. But, better testimony comes from the earliest Christian writers:
John the apostle names himself as the one who wrote down what the Lord said through the angel. The earliest writers in the church like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and the Muritorian all credit John the apostle as author of the book of Revelation.
The book of Revelation has both internal and external consistency and is filled with allusions and symbolism to the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament). One of the titles of Yeshua/Jesus is “The Word of God” as in the Logos of YHVH incarnate. Thus, modern scholars who discount the veracity of this book accepted by the earliest Christian writers discount the earliest Christian writers and the words of Yeshua/Jesus, hence Yeshua/Jesus Himself. In the book, Jesus is quoted delivering messages to seven types of churches through history, most of them with very mixed reviews that do seem to match up. The writings in this book are indeed difficult to understand, especially for people in history. For example: - Who in history would believe its claims about global warming? - Who would believe that a third of the oceans might die? - Who would believe that a star named “Wormwood” could fall to earth and poisoning a third of rivers and other sources of fresh water. Coincidentally, there’s already a poisoned town named “Wormwood.” In the Ukrainian language, its name is Chernobyl. Yes, maybe it’s just a coincidence. Or maybe not. - In the book, it’s written that God will “destroy those who destroy the earth.” Who in history would believe that people would be capable of destroying the earth? So, how is it possible that death and hell be thrown into the lake of fire to be burned up forever--what does this statement suggest? -QQuerius
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
CD at 21, Why do you care?relatd
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Caspian/17 For whatever reason, you sidestepped the issue I raised in my original comment. I merely noted that the OP author's statement that God "will one day end all sufferings" is inconsistent with the existence of Hell....chuckdarwin
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
CD at 13, Cut the CRAP. You responded instead of ignoring it. YOU are at fault. But that's your job, isn't it? You were parked here, on assignment, to rage against God and the Bible.relatd
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Jerry at 12, ID can justify a particular religion. You are living in Fantasy Land.relatd
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
To those complaining that an eternity in hell is disproportionate, be advised that wronging God--who has done us no wrong--is itself an infinitely disproportionate response. Having done this, our right to object on these grounds ceases.EvilSnack
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
CD @ 2,7 , Seversky @8 I appreciate your sense of the injustice of hell, but it only makes sense if you believe that people are "thrown" into hell against their choice. If we accept the biblical view of the afterlife, there are only two options: to receive God's free offer to live with Him forever in His "house", or to reject that offer. To live in heaven forever requires us to be made new, to become spiritually alive, and that transformation is given to anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of God. It's an open offer to everyone, including both of you.Caspian
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
AaronS1978/15 I appreciate your comment. Thanks....chuckdarwin
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
@13 “With due respect, I don’t see anyone “raging against the Creator.” I see fair commentary on the OP.“ I kinda have to agree with you on that which honestly is kinda niceAaronS1978
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply