One angry atheist responded to me:
- So he [God] makes people suffer so we will ask for his help. Seems demented. Like an abusive relationship, so he disciplines people with disease, poverty, hunger, murder, rape, genocide, and natural disasters? Why follow such a sadistic?
The atheist – I’ll call him “Rob” –
is making a charge that many atheists make:
- If God is entirely good and all-powerful, we shouldn’t experience any pain or at least pain that seems to be unreasonable.
When I sense that there is no openness to discussion – no
give and take – I might graciously extricate myself from the discussion.
However, if this charge is made in a public forum, walking away might suggest
that Christianity has no answer – an impression I would not want to give.
Therefore, if the atheist is militant, I will put the burden
of proof back on him:
- What evidence do you have that if God allows suffering, it is “unreasonable?”
There is no evidence! Therefore, the atheist will usually
resort to an emotional appeal:
- Well, everyone knows that genocide is evil, and that it can serve no possible good.
Here again, the atheist is unable to bring a rational charge
against God. He may appeal to what is “evil” or “good,” and then claim that the
God of the Bible has violated these standards. However, he has no basis for his
charge. The atheist is a moral relativist and a materialist. He believes that
there is nothing out there apart from matter and energy. Therefore, there is no
moral “truth” apart from what we personally decide upon or create for ourselves;
it’s all personal (subjective), changing (evolving), and culture-specific
(non-universal).
Consequently, without moral absolutes, there is no means to
judge another culture, let alone another Being – the Creator of all things.
Therefore, when the atheist judges God (and the Biblical conception of God), he
is acting hypocritically. He knows that he has no objective measure or
standard, but he’s judging as if he has one.
It’s like a math teacher grading a math exam, while she
knows that there are no right or wrong answers.
At this point, don’t be surprised if your atheist becomes
frustrated and starts to attack you. If instead, he is somewhat receptive to
your response, you can then begin to share lessons from your own life.
For example, I’ve learned that I need hardships and humbling
circumstances to teach me God’s Word and to trust only in Him. The Bible
affirms this truth in many ways. Paul confessed that he had despaired of
himself, but this happened for an all-surpassing reason:
- We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. (2 Cor. 1:8-9)
This principle even works itself out interpersonally. I am
sad to confess that when I am broken and hurting, I tend to value my wife far
more than I would without my humbling circumstances. I have also learned how to
be more compassionate and patient with others through my own failures.
However, I must add that if my life had been about failures alone, I suspect that instead of
compassion, I would have learned bitterness and jealousy. However, in seeing
the compassion that God has for me through the ever-greater awareness of my own
unworthiness, I am encouraged to extend this compassion to others.
Consequently, even though I have suffered tremendously, I
can now look back and say along with David, King of Israel:
- It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees. (Psalm 119:71)
I would even take this analysis a step further and argue
that we even need death! How jaded we become to our relationships. Often it is prospect
of death that revives us from our slumber – our distorted priorities.
We’ve all seen footage of victims pulled alive out of the
wreckage amidst tears of gratefulness. Their love and thankfulness were
palpable. How hardened are we that we don’t respond to our loved ones in this manner
without impending disasters!
I think that we are quick to denigrate God because we fail
to see that depth of our spiritual illness. If we know that we have a
life-threatening cancer, we willingly submit to the surgeon’s knife to remove
the threat. We even financially reward the surgeon for cutting us in pieces.
Our Savior is our spiritual surgeon. However, only those who
know Him will perceive this:
- The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. Those who know your name will trust in you, for you, Lord, have never forsaken those who seek you. (Psalm 9:9-10)
Those on the outside will see only the blood and gore. It is
like an uneducated Eskimo beholding a cancer surgery for the first time. He
will be repelled by the pain and invasiveness of the surgery. He might even
think that the patient who had submitted to such treatment had to be crazy or
masochistic.
He is like a color-blind person who insists that there is no
difference between red, green and blue. However, this analysis is far too
gracious regarding the depth of human sin and hatred. The color blind man didn’t choose to be color-blind.
However, those of us who have rejected God have
made this choice:
- They are darkened in their understanding [and this is the way we all were] and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. (Ephes. 4:18-19)
Can we truthfully say that this isn’t a good description of
how we had all been? And if this is our true state, then perhaps we might begin
to recognize our need for radical surgery?



Two thoughts come to me about the problem of pain. The first thought is that God did not make the world as it is, with pain. It was originally perfect. The problem came when people decided to follow our personal desires and do things our way i.e. the Fall. The second thought is the quote from C.S. Lewis. “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world”
ReplyDeleteAn atheist does not judge God, because no such being exists. The comment you're characterizing as a judgement of God is a critique of the idea of God put forth by believers. Accordingly, there is no hypocricy.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
DeleteYou wrote, “The comment you're characterizing as a judgement of God is a critique of the idea of God put forth by believers. Accordingly, there is no hypocricy.”
You’re right that the atheist is critiquing the “idea of God.” However, I think that when the atheist critiques this idea on moral grounds, he must resort to an objective moral critique. He is not merely saying that he doesn’t like this idea of a Biblical God. He is saying that this idea of God is immoral according to what must be an objective and absolute standard – the very standard that he lacks.
I interact with atheists on another web site and it is amazing how much time and energy are expended attacking this imaginary God.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that there is a powerful underlying agenda to construct this "imaginary God" - a strawman. It is as Paul wrote:
DeleteRomans 8:6-7 "The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
Larry, I expect that're not attacking the nonexistent God, but rather the very real claims made by very real people.
DeleteSince the very real claims of very real people have an effect on other very real people (like Daniel's opposition to secular SSM), I see no problem with arguing against bad ideas and false claims - do you?
Any reasonable person would find the actions of the Old Testament God immoral. While there's no objective morality, there's no denying that God is portrayed as a monster.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
DeleteYou call the God of the Bible a "monster," but then you admit that you lack an objective standard by which to make such a judgment.
Do you experience a bit of dissonance there?
Daniel, perhaps this will illustrate how judgment can be made without reference to the sort of objective morality you require.
DeleteP1. The God of Christianity is claimed to be the God of the bible (OT & NT)
P1. The God of Traditional Christian Theism is conceived of as being, among other things, love itself and/or all loving.
P2. Some acts God is supposed to have commanded and/or carried out in the Christian Bible are not loving (genocide, infanticide, slavery, etc).
P3. The God of Traditional Christian Theism is incompatible with the God portrayed in the bible (from P2 & P3)
C. The God of traditional theism is not the God portrayed in the bible.
No reference to "objective morality", nor even referring to whether "love" is good or bad. Just a simple demonstration that Christianity as you understand it leads to a contradiction, and therefore is not true.
As I see it you have a couple of ways of addressing this challenge:
- Affirm that your God is not omnibenevolent (ie. Traditional Christian Theism is false)
- Affirm that the bible is mistaken (ie. Biblical innerancy is false).
- Argue that the acts and commands of God as portrayed in the bible are in fact loving (try to reconcile 2 apparently contradictory positions).
Have at it :-)
Havok,
DeleteYou’ve done well in bypassing the “objective morality” problem. You’ve even tried to make my job easier by laying out my sorry alternatives.
Let me attack your hidden premise: “If God is love, then He can only administer ‘warm fuzzies.’ Any act of judgment is incompatible with the concept of love.”
Clearly, this kind of “love” doesn’t accord with Biblical revelation: Our God, according to this definition, didn’t always act “lovingly” to His Beloved Son:
• 2 Cor. 5:21: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Conclusion: The Biblical understanding of love includes judgment.
Asked and answered. Any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, if there is no unreasonable or unnecessary suffering (and, if God is geed and suffering is only justifed if it secures a greater good for the sufferer, this must be the case), then we are under no obligation what so ever to try to alleviate the suffering of any other person.
ReplyDeleteThis position contradicts with our ordinary moral obligation to help other people.
I wonder which you're willing to give up - our obligation to help, or the claim that all suffering is necessary.
Stephen Maitzen has a number of papers which follow this line of reasoning. "Ordinary Morality Implies Atheism" is I think his initial paper on this. There is also the more recent "Atheism and the basis of Morality".
I bought this up on a previous post, and you failed to response. I would appreciate a reasonable response here :-)
You can definitely see your expertise within
ReplyDeletethe work you write. The arena hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who
aren't afraid to mention how they believe. Always go after your heart.
Also visit my blog ; Phone Therapy
Bible Therapy - Yes! Phone Therapy - ???
DeleteInteresting discussion: Dr. Mann, I appreciate the instructive value of pain; it's real and potent.
ReplyDeleteBut Larry, thanks for beginning where I would have, not all is as God wills. For me it's a conundrum trying to wrap my mind around the seemingly conflicting concepts of absolute love, justice, and condemnation.
It is mind-boggling to begin where God did, bringing into existence beings with free-will (the angels seem to have preceded us in that regard). That's the first contradiction. It's much like trying to conceptualize eternity, time, without beginning or end, which eliminates time. But it tells us something about God, this free-will stuff. It was an act of giving love--to give us something He knew the value of first-hand, so to speak. And of course we haven't been able to handle it. Again, out of His love he made provision for the screwup He saw coming.
Free-will, rationality and relationships (language) distinguish us as human. Part of that rationality is a sense of right and wrong, of justice, of community. We are truly "children of God."
Love without judgement is incomplete. Love is giving. When we take we break the spell. Pain follows.
But one lesson I draw from the God of the OT is that time and time again God allows "His people" to make their contrary choices, sometimes, is would appear without consequence for decades, but then He intervenes. And more often than not, His judgments are carried out by other human-beings. Brutality beating back brutality.
As for atheism's complaint, David, there's no more rational explanation (the fact of this conversation for example) for what we "know" than God. Be angry at what isn't if you choose, but that seems a bit silly. Better explanations for what is are so far wanting.
And as been said by other, on what basis can you call the God of the OT a monster apart from the standards defined in Scripture itself? Why do the OT writers refer to God as a loving essence in spite of the horrors that they write. Might you want to think and look more carefully at what you may have missed?
This is not on the subject at hand but CONGRATULATIONS!!
ReplyDeleteNYC Churches Win Right to Hold Weekend Services in Public Schools
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHavok,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "if there is no unreasonable or unnecessary suffering (and, if God is geed and suffering is only justifed if it secures a greater good for the sufferer, this must be the case), then we are under no obligation what so ever to try to alleviate the suffering of any other person."
Perhaps an example might be most illuminating. Let's suppose that God allows a tsunami to occur. You assume that He means it for evil. Perhaps instead he means it to bring people together through rescue efforts?
Perhaps also we need both the challenges and the rescues in our lives?
In any event, despite God's underlying and secret purposes, our responsibility is clear - love, truth, virtue, and peace.
Mann: Perhaps an example might be most illuminating. Let's suppose that God allows a tsunami to occur. You assume that He means it for evil.
DeleteNo, I simply see the suffering that it brings to those caught in it, and their families, the fact that there is no justfication for this suffering for them, note that this is not compatible with God as you conceive it, and accept that your God doesn't exist.
Mann: Perhaps instead he means it to bring people together through rescue efforts?
Which doesn't justify the suffering inflicted upon the victims.
You seem to be arguing now that God is a consequentilist - that the suffering of the victims is balanced by the increased "good" of the rescuers. But you have argued in the past that this is not how your morality works, and so you are being inconsistent.
Mann: Perhaps also we need both the challenges and the rescues in our lives?
So if I were to murder you but then pay your family 1 billion dollars compensation, I would not have wronged anyone morally? Get real Daniel - you don't accept similar arguments from those you disagree with, so you shouldn't make them yourself.
Mann: In any event, despite God's underlying and secret purposes, our responsibility is clear - love, truth, virtue, and peace.
And yet, following your own claims concerning the secret and mysterious purposes of God, you cannot claim this being is all good - God could be omni-malevolent, and all the good allowed in the world is simply it's way of increasing the evil.
You don't get to have it both ways Daniel, regardless of how much you wish you did.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteYou responded, "there is no justfication for this suffering for them."
This is precisely the thing you must prove. I've argued that many things that would seem to happen without justification can be reconciled with God's love once you know him. Then there are other things that we believe will later be revealed as loving although we might not be able to justify them now.
Of course our God is a consequentialist. He is deeply concerned about ultimate outcomes. However, please bear in mind that consequences can only be evaluated in the light of criteria - unchanging moral absolutes. You can evaluate the outcome of a certain vaccine, but only in the light of there being certain absolute principles - saving life or eradicating a particular disease is a good thing.
"you cannot claim this being is all good!"
I certainly do not make this claim by virtue of proving how He works everything for good. However, if my stock broker makes 10/10 profitable investments for me, I would be justified to trust him with #11. My God has proven Himself to me in countless ways.
Mann: This is precisely the thing you must prove.
DeleteI've given examples before which seem to demonstrate this. For example, a child who dies from a cancer, after suffering excruciating pain.
Mann: I've argued that many things that would seem to happen without justification can be reconciled with God's love once you know him.
Since I've put forward an example which looks to demonstrate the existence of gratuitous suffering, it is now up to you to show how it is not such a thing. You can't simply say "Well, I don't believe it is" or "Perhaps God has a reason?". You need to actually show something.
Mann: Of course our God is a consequentialist.
So God is fully morally justified in allowing gratuitous suffering for person A if it brings person B & C to salvation?
This provides no justification to person A for the suffering - they suffer for no reason beneficial to themselves, and therefore is seems that such suffering is not actually compatible with the claimed attributes of your God.
Mann: However, please bear in mind that consequences can only be evaluated in the light of criteria - unchanging moral absolutes.
And now you're arguing against your god being a consequentialist. If murder is wrong according to your moral absolutes, then it is always wrong. If a murder will bring about better "consequences" for the group, then it is justified under consequentialism.
Mann: My God has proven Himself to me in countless ways.
And yet you cannot even demonstrate that this God exists in anything other than a purely subjective manner, which puts this being on a par with all other gods which humans have come up with. It puts this being on a par with fairies at the bottom of the garden.
If this was the best evidence you had for your stockbrocker, then you would not be rationally justified in even thinking you had a stockbrocker.
You claim that “a child who dies from a cancer, after suffering excruciating pain” proves that the Biblical conception of God is incoherent – that He can’t be both love and omnipotent. However, you have neglected to prove that this can’t possibly reflect the love of God. Maybe it does:
Delete• Maybe this death will have many beneficial effects upon the survivors?
• Maybe it serves justice?
• Maybe this child will subsequently live in eternal bliss?
You surprisingly claim that “If murder is wrong according to your moral absolutes, then it is always wrong.”
If I believe in moral absolutes, it certainly doesn’t negate everything else – relative situations, pragmatism, consequences. Even though there are moral absolutes, moral judgment is still a complicated endeavor, complicated by many other factors.
Consistent with your reductionistic understanding, you erroneously charge, “If a murder will bring about better "consequences" for the group, then it is justified under consequentialism.”
Although God is concerned about consequences, it is not in disregard of His absolutes.
If He wants to punish someone so that they’ll learn an important lesson – a consequence – it is never done in the absence of love or justice. In fact, consequences can only assume their meaning when serving a higher purpose. Curing cancer has no meaning unless it is “good” – a moral absolute – to cure cancer. Consequently, the moral relativist position, which denies moral absolutes, is entirely incoherent. It deprives moral judgment of any possible basis.
Why bother curing cancer if it doesn’t provide a morally objective good? Why not just let the cancer victim die and reduce human population! Survival of the fittest, right?
You claim that “a child who dies from a cancer, after suffering excruciating pain” proves that the Biblical conception of God is incoherent – that He can’t be both love and omnipotent. However, you have neglected to prove that this can’t possibly reflect the love of God. Maybe it does:
Delete• Maybe this death will have many beneficial effects upon the survivors?
• Maybe it serves justice?
• Maybe this child will subsequently live in eternal bliss?
You surprisingly claim that “If murder is wrong according to your moral absolutes, then it is always wrong.”
If I believe in moral absolutes, it certainly doesn’t negate everything else – relative situations, pragmatism, consequences. Even though there are moral absolutes, moral judgment is still a complicated endeavor, complicated by many other factors.
Consistent with your reductionistic understanding, you erroneously charge, “If a murder will bring about better "consequences" for the group, then it is justified under consequentialism.”
Although God is concerned about consequences, it is not in disregard of His absolutes.
If He wants to punish someone so that they’ll learn an important lesson – a consequence – it is never done in the absence of love or justice. In fact, consequences can only assume their meaning when serving a higher purpose. Curing cancer has no meaning unless it is “good” – a moral absolute – to cure cancer. Consequently, the moral relativist position, which denies moral absolutes, is entirely incoherent. It deprives moral judgment of any possible basis.
Why bother curing cancer if it doesn’t provide a morally objective good? Why not just let the cancer victim die and reduce human population! Survival of the fittest, right?