Divine Evil?

I recently posted comments about the problem of evil. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam typically maintain that God is all-powerful and perfectly good. So how do we reconcile the following ideas?

(1) God is omnipotent.
(2) God is perfectly loving and just.
(3) The world is filled with tragedy and suffering.

This issue could also be called the problem of suffering, since some have tried minimize the extent of evil on Earth by defining nightmarish, excruciating suffering in ways that makes it technically not-evil.

Critics of religion have pointed out that according to the Bible God not only allows evil but directly causes it. For instance, after getting upset about human sinfulness, God decided to kill almost all living creatures by drowning them in a flood. That’s about as appropriate as using a hydrogen bomb to annihilate a gnat. And even if Noah’s flood never occurred, scientists say there have been several mass extinctions, including one which wiped out over 90% of all species. Furthermore, as Rick Gore reports in National Geographic, June, 1989, “Extinctions have claimed 99 percent of all species that have ever lived” (p. 669). Most mass extinctions took place millions of years before humans even existed. If animals have value and their suffering matters, what was the point of all this destruction?

An essay by David Lewis which was published in Philosophers without Gods, edited by Louise Antony, explored an argument about evil “that has been strangely neglected.” Most discussions of this topic “focus on evil that God fails to prevent. But we might start instead from the evils God himself perpetrates. There are plenty of these, and, in duration and intensity, they dwarf the kinds of suffering and sin to which the standard versions allude” (p. 231). Lewis then considers the idea that unredeemed sinners will go to hell. “The orthodox story is explicit about the temporal scale of the punishment: it is to go on forever. Many of those who tell the orthodox story are also concerned to emphasize the quality of the punishment. The agonies to be endured by the damned intensify, in unimaginable ways, the sufferings we undergo in our earthly lives. So, along both dimensions, time and intensity, the torment is infinitely worse than all the suffering and sin that will have occurred during the history of life in the universe. What God does is thus infinitely worse than what the worst of tyrants did. However clever they were at prolonging the agonies of their victims, their tortures killed fairly quickly. God is supposed to torture the damned forever, and to do so by vastly surpassing all the modes of torment about which we know” (p. 232).

What’s more, some Christian denominations teach that the vast majority of humans will go to hell. And these miserable creatures never asked to be born. Suppose God temporarily created each soul and asked, “Would you like to be born as a human on Earth?” – warning them that the odds were high that 99.99999999999999999 (etc.) percent of their existence would be unimaginably hideous. It seems to me that any rational individual would say, “Absolutely not!! I would much rather remain non-existent, but thanks for asking.”

How can theists deal with evil? First, they need to discard the notion of eternal damnation, an ungodly doctrine that is soiled with the fingerprints of human hostility and vindictiveness. One can also ameliorate this problem by denying God’s omnipotence. The claim that God has unlimited power is supported by visionaries who say they have directly experienced the fact that God is all-powerful. But how does one experience such a thing? Perhaps a thunderous voice proclaimed, “I am the Lord, and I hereby inform you that I am ‘omnipotent’ in the standard sense of that term used by teachers in philosophy of religion classes.” In most cases, however, I suspect that visionaries have simply felt an overwhelming power that staggered their imaginations. This led them to say that God is omnipotent, but they could easily have reached a more modest conclusion: God is far, far more powerful than anything else we know. How could one tell the difference between encountering absolute power and encountering power that is merely mind-boggling? So one way to solve the problem of evil is to say that God’s power may “only” be astonishing rather than entirely unlimited.

Some think this solution carries too great a cost. To say that the creator of the universe cannot always prevent evil might shake people’s faith. In praying to a deity whose power is limited, they could never be sure of receiving adequate assistance. On the other hand, even if God has limitless power, we cannot know whether prayers will be answered as the supplicant would wish. An omnipotent being is still constrained in various ways. For instance, it is impossible for an infinitely good being to choose to do anything less than the best. Sometimes doing what’s best might mean allowing bad things to happen because they will lead to a greater good. Christians certainly do not see it as “good” that Jesus died in agony, but they believe that his suffering led to (or was in some way closely connected with) our salvation.

Even if God is able to do anything, God’s choices about how to use this ability may be limited by factors beyond our understanding. Thus it might make little practical difference to believers if God is seen as extremely powerful rather than all-powerful. This would ease the problem of evil considerably.

Another, more radical approach, challenges the whole notion that the highest power is coercive power, the dominance of one force over another. Many respected religious teachers advocate process theology, which celebrates the persuasive, encouraging, inspirational power of God. Christian process thinkers such as John B. Cobb, Jr. see this liberating power revealed in the life of Jesus Christ. Citing extensive scholarly evidence, Cobb maintains that the idea of omnipotence was never emphasized in either Hebrew or Christian scriptures. Passages referring to “God almighty” actually mistranslate the ancient word shaddai. See http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3350.

While brute force is impressive, many theologians contend that the highest power is love rather than compulsion. Without divine compulsion bad things can and do happen, but process theologians would prefer this sort of cosmos to one in which a supreme super-controller orchestrated every movement of every molecule, every single second.

Roger Christan Schriner

Note: David Lewis’ essay was published posthumously after being edited by Philip Kitcher.

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.

Reflections On the Aurora Murders

It’s troubling and depressing. Yet another young male has acted out a melodramatic cartoonlike fantasy of egocentric rage. There are already lots of instant theories about why he did it, but frankly I doubt that anyone truly understands why some people think it’s worth destroying their own futures to go kill lots of strangers.

In the aftermath, we can think about which responses to this tragedy help pull us together, and which ones drive people farther apart.

Regardless of whether they believe in God, many people are sincerely committed to making this a better world. That’s one thing that can unite us, regardless of whether we are theists or atheists. After the shootings, people of many faiths and philosophies are wondering what they can do to stop this from happening again. (In a moment I’ll share some thoughts about that.)

Unfortunately, some religious leaders have responded in ways that drive a wedge between believers and non-believers. Perhaps the worst offender is a prominent minister named Jerry Newcombe, a spokesperson for a religious group known as Truth In Action. Jerry thought this would be an opportune time to tell non-Christians that they’re headed for hell. He claimed that out of those who were gunned down in that Colorado theater, the Christians will go to heaven but those who are not “in Christ” will wake up in hell There, they will find, a loving and compassionate God has sent them to be tortured for all eternity with no way to ever get out.

In Newcombe’s words, “… if they knowingly rejected Jesus Christ, then, basically, they are going to a terrible place.”

(See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/jerry-newcombe-hell_n_1692859.html.)

Some would view Newcombe’s statement as relatively liberal, since he said hell was for those who knowingly rejected Jesus. I assume “knowingly rejected” means they have heard that Jesus offers forgiveness for our despicable sins, but have not chosen to become Christian. But some theologians think that even those who have never even heard of the Nazarene are going to hell if they don’t accept him as their savior. That puts them in a tough spot, since they know nothing of Jesus or Christianity.

I hope atheists and progressive Christians will consider making common cause in condemning the standard notion of hell, the idea that a loving deity would cause people agonizing, endless, unavoidable pain to punish them for things they did in their relatively brief lifetimes. Most atheists will certainly see this as a bizarre doctrine, but many Christians can also agree that the orthodox concept of hell is a savage relic of ancient vengeful fantasies.

For an excellent, Biblically-informed Christian discussion of hell, read Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. If every Christian read Love Wins, I am convinced that many of them would either reject the idea of hell or radically modify this concept.

And now back to my earlier question. How can we prevent future Auroras?

The best I can do is to suggest that if young people feel bonded in positive and loving ways with family and friends, they are quite unlikely to lash out in spasms of random violence. Person-to-person connections make a huge difference.

If what happened in Colorado troubles you, think about what you can do to love and care for those who live on the margins, who feel like outsiders. There is a deep human need to belong. Can you help someone feel included? Can you help some specific person become a participant instead of a detached observer? Can you welcome someone more fully into the human family?

And perhaps one of those persons who needs this welcome is you.

Peace,

Roger Christan Schriner

To subscribe to Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground, click the “Follow” link on the upper left.