Dinesh D'Souza makes an interesting point in What's So Great About Christianity. He says that Christianity might not have a good explanation for evil but that's not what we need when we're suffering. "When I get sick, I don't want a theory to explain it; I want something that will make me feel better. Atheism may have a better explanation for evil and suffering, but it provides no consolation.... Theism, which doesn't have a good explanation, nevertheless offers a better way for people to cope with the consequences of evil and suffering" (274). Christianity speaks to our need not our curiosity. It does not respond to the atheist's anger either, except to say, "Calm down. God is God and is not aloof to suffering but has suffered in our place."
D'Souza says this is why there were no atheist sermons following the Virginia Tech massacre. Instead, "Every time there was a memorial ceremony or a public gathering, there was talk of God, divine mercy, and spiritual healing" (274-75). D'Souza says atheism has nothing more to say about evil than evil is not a problem because it does not exist. He quotes Richard Dawkins who writes: "At bottom [there is] no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference" (275). It's no wonder there were no atheist homilies in the aftermath of the murders--that message won't preach!
We know evil exists and D'Souza points out that this turns the tables on the atheist's materialist doctrine. "If we are purely material beings," he writes, "then we should no more object to mass murder than a river objects to drying up in a drought. Nevertheless we are not like rivers. We know evil is real .... But if evil is real, then good must be real as well. How else would we know the difference between the two" (276). This reminds me of Boethius who, in the Consolatio Philosophiae, asked, "Whence comes evil if God exists? But whence comes good if he exists not?"
Christ is the good God whose holiness defines evil by stark contrast and the only answer to the problem. Evil exists according to God's will and is remedied by God's self-sacrifice! Gloria in excelsis Deo!
"In him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).
11 comments:
Interesting post...
I'm not sure I agree with him on either account, at least fully. Yes, the comfort from the answers of Christianity is wonderful in the midst of struggle against suffering and evil-- but only if you are a believer! Christianity doesn't offer comfort qua comfort, but comfort as the result of trusting in the Savior.
Further, he presupposes that atheism has a good answer for the reason why evil and suffering are present, which I dispute. The answer, "everything is pointless and evil and suffering exist because we ultimately control our own destinies" doesn't comfort, but instead offers a call to take cover!
Also, the answer that Christianity offers as the reason for evil and suffering actually bests atheism's answer, as well. Why doesn't the answer, "there is evil because of sin, and suffering because of the fallen condition of our world" run circles around the atheistic view? In fact, I believe that the Christian answer-- coupled with the hope of the Gospel that suffering and evil have ultimately been defeated in Christ-- offers both reason AND comfort.
My friend Les Newsom put it best when he said something to this effect: "we don't know why this particular evil act occurred, but in the face of suffering, would you rather take shelter in the answer that God is absent [the fundamental atheistic claim], or in the promise that God, somehow and mysteriously, is still at work? Is still in control? Still promises to secure hope for us in Christ?"
Good thoughts, Matt. By the way, if you haven't seen it, you might check out my pastoral blog.
Great Blog!
"If we are purely material beings," he writes, "then we should no more object to mass murder than a river objects to drying up in a drought."
I think this is why Secular Humanism is so scary. Because they use "man is the measure of all things" to determine what is 'good,' then why not take this group of people off of life support?
The Secular Humanist determines for himself what is good. That's why I think that the use of the terminology "enhancement of mankind" in the Humanist Manifestos is one that must be evaluated by what that means to THEM. To a Christian, we like to think in our own ideals, but to the Secular Humanist, they think of science. Which is why they are indifferent to euthanasia. They think in terms of who is being productive to society, not in terms of a person having a spiritual life and a soul.
There's my thoughts! A great first blog and I'm looking forward to see some more!
-CLytle
Thanks Matt for including us in your blog family. We will enjoy reading your posts and may join in replying with our ideas occasionally. Leon is more likely to be philosophical than myself, but I surely enjoy reading your thoughts and ideas. Thanks, and keep the posts coming.
"Mom" Virginia & Leon
I'm so happy for u dad!!!!
Have fun with it!!!!!!
luv -han-
Even though I do agree with what is being said in regards to atheism's breeding of indifference toward all things, I do think we should be weary in regards to how Christianity is treated as primarily a comforter and imbuer of hope in times of crisis. Do any of us believe in Christianity for the sake of mere comfort and hope, or do we rather believe it because we believe it to be true. This is not to say that these two (2) things are not substantial players within the whole, but that they are only a part, just as ed commented. Comfort and hope come post facto.
But, in defense of the atheist, their argument regarding hope and comfort in a crisis would probably be this: If there is nothing to hope for, to give comfort, is it responsible on our part to act as if there was/is? Therefore, in a way, they would possibly think of themselves as doing a favor for those in crisis. In their minds, they would see the use of Christianity in a crisis as taking advantage of people in a dire situation. In this way, they would possibly see themselves as being the actual comforters.
Oh, and could we compare science to the man who can't make up his mind, constantly trying to correct himself even though he may be wrong tomorrow and yet still tries. When will science make up its mind? This is not to say that science doesn't have its place, but to give it such authority is rather foolish.
First time ever responding to a blog. Hope it's not completely scatterbrained.
Matt,
Welcome to the blog-i-verse, my friend! May your time here be productive, enjoyable.....and appropriately brief (you DO have a family, you know). ;^)
A BIG 10-4 to Ed's comments. The Faith offers us the answers we need to all the dilemma's of life, whether physical OR philosophical.
I am profoundly thankful that the real difference between atheism and Christianity isn't the elegance of the logic of Christian philosophical thought (beautiful though it may be), but the fact that Christianity offers me something the atheism can never offer (nor can even HOPE to offer): the supremely historical reality of the Man who is God, the Word who trumps philosophy with the very fact of His existence, His claim to the allegiance of ALL men regardless of their philosphy, and the marvelous sovereign grace that makes a mockery of the "eloquent" hubris of a fallen man and transforms him into a child of God.
My response to an atheist ought not to be primarily rhetoric, but proclamation. While our philosophical armaments are formidable (and ultimately invincible), it is always and only the power of the "foolish" Gospel that calls a fallen man and changes his heart and mind.
God bless you, my friend. I truly appreciate the passionate investment you make daily in the lives of my children. I will always be grateful to you for that.
In His care,
Bruce Keller
Thanks for the comments Ed! Well put! I agree w/ you that Xnity has a better explanation for both evil and suffering. C.S. Lewis said that it doesn't make sense to posit evil in the world unless you posit a Good beyond the world that has been violated. All the atheist can say is evil is what I dislike, causes me pain, frustrates, etc. He can't take God out and say Hitler was evil.
I would also point out that sin itself is moral evil, that God willed to permit b/c he would use it for a greater good, i.e. his glory and man's salvation.
The atheist does have a good explanation for why nature "is red in tooth and claw," which is that evolution is messy, but it seems he cannot explain why we experience this as suffering or a natural evil. Painful progress in the survival of the fittest, yes, but why would we, almost w/out exception, cry out as if this bloodshed is something wrong in nature? As D'Souza points out, the river doesn't complain. Our pain makes more sense if we live in a formerly good creation that has been spoiled by sin, and we are feeling a privation of the good we were made for.
Doubleabros does good to defend the atheist ag an argument from mere Xn sentimentalism. It is true that we would have no basis for Xn faith if we believed for comfort only. But there are, as Pascal noted, reasons of the heart.
Atheists like R. Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens usually try to dismiss these heartfelt longings as irrational. I don't think it is irrational to ask why there were no chaplains of atheism offering comfort to those crying out for ultimate relief and justice. Who would listen to a disciple of Dawkins who is basically reduced to saying, "Give up hope, you'll feel a lot better!"
Lewis pointed out that our deepest longings for beauty, joy, pleasure, etc do correspond to real things that satisfy them. Why wouldn't our longings for ultimate justice, lasting peace, and the Beauty behind all beauties also be there for our hearts desire?
A great blog post Dr. H. I can't wait to read those that are to follow. How you can post this while having to grade/prepare for Wildwood (I know how long that can take) along with being a dad speaks to your ability to somehow employ more than 24 hours in a day.
Concerning the post in it of itself, I think that man's inevitable response to the pain of evil in the world is to explain it. Thus he turns to the proofs of the scientific method. For to somehow explain that which inflicts you with pain is to gain somewhat of a control over it. However, the ability of such a MO may or may not prove to alleviate the pain in the first place. Therein, I believe, lies the allure of atheism for it removes the responsibility of sin from man to a condition of certain men (which is only proven by those like Hitler).
Xnity (to borrow the abbreviation) emphasizes the depravity of man only that he may be pushed to a deity to whom man must place all trust. Where man (namely "I") falls into problems rests in a failure to understand Christ as our greatest advocate in our battle for hope.
-Tim
edit *However, such an MO rarely alleviates the pain in the first place.*
Just to interact with Tim's response, let me say that I agree. The atheism's beauty to the lost is that it says you really aren't doing anything wrong at all, and thus people use it as a justification for their wrongdoings.
I think one of the big deals that people have to face is where the evil in the world comes from. To truly understand Christ's sacrifice, one has to admit the relation that man has to sin. I think one of the reasons (not the only reason, but one reason) that people ask questions around God being responsible for evil or God letting evil happen is they want to find some way to blame God for there problems.
Also, let me agree with Mr. Keller. The reason why Jesus' ministry was so amazing is that he took the rhetoric thrown at him and cut past it to deal with issues in the heart. For example, I can get into a conversation with an evolutionist, however I won't be able to convince him of a position purely on science and rhetoric alone. But once I start running through the message of the Gospel, it cuts beyond the rhetoric and the thinking... and goes where the person truly requires aid: his heart. Suddenly all the rhetoric and thinking in the world can't do anything because now he's dealing with something a lot simpler: God loves you so much that he sent his Son to this earth to die to save you, even if you were the only person on earth.
Also let me interact with Mr. Eubanks' comments. I agree: the atheist's 'comfort' isn't necessarily a comfort at all. It turns out to be a way that people try to make their lifestyles (or deathstyles) acceptable to one another. Also, the atheist has to deal with the fact that there is good... the existence of a good implies an opposite pole of evil, just like a wrong answer to a question implies that a correct one exists.
Whew... I got all philosophical!? :)
*ccl*
Going in the direction of Colton and Tim, the atheist's problem w/ God seems to be a practical one.
Glenn Kaiser of Resurrection band put it this way, "People don't disbelieve the Bible b/c it contradicts itself, but b/c it contradicts them." C Hitchens, in the King's College debate w/ D'Souza, asserted that the Christian God is a tyrant. This seems to be more of an emotional response than an argument. We don't want God to be God.
But, as Bruce pointed out, if Christ is who he claimed, then God is merciful. The only obstacle now is repentance. Give us repentance and a sense of humor, O Lord!
Post a Comment