Quote of the Week - Augustine on Natural Revelation

“Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead, He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?”

― Augustine of Hippo

Understanding Evil: The Best of All Possible Worlds

This is the second part to my post Understanding Evil. In the last post we looked at the problem of evil. The problem of evil is, simply put, our understanding of how evil can be in a world that is created by a good God. If God is good, then is he willing to prevent evil and unable? Or, is he unwilling to prevent evil and able to prevent evil? The problem of evil when raised is an attempt to show that a good God is incompatible with evil and to show that God does not exist, or at least the God portrayed by Christianity. However, as I attempted to explain in the last post, God's goodness is not erased by the evil in this world. This world he created is the best of all possible worlds that could be created. He has given us the ability to have free moral choices and the ability to choose and do evil is a result of that. Remember, plenitude is the highest good and that requires more than general freedom, it requires moral freedom; and moral freedom spawns the possibility of evil.

The Best of All Possible Worlds?

Is our world truly the best of all possible worlds? Consider what Greg Koukl says in his article, Augustine on Evil:

"A world that had never been touched by evil would be a good place, but it wouldn't be the best place possible. The best of all worlds would be a place where evil facilitated the development of virtues that are only able to exist where evil flourishes for a time. This would produce a world populated by souls that were refined by overcoming evil with good. The evil is momentary. The good that results is eternal. 

What good comes out of a drive-by killing, someone might ask, or the death of a teenager through overdose, or a daughter's rape, or child abuse? The answer is that a commensurate good doesn't always come out of those individual situations, though God is certainly capable of redeeming any tragedy. Rather, the greater good results from having a world in which there is moral freedom, and moral freedom makes moral tragedies like these possible." 1

Bill Craig gives a good example of how good can result from evil:

"To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations.  A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean.  Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome.  

The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child's dying of leukemia could send a ripple effect through history so that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another country.  Our discussion of divine middle knowledge (chapter 26) stressed that only an omniscient mind could grasp the complexities of directing a world of free creatures toward one's pre-visioned goals. One has only to think of the innumerable, incalculable contingencies involved in arriving at a single historical event, say, the Allied victory at D‑day.  This has relevance to the probabilistic problem of evil, for we have no idea of the natural and moral evils that might be involved in order for God to arrange the circumstances and free agents in them requisite to some intended purpose, nor can we discern what reasons such a provident God might have in mind for permitting some evil to enter our lives.  Certainly many evils seem pointless and unnecessary to us ‑ but we are simply not in a position to judge."   2

This is not an appeal to mystery, rather this is an appeal to show that we are limited in our ability to know what actions will bring a greater good. We are not in a position to say it's improbable that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing some evils in this world. We all recognize our inability to see the future outcomes of our decisions; consider the moral structure of utilitarianism for a moment. Utilitarian thought suggests that a moral action is indeed moral if the action causes  the greatest happiness or pleasure for the most amount of people affected by the action. Utilitarianism's flaw is that it's impossible for us to know what actions will lead to the greatest pleasure/happiness for the world. 

It's simply impossible for us, as finite creatures limited in our power, to create the greatest good and also to even try to plan ahead for the greatest good. Our problems and struggles that we endure could be purposeful for our lives. We have no idea what will happen in the future, so like Bill Craig said in the article, "Certainly many evils seem pointless and unnecessary to us - but we are simply not in a position to judge." That does not mean we shouldn't talk about the problems of evil or not attempt to figure things out; we definitely should try to understand philosophical problems like evil, eternity, etc. Craig is telling us that sometimes we don't know exactly why God allowed a certain evil in our life, but he is not saying when someone asks you why evil exists, you should throw your hands up in the air and say, "We shouldn't question that! It's all up to God, we are in no position to judge what God does with his creation!" That is dishonest to say such a thing and evasive to the person (and yourself) who asked you the question. 

Related post

Understanding Evil

I highly, highly, highly recommend reading the following sources (web links - free reads, not too long either) from Greg Koukl and William Lane Craig. 

Sources:

1. Greg Koukl, Augustine on evil

2. William Lane Craig, Problem of evil

Understanding Evil

There is evil in the world. I can't think of any normal person that would disagree with the statement, "There is evil in the world," and I don't think anyone will ever not wonder why there is evil in the world. How could you not think about it? I'm sure all of us think about it at least once during our day because evil actions happen every single day from weather to human actions; you will encounter something evil first-hand or by seeing/reading it via media of some kind. What do we make of this knowledge? How can the world be so evil and also have a good God watching over it? Christopher Hitchens has, in the past, characterized God as a being that watches the world with folded arms while we humans endure suffering and pain of all kinds. So, can God truly be good if he allows such misery, anguish, and pain to go on?

To understand the problem, we must identify the problem. Yes, there is evil in the world, we all agree on that, but what is evil? My definition might be substantially different from yours. Some might think it evil that humans can become fat by eating too much ice cream and other sweet, tasty treats. Others might think the death penalty is evil. However, we can certainly agree on some things that would be easily labeled evil, e.g., murder, disease, rape, child abuse, slander, famine; the list could go on. While that short list brings to mind things that are evil, we still don't know what evil is by reading that list alone. The list is representative, it doesn't give us the origin of evil. So, like any researcher, let's explore what some of the great thinkers have concluded on the problem of evil in the world.

David Hume, an 18th century philosopher, formulates the problem of evil this way:

"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" 

"[God's] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?" 1

Hume was most likely agnostic, since in his writings there is ambiguity of which side of the theist/atheist debate he was on. There is however, no doubt that he was against some of the religious activity of his day, so some simply label him irreligious. Whatever his position, there is no doubt that he questioned the attributes of God as described by Christianity, i.e., God's omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience. Hume's questions seem to be clear defeaters for God's mercy and ability to prevent evil. I'm sure bad things have happened to you and you think, "Where is God?" or "Why did this happen to me?" I have and I'm quite sure all have thought something along those lines. Why do bad things happen to us?

Looking at Hume's argument, "Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?" I'll begin the first section.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Hume's argument seems to be devastating to Christianity doesn't it? If God is all good, all loving, etc., then he should stop evil from ever happening. Before we answer the question Is God willing to prevent evil, we should know what evil is. First, evil is not a thing; it doesn't attach itself to the bumper of your car, nor can you introduce yourself to evil and talk to it. Evil is a lack of good, it's the lesser good. Another way to think of evil is to think of free-will. Augustine, a 4th and 5th century philosopher, said, ""And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill." 2 Augustine viewed evil as a perversion of the will turned away from God to lesser things.

When we ask the question, is God willing to prevent evil, we have to define our terms first and know what we are asking. Are we asking if God is willing to make every decision for us? To ask the question appropriately would be to ask, "Is God willing to make us robots to prevent evil?" When asked that way, we can see that in order for evil to be eliminated, you have to eliminate our free-will choices. When our free-will is gone, it necessarily follows that evil will no longer be an option.

Atheist philosopher Antony Flew 3 thought the man could be immutable in his goodness and still make free choices in other areas of life. Will man not have the ability to freely choose in the afterlife and be completely good at the same time? Why can't man be like that now on earth? It would seem that God could simply remove evil as an option for man to choose.

Greg Koukl answers this objection quite nicely:

"God could have created such a world. Freedom in the larger sense (the ability to make choices) does not require freedom in the narrow sense (the ability to make moral choices). 

They miss the big picture, though: God would not have accomplished a second purpose. He not only wanted free creatures; He also wanted plenitude, that is, the greatest good possible. Plenitude--the highest good, the best of all possible worlds--requires more than just general freedom; it requires moral freedom, and that necessarily entails the possibility of evil. 

Since all that God made is good, even those things which appear evil only appear that way because of a limited context or perspective. When viewed as a whole, that which appears to be evil ultimately contributes to the greater good. 

For example, certain virtues couldn't exist without evil: courage, mercy, forgiveness, patience, the giving of comfort, heroism, perseverance, faithfulness, self-control, long-suffering, submission and obedience, to name a few. These are not virtues in the abstract, but elements of character that can only be had by moral souls. Just as evil is a result of acts of will, so is virtue. Acts of moral choice accomplish both." 4

So we can see that certain virtues (which are essential to our character and desired by humans) couldn't exist without moral choices made by moral souls. Since moral freedom must exist for the "best of all possible worlds" to exist, moral tragedies will result from our moral freedom. Hume's argument is not a defeater for God's omnibenovelence, omniscience, and omnipotence; rather his argument is simply a good conversation starter for the problem of evil. While Hume's argument is answered, we're not out of the woods yet. I will follow this post with the "Best of All Possible Worlds" argument.

Related content:

Understanding Evil: The Best of All Possible Worlds

Sources:

1. Hume, David. "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4583. Retrieved 2008-08-15.

2. Augustine, Confessions VII: [III] 5. 

3.  Antony Flew, "Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom," New Essays in Philosophical Theology, 1955 (referenced in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3, 138) 

4. Greg Koukl, Augustine on Evil, http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124

Defense of the Trinity part 2

In yesterday's post I discussed the logic of non-contradiction and how the trinity does not violate that law. The trinity, to review, explains that God is one in his substance, the unity is in his essence (what God is) and the plurality is in his persons (how he relates within himself). Today, I'll give some illustrations of the trinity and a scriptural defense of it as well. 

Illustrations of the Trinity

The illustrations given will be my attempt to show the unity of God while showing a simultaneous plurality. Hopefully, the following analogies will shine light on some misunderstandings. First, there is a misconception that believing in the Trinity is believing in three gods; doesn't 1 + 1 + 1 = 3? It does if you add them, but what if you multiplied one three times? Will you not get one? God is triune, not triplex. So, we can see from this that there is no mathematical contradiction to the Trinity. 

Another illustration is the triangle, probably the most popular illustration of the Trinity. A triangle has three corners, inseparable, and simultaneous to one another. This explains the Trinity well in a simple way that is easy to remember. There is also a moral illustration suggested by Augustine. *The Bible informs us that "God is love" (1 John 4:16). Love involves a lover, a beloved, and a spirit of love between lover and loved. The Father might be likened to the lover, the Son to the beloved, and the Holy Spirit to the Spirit of love. This is a strong example because it is personal, in that it involves love, which comes from persons. 

There is also an illustration based in human nature; the relation of the human mind, to its ideas, and the expression of those ideas in words. So we have mind to ideas to words. There is a unity among the three without having an identity, in that sense, the three illustrate the Trinity.* So I hope the above illustrations give a better understanding of the Trinity. In my opinion, they are great examples to share with others for their simplicity and they are also very illustrative. 

Scriptural Defense

Ah, here comes the part the critics have been salivating at the mouth for me to get to: the evidence in scripture. Are you ready? I'm ready to get into it too because there is good evidence in the Bible for the Trinity. I'm quite sure most Christians understand God as Father, there really isn't much debate on that so I'll start with the deity of Christ, or the Son of God and then end with the Holy Spirit. 

The Son is God

Jesus claimed to be Yahweh God; YHWH translated in some versions Jehovah, was the special name for God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, the "I AM WHO I AM," scripture. Jesus declared "Before Abraham was, I am," in John 8:58. That declaration claims equality with God and existence before Abraham. Also, when you couple the verses Luke 4:8, "And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve." and Hebrews 1:6, "And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him," you see that God is the only being to be worshiped, yet the Son is worshiped in Hebrews 1:6, along with Joshua 5:13-15; Mark 5:6; John 9:38; Luke 24:52; Rev. 7:9, 10; and Phil. 2:10,11. In those verses the Son is worshiped, yet God alone is to be worshiped, so we can see that the Son is God. 

Now, it's important to note that the Son and the Father are not two separate beings, for God is one being: "The Lord our God, the LORD is one" (Deaut. 6:4). Both Jesus (Mark 12:29) and the apostles repeat this formula in the NT (1 Cor. 8:4, 6). So, there is one being and that is God. 

The Holy Spirit is God

The Holy Spirit is called "God" (Acts 5:3-4). Walter Martin explains the verse well, "The literal force of the Greek verb translated "to lie" is to impose a lie upon someone. In this case the someone was not men (verse 4) nor even Peter, but God in the Person of the Holy Spirit. The parallel of verses 3 and 4 clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit is a person and is God."

*The Holy Spirit possesses the attributes of deity: omnipresence (Ps 139:7-12) and omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10, 11). He is associated with God the Father in creation (Gen. 1:2). He is involved with other members of the Godhead in the work of redemption (John 3:5-6; Rom 8:9-17, 27-27; Titus 3:5-7). He is associated with other members of the Trinity under the "name" of God (Matt 28:18-20). Finally, the Holy Spirit appears, along with the Father and Son, in New Testament benedictions (for example, 2 Cor. 13:14). 

Due to time constraints, I'll have to finish the rest of the Holy Spirit explanation in tomorrows post. I hope this survey of the Trinity has helped those of you out that are critical of the Trinity or skeptical about it because once understood, the doctrine of God is much tighter. Let me know if you have any questions in the comment section. Please comment on this post or the other post, "Logic of the Trinity." I'm always available because my phone alerts me of comments. 

Sources

* Augustine, On the Trinity

* Walter Martin, King James Study Bible

* Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics