I was talking with a friend at work over lunch today, a friendly and interesting chat about theology and theologians.
She had attended a lecture by a former Dominican priest who had apparently abandoned Christianity because he couldn’t believe in, or at least couldn’t worship, a God who would allow so much evil. He noted how much natural evil there was, in addition to moral evil; he used the example of a wasp that will paralyze a moth and lay its eggs inside the moth’s body, and when the eggs hatch, the larvae eat the moth from the inside out, and the moth is still alive while it’s being eaten, etc. Which, I agree, is pretty horrific. So are viruses and hurricanes and other kinds of natural evil.
Now, as far as I know and have been taught, natural evil, like moral evil, is a result of the Fall and the severing of man from God’s supernatural life. That makes sense to me. In the fall, man chose the devil over God. And all creation essentially turned upside down. Why shouldn’t there be natural evil as well as moral evil in a fallen world?
The problem, which my friend was also speaking of, was that so many theologians and so many average Christians today basically believe that we moderns have outgrown the stories of Adam and Eve, the fall, original sin, and even the devil himself. Now, if you don’t believe in any of these any more, if you discount them as myths devoid of any meaning whatsoever, then of course you won’t be able to make sense of evil. You will come to see religion as just a generic kind of moral code, a way to live out your life, without being beholden to any real, personal God. Or, you might reject religion completely. You will become a practical, if not a professed, atheist.
These people let everything, their entire worldviews and belief systems, hinge on the problem of evil.
But what do they do with the problem of good? How do they account for the fact that even in this fallen world with its many various evils, there is so much good? Good that defies all natural explanation? Goodness that prevails in the face of sheer evil? How do they explain miracles? How do they explain seemingly irrational acts of self-sacrifice or heroism? Or natural goods such as the tenderness some animals show toward their young, the exclusive monogamous bonds between mates of some species, the cycle of the seasons and the abundance of crops, the astonishing beauty of life on earth? Where does goodness come from? How can there still be so much of it if the world is so steeped in evil and has been since the beginning of time? Surely evil should have long ago conquered all–and yet it hasn’t!
That’s the question that must be posed. And it never seems to get posed. We allow the nay-sayers to moan and groan on and on about evil! That’s exactly the way the devil likes it. He likes everything to be all about him. And he especially loves it when people don’t realize that they are making everything all about him! He laughs! He laughs at us and He laughs at God.
So, here’s my advice to myself and to everybody. Whenever anybody raises the problem of evil, raise the problem of good to them. Whenever they use the problem of evil to try to discredit God and Christianity, use the problem of good to try to discredit their position.
As far as I can tell, Christianity provides answers to both problems. Their position doesn’t provide answers to either problem. They take the one for granted and wallow in it incessantly, while completely ignoring the other. In all charity, we must try to get them beyond that. Get them to face the full picture. Challenge them to come up with answers. Until then, I don’t see that they have any rational grounds for rejecting God or Christianity.
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
28 May 2009 at 9:51 PM
scaryreasoner
For those who do not believe in any gods, good and evil are quite obviously both in the eye of the beholder.
You do not seem to understand the “problem of evil.”
The problem of evil is well stated by Epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Good presents no such problem to nonbelievers, as they do not believe in “the fall.” The only people who believe in “the fall” also believe in God. Without the god of the Bible, “the fall” doesn’t exist either. So there is no “problem of good.”
BTW, acts perceived as both “good” and “evil” are plausibly explained by evolution, as is their perception as “good” or “evil.”
29 May 2009 at 12:14 AM
Practicing Catholic
I suspect you and I are talking about two very different classes of people. I am not talking about the atheists and relativists and evolutionists who are oh so fashionable today.
I’m talking about Christians for whom good and evil actually do mean something and who, through personal despair, bad teaching, weakness to temptation, or all of these, have come to the conclusion that evil is more powerful than God, if God even exists. Only then do they become atheists… and they’re usually so tormented by it that they later on buy into the fashionable trends of atheism and relativism. Because, hey, at least it’s fashionable! Or worse yet, they keep on acting as if they are still Christian, and in some cases Christian theologians… that’s by far a greater danger.
In any case, they’ve lost or rejected the theological key to arriving at the correct answer to the problem of evil: namely that God is able and willing to prevent evil, but He has also endowed men and angels with free will, and their free choice against God is where evil has come from.
In a Christian worldview without that key, evil doesn’t just become some vague relative term–evil becomes all-powerful. And in this worldview, the existence of good, and the fact that good is never completely overpowered does pose a problem, and one that demands an answer. Good and evil co-exist in this world. As long as good remains, why doubt God? Why assume that God is impotent, malicious, or non-existent?
It was this “problem of good” that always haunted my mind and disturbed the seemingly comfortable atheism I’d fallen into for so many years. I tried to ignore it or explain it away, but was never able. I think some former Christians would have to admit the same thing upon giving it some thought. Maybe they just need somebody to pose the question to them.
29 May 2009 at 8:39 AM
morsec0de
“I am not talking about the atheists and relativists and evolutionists who are oh so fashionable today. ”
So fashionable, in fact, that an open atheist could never be elected to public office today. Meanwhile, there may soon be 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court. Which I’m not against, but it’s interesting to call us ‘fashionable’ when we’re still the most distrusted minority in the country.
“Only then do they become atheists”
If you’re trying to describe the process that all people become atheists, you couldn’t be farther from the truth.
“As long as good remains, why doubt God?”
Because people do good things. Mostly because it makes them feel good. Or to promote a society in which everyone does more good than evil, in case they ever need assistance from others.
Not hard to explain without a god at all, really.
“Why assume that God is impotent, malicious, or non-existent?”
I don’t assume those things. I see no good evidence to believe in the existence of any god, be that god good or evil. It’s the lack of evidence, not the nature of the being, that is the issue.
29 May 2009 at 9:29 AM
Practicing Catholic
Apparently atheists are not so distrusted that we don’t trust them to educate our youth. I was subjected to atheism all through high school and university. And yes it was fashionable. Expressing any disagreement would earn sneers at the least. I don’t think that’s changed. I was rejected by some of my atheist friends when I became Catholic, sometimes in very nasty and personal ways. Ways that went far beyond differences in ideology.
I consider atheism much bigger than the professed and unapologetic atheists. There are lots of people who live and think as atheists, to varying degrees of consciousness. These are what I call “practical” atheists. And these are the people I’m talking about. Calling yourself a theist, professing to be a Christian or other religious adherent, doesn’t necessarily make you so.
I never claimed to describe how all people become atheists, nor do I claim to describe the experiences and worldview of all atheists. I know how I and many other Christians have fallen into atheism. Remember, this is a Catholic blog, written primarily for Catholics. For many Catholics and other Christians, what I’m saying surely does ring true. I and many others have “been there, done that” personally.
I don’t have to time to respond further right now. You’re welcome to share your opinions here, but you’re not going to convince me any more than I’m going to convince you. Honestly goal is not to convert atheists; I have my hands full with other Catholics.
29 May 2009 at 1:17 PM
Shamelessly Atheist
No, you were subjected to secularism through high school and university. Secularism and atheism are most definitely NOT the same thing. Secularism is the equal treatment of all without regard to their religious beliefs or lack thereof, thereby leveling the playing field for everyone without giving special status to any sectarian group.
29 May 2009 at 10:01 AM
morsec0de
“I was subjected to atheism all through high school and university.”
That may or may not be true. But it should be pointed out that secularism is not the same as atheism.
Teaching proper science and not mentioning religion in public schools is not the equivalent of teaching atheism.
“I never claimed to describe how all people become atheists”
Then I don’t object. That’s all my initial comment meant.
“but you’re not going to convince me any more than I’m going to convince you.”
How do you know?
We’ve both been convinced at different points in our lives in different things. For all I know, I may convince you of atheism. For all you know, you may convince me of Catholicism. I do know that all it would take to convince me is good evidence. So I never assume I can’t be convinced.
29 May 2009 at 12:16 PM
Practicing Catholic
Your point about secularism and atheism is well-taken. I do not confuse the two, however. Oddly, I never had any problem with science classes. I picked up my atheism mostly in philosophy, history, literature, and–would you believe?–religion classes.
It took nothing less than God Himself to bring me around from atheism. Well, God and an earth-shattering tragedy. I have no idea how I can convert that into evidence good enough to convince you or anybody else.
I’m the first to admit that, at least at this stage of my life, I’m not well-equipped to produce evidence. To be fair, though, I think it largely has to begin with the person and with God Himself.
Sorry for the shortness of my comments. I’m pretty pressed for time. Probably not expressing myself as well as I could, either.
29 May 2009 at 1:23 PM
Shamelessly Atheist
Boy, I wish I could have gone to your school. I would have fit right in.
People have different responses to tragedy. Religious people sometimes turn to religion even further to deal with their grief. Others turn away from it. People like me turn to friends and family, feeling neither love nor hate for what we see as a fictitious deity.
But do you not see the irony here? If tragedy brought you to god, and god can (by all accounts) easily prevent such tragedy, is that not an evil way to do it?
29 May 2009 at 9:55 PM
Practicing Catholic
Yes, and sometimes non-religious people become religious. So it happened with me. But I assure you, people like me turn to friends and family too. Tragedy brought me even closer to them than ever. Tragedy brought old relationships to new life. Tragedy laid old conflicts to rest and brought peace and forgiveness. Tragedy brought wonderful new people into my life.
People can bond, or form stronger bonds, over tragedy. Good can come of horrible situations. I still wish my fiance hadn’t died. But nothing can change that now. And I honestly can’t regret anything that has happened since. So many goods, among them my restored relationship with God.
When I look at my life, I don’t see that any evil has been done to me, least of all by God. I don’t see any cruel irony. I see that I’ve been exceedingly blessed. I see the victory of goodness and life over evil and death.
29 May 2009 at 1:17 PM
Shamelessly Atheist
Whoops. morsecOde, you beat me to it.
29 May 2009 at 1:43 PM
Practicing Catholic
I don’t need to be lectured on secularism. When I say I was subjected to atheism, I mean I was subjected to atheism.
Please, if you wish to comment on my blog, don’t take me for a fool.
29 May 2009 at 3:04 PM
Shamelessly Atheist
Pardon us for being skeptical that you were ‘subjected’ to atheism in school. But we’re skeptical. I can’t say that I ever was, and I think it’s clear from morsec0de’s comment that he wasn’t either. Honestly, I can’t think of a single time when the word ‘atheism’ was ever used between kindergarten and when I finished my PhD. Where on earth did you go to school?
29 May 2009 at 10:55 PM
Practicing Catholic
Well, I’ve known others who have had a different experience than me. It doesn’t make me skeptical of them, nor them of me. Even with strangers, my policy is to believe what they relate about their own experiences. If you say you weren’t subjected to atheism in school, then why wouldn’t I believe it? There are plenty of variables that could account for the difference.
To be clear, I had some incredible teachers who were serious about educating and bringing the best out of their students. But I also had some who thought it was their business to deprogram their students, make blank slates of them, and push their own agendas, with little to no tolerance for any “dissenting” opinions. That’s not education, that’s subjection.
If I had a “do-over,” I wouldn’t stand for it for a minute. These days, I’m far more cautious about what I study, where, and with whom.
29 May 2009 at 1:27 PM
Kevin B.
The problem of evil is arational emotion masquerading as reason. The Incarnation and the Passion make it infinitely so.
29 May 2009 at 5:49 PM
Practicing Catholic
We talked about that as well: without the fall and original sin, there is absolutely no reason for Christ. Without the “happy fault of Adam,” there is no need for “so great a Redeemer.” Speaking of redemption is nonsense. The Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection are rendered meaningless, purposeless. Christ becomes not only a mere man, but a liar or lunatic at that.
29 May 2009 at 6:21 PM
Kevin B.
Right. To assert the problem of evil is to consign oneself to nonexistence: if it weren’t for some extraordinarily unlikely events, some of which were a direct result of the existence of evil in the world, I would not exist. None of us would. People like your secular interlocutors make the mistake of thinking God could not possibly love us enough to tolerate the existence of evil.
29 May 2009 at 8:19 PM
Practicing Catholic
God could have simply ceased to sustain in their existence Adam and Eve and all other creatures. Allowed them to dissipate into nothingness. But He sustained them: “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” And what marvelous plans they were, and are!
I have not been immune from suffering. I am not naive. I am not deluded. I also have not gone without His abundant blessings and sustenance. I am so grateful for this life and this world. I am so grateful for all He has done and given. I don’t know what more I could hope for or desire… despite the sufferings and evils I’ve endured.
29 May 2009 at 3:21 PM
Warren
Isn’t evolution a handy thing, when explaining natural evil? Who says that God created any natural evil? Who is to say that the moth is evil, exactly, anyways? I mean, it’s a pest destroying another pest…
As for evolution being handy… what I mean is that the largest body of evidence in the world supporting the idea of micro-evolution, is the amount of research done on the amount of evolving that the aids retrovirus has done.
Where did AIDS and other viral disease come from? Did God create it?
Or did it evolve from within the system and natural order that God created, with the fall and the consequences of Sin being manifest as a disorder within an orderly system? Did AIDs and all other virus and bacterial agents evolve? If so, doesn’t that make them a natural by-product of our broken (fallen) world?
Interesting.
W
29 May 2009 at 6:37 PM
Practicing Catholic
I haven’t made any advanced study of it, but I do find evolution quite fascinating.
It seems that viruses as we know them must have come about after the fall, evolved from something that existed before the fall in a more innocuous form. There are microorganisms that are not harmful, and indeed are helpful and necessary. Is that not one indication that God can, and does, prevent evil and sustain good?
The alternative would be that God directly created something harmful. That simply does not fit with what we know to be true of God.