reason.cck.org.uk

For anyone who watches the news on a regular basis it seems like our world has a considerable amount wrong with it; pain and suffering seem to surround us on every side. Broadly speaking we find the roots of suffering in two places; due to the choices of fellow human beings, and natural disasters like that recently experienced in Haiti. We will have much to say on both of these in subsequent articles, but for now I intend to tackle the issue at hand. Does the very existence of suffering lead us to atheism; that is to conclude that there is in fact no God in control of this world that we inhabit?

Whether it has come from an emotional or intellectual source, I’m sure that anyone who has ever given any consideration to world events has felt a strong sense that ‘the world is not as it should be’. It somehow seems out of sync with a world that a loving God could have made. This is entirely normal and leads us to question how this could be.

18th century philosopher David Hume spoke for many when he summarised this argument:

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

This sounds very convincing on face value doesn’t it? However, it makes a  considerable assumption in the process; that we are able to determine what good and evil are, quite independently of God.

The problem of defining good and evil

Former atheist CS Lewis realised the difficulties with this line of enquiry:

‘My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies…consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.’

In short, if we take God out of the equation then the idea of ‘evil’ becomes meaningless. Hume’s question falls apart.  If we assume that there is no God then there is no standard by which we can say that anything is objectively wrong. All we have is subjective preferences (for more on objective moral values click here).  As I mentioned earlier though, if we’re honest we all know that internal tug deep within us, that tells us ‘this is not how it should be’. ‘The world should be just, it should be fair’, and ‘people should not have to suffer’.

If we take God out of the equation then we have to accept that pain, suffering and evil are inevitable and are just part of our world, an inevitable by-product as part of naturalistic evolution. There is no reason why we should feel any sense that things OUGHT to be a particular way at all. We are just mistaken if we think that, it is just our senses messing with us.

Richard Dawkins summarises this rather depressing and hopeless viewpoint:

‘….some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.’

Is that all our lives are though? Pitiless indifference and purposeless? It seems to me we don’t live that way (for more on the origins of meaning, click here), we live as if there is purpose to our existence. As humans we even try to look for purpose in the midst of suffering. Why does it happen? This is something we will look at in the next article.

Conclusion:

Although at this stage we have not looked at why God may allow suffering, one thing is clear: the existence of evil in our world does not prove the absence of God, it merely makes us question why he allows such suffering. It only needs to be possible for God to have a good reason for allowing suffering and evil (even one that we may never know) for this argument to be defeated.

Tim Keller cites that it is almost universally accepted in academic philosophy circles that the argument from evil is not a good argument for atheism. It seems that one of the key reasons for this is that the very definition of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is so tied up with the need for a divine yardstick that the question becomes incoherent without God.  As a human race we feel a strong inner sense that the world ‘ought’ not to be this way,  that seems to transcend mere preference. This if anything seems to provide a stronger argument for God’s existence than his non-existence. Far from the universe being purposeless and indifferent, in a christian worldview it is possible to find great purpose even in pain and suffering, which we will look at in the next article.

One key point that has been argued down the ages is that morality is only of intrinsic value if it is objective, which means it needs to come from an external source God, not merely a set of opinions which we temporarily agree on. Here we investigate this point of view.

Introduction & Respect for Persons

Initially most people would think that the obvious answer to this question is ‘yes, of course morality can exist without God.’  It certainly seems that both atheists and agnostics alike can lead what we recognize as good and decent lives, despite their lack of belief in a deity.  Often times, in fact, it appears that many unbelievers’ moral lives put many religious believers to shame.  But the question here isn’t, can we act morally without belief in God, but, ultimately, can morality exist without God? This second question is different from the first – it’s a question about the nature of moral facts and values themselves, as opposed to how someone may or may not act.

Over the centuries various explanations and theories have been offered as to just what such moral facts and values are. Some see them as simply expressions of social and cultural conventions (i.e. like driving on the left hand side of the road as opposed to the right) or as questions of personal taste (i.e. like having a taste for certain kinds of food or not).  In the abstract it’s often appealing for people to treat morality as simply a question of personal taste or social convention.  Such moral relativism, however, often comes unstuck in the face of truly horrific evil – it seems hard for most people to really accept that anyone could seriously argue that the Holocaust or the recent genocide in Rwanda are simply issues on a par with how someone enjoys their curry or how a certain culture views its traffic laws (as crude as this may sound, this is essentially what many moral theories ultimately state). Such acts are evil, plain and simple, and there’s almost nothing to say to people who deny otherwise – in many ways it is equivalent to denying the laws of logic. Intuitively we all seem to know that some things are just wrong, whatever opinion any person or society may have to the contrary. In other words moral facts are objective and binding upon people in a way that’s independent of their individual opinions of them.

How can we best sum up this objective moral sensibility that we all seem to intuitively possess?  The German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s idea of respect for persons or to treat people as ends rather than as means, as having inherent worth and dignity simply by the fact that they are human beings and nothing more, seems as good a summary as any. Kant thought that we should always act towards others in a way which considers people as ends in themselves rather than simply as a means to our own ends.  This is why actions such as murder, theft and rape are wrong – because such acts treat others simply as a means and not as ends in themselves, thus discarding the inherent dignity they possess as human beings.

Evolutionary Ethics

For people who do not believe in God, then, and yet still wish to affirm the worth of human beings and the objective wrongness of such actions as murder/rape etc., what are the options?  For most atheists and agnostics the most obvious explanation for how we came about our moral sensibility must lie in our evolutionary past. Though such theories of evolutionary ethics are still highly speculative it would seem that some process of natural selection would have genetically predisposed our species to act in certain ways and with certain ‘herd’ characteristics, for the simple fact that such behaviour contributed greatly to our survival as a species as opposed to some other different behaviour patterns. So, to give one example, perhaps altruism and self-sacrifice became characteristics we admire in people because, ultimately, one person sacrificing his life for others meant that fewer members of the species died, thus greatly enhancing the species’ chances of survival.  Eventually such genetic predispositions came to be enshrined in various laws and cultures across the world.

But does such a naturalistic evolutionary account give us sufficient warrant for the inherent dignity of persons, as well as the objective wrongness of certain acts committed against them? It seems to me that, in effect, we could just as easily argue that the fact human beings have evolved a spleen or a kidney to aid in our survival as a species gives us inherent moral worth – but would anyone seriously propose such a thing? In this case it seems simply arbitrary that we should chose our evolved moral sensibility as something which endows us with inherent moral worth as opposed to something else we’ve evolved, such as a bodily organ – after all both are by products of an amoral evolutionary process aimed at survival and reproduction and not at moral action. In effect this raises David Hume’s old philosophical problem of gaining a non-naturalistic value from a naturalistic fact.

Furthermore, as philosopher of science Michael Ruse has noted, if we ‘roll the dice’ of evolution again, so to speak, there’s a good chance we would end up with intelligent creatures that somehow consider to be morally praiseworthy almost everything that we as human beings consider to be morally repulsive (i.e. cannibalism, murder, selfishness, rape, incest etc.etc.).  From this Ruse concludes that there can be no such thing as objective moral truth – and even if there were such a thing it would remain simply irrelevant to us as a species, for the chances that we have evolved in such a way as to exactly reflect within our internal moral structure whatever such an objective moral order may be is vanishingly small.

As noted at the beginning, this does not entail that the agnostic/atheist cannot live a moral life in the sense of following the rules they intuitively feel they possess. But it does mean that they have no real objective basis for why they should do so. This poses a dilemma for many people – if they stick to naturalism and atheism it appears they must assert that there is no such thing as objective moral values after all and, therefore, no basis for inherent human dignity. But, on the other hand, it appears that most of us – atheist, agnostic or theist alike – sincerely wish to affirm the objectivity of moral values, as well as the inherent worth of persons. Something must give.

Christian Ethics & Conclusion

But what of theism in general and, specifically, Christian theism?  The Biblical doctrine that we are all made in the ‘Image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) gives human beings an inherent moral worth that naturalistic philosophy cannot provide and, thus, a foundation for treating others as ends in themselves and, therefore, an objective morality.  Jesus Himself summed up the essence of all morality in the so-called ‘Golden Rule’ (Mark 12:31) – to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ – or to treat people with the dignity they deserve, in the same way you consider yourself and your own life as intrinsically meaningful.  When we realize that each individual person is created equally in the Image of God we cannot help but see them, and human beings in general, as possessing intrinsic moral worth – something that morality as an evolutionary byproduct cannot provide.

Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. – Titus 2:9-10

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ – Ephesians 6:5

Passages like these may lead someone to the conclusion that the Bible is pro-slavery, and therefore should not be acknowledged or listened to, never mind followed:  A book that promotes such an appalling, violent, dehumanizing and often racist concept as slavery has no place in our society.

But to come to this conclusion, that the Bible supports slavery, is quite wrong.  These passages do not say this and they need to be understood in their proper context.  I want to explain that God and His Word, the Bible, are very much opposed to slavery.

New Testament slavery

Before we go any further, it is important to point out that the slavery mentioned in these passages is unlikely to be the same thing as what may come to mind when we hear the term.  When we think of slavery, most of us think of slave ships leaving Africa, or the trafficking of young women for the sex trade.  The slavery of 1st century Asia Minor, the context of these passages, is quite different.

Many slaves in this period were able to attain respectable positions in society and some had the opportunity to buy their freedom after a certain period of serving their master. In considering slavery we should not maintain a narrow view but realize that, in this context, it is not as cruel or degrading as we might think.  My point here is not to condone slavery, it should not be condoned and is very wrong, but to show that slavery and the lifestyle of slaves is wide ranging.

The Bible is anti-slavery

Let me explain three ways in which the Bible is anti-slavery.  Slavery is rooted in the idea that there is inequality between human beings.  One person owning another person immediately creates a position of superiority.  Often this is manifested in racial terms; one ethnic group dominates another and makes them their slaves.

This idea is at odds with the equality and dignity of life that the Bible promotes from cover to cover.  Human beings are all made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and so have equal worth and identity.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that certain people are superior to others.  All are made by God and are valued by Him.

Secondly, the Bible repeatedly stresses that God loves justice (Psalm 11:7, 33:5, 99:4).  The inequality and injustice that we see in the world are the effects of man turning away from the way God made the world to be.

Thirdly, in 1 Timothy 1:10, slave traders are condemned alongside murderers, liars and perverts.

The purpose of Paul’s letters

With this in mind, we might be wondering, “Why do these passages not speak out against slavery then?”  This is a very good question.

One of the reasons that someone might conclude that these passages are pro-slavery is because the author, Paul, speaks about slavery without condemning it.  If he does not condemn it, then he must be condoning it, right?  However, this is not the case.  We must understand the purpose that Paul has in writing these things.  Both Titus and Ephesians are letters he wrote in order to instruct new Christians on how to live to serve and enjoy God.

Had Paul been a politician, God would surely have called him to speak out about injustice and establish new ways in which society should operate that reflected God’s heart.  In some ways Paul does this in his letters anyway.  In Colossians 3:11 he contradicts the common ideas and social inequalities of the time, saying that everyone, regardless of ethnicity or status, is equal.  This would have been a radical and controversial statement.

But actually his primary purpose is not to transform the social systems, but to change individuals’ lives with the truth of the Gospel of Jesus.

Therefore, in these letters he is giving instruction to slaves, slave masters, husbands, wives and all people, whatever their status in society, to live according to the truth of the Gospel and to worship and serve God.  Paul is not condoning or strengthening unjust social divisions but is instructing everyone on how to live in spite of them.  Therefore, we cannot say that Paul is supporting slavery.  He is simply telling people how to make the best of a bad situation:  how to live for God in a world that is not perfect.

Should we follow the Bible?

Let me conclude by saying that more than just opposing slavery in principle, the Bible actively encourages us to combat social injustice.  In Luke 4, Jesus states that it His purpose on earth to “preach good news to the poor” and “release the oppressed”.  Here he is addressing both spiritual and physical oppression.  The Bible repeatedly calls Christians to love all people and seek the welfare of others, especially those who are weak and marginalized in society.  Jesus explains in Matthew 25:40 that this type of action is a mark of the Kingdom of God.

One man who responded to this call with world-changing impact was William Wilberforce.  Motivated by his Christian convictions he led the parliamentary campaign for the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire.  After years of tireless campaigning, in 1807 saw the Slave Trade Act passed which abolished the slave trade.  However he did not stop there and, three days before his death in 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed, ending slavery in the British Empire outright.  The film Amazing Grace, released in 2007 to mark the 200th anniversary of the Slave Trade Act, chronicles his life and campaigns.

Like Wilberforce, all Christians have a responsibility to contend for the equality, dignity and preciousness of human life as representatives of God’s Kingdom.  This is in direct contradiction to slavery and we follow the Bible’s instruction so that these values are preserved in our society.

This may seem a strange post coming from a born again Christian, but I want you all to know that I hate religion.

Why, you may be wondering, isn’t this what you are living for, and all about?

Well, in a word No!

The Bible teaches clearly that we have been made to have a relationship with God, not perform a load of duties for a distant God who we are worried is going to smite us if we don’t do what he tells us. The Bible says that this kind of obligation-based living on its own is dung (to use a pleasant word). If this is the kind of experience you have had of Christianity then let me apologise, seriously.

Everyone hates people who are self-righteous, and this is what alot of ‘religious’ people can be like, because they feel very proud of their moral performance to make God happy.

I want you all to know that anyone that claims to be a Christian should be among the least self-righteous people you ever meet. ‘why?’ you may ask. ‘You religious types are all the same, you want everyone to know how good you are.’

Well, this is not the case and let me explain why:

SALVATION BY RELIGION

This is where many religious groups believe that if they are a good enough person they will be saved by God and spend eternity in heaven. The Bible refers to these efforts as being about as pleasant to God’s mind as a used tampon! pretty graphic isn’t it.

SALVATION BY GRACE

This means that it’s a free gift. If you know that you’re not perfect (which you’re not, and I’m certainly not) and God is, then you will recognise correctly that we are not on an equal footing with him. So because of this we can’t enter into a relationship with him. So how do we solve this problem?

Work harder, read the bible more, pray – wrong!

Jesus came and lived the perfect life that we couldn’t and God substituted him in our place. He took the just punishment that we should have, and so, if you accept that Jesus did this for you as a free gift (because he loves you!!) then you can know the joy of having an intimate personal relationship with him.

Jesus came to give life to the full (John 10:10), not to kill it, and the way we get this is by knowing our creator God by relationship, not ritualistic do-gooding.

The joy that comes from this wonderful relationship is incredible, it sets your life on a rock which will not be moved and you then get to realise the plans that God has for your life.

What would the case be for you or I?
In the Old Testament, God reveals himself to his people Israel. He reveals his standards in books such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy (these standards are referred to collectively as ‘The Law’ and summarised in the 10 Commandments.) These standards are reflective of His holiness (‘God-ness’, ‘Other-than-man-ness’,) and were to be binding upon His people. In effect, God sets the bar for having dealings with Him incredibly high and many things that we as a society consider permissible by consensus would be punishable by corporal or capital punishment under ‘The Law’. In fact, there would be few, if any, of us who wouldn’t be condemned for aspects of our behaviour if the Law were properly enacted upon us. We are, by nature, rebellious.

Jesus and The Law
This didn’t change with the arrival of Jesus Christ. He was accused by the religious teachers of His day of teaching people to disobey God’s Law but by he proclaimed (recorded in Matthew 5:17-19) the following:
a) that he had come to fulfill the Law completely – no one had ever done this
b) that the Law was eternal and would never be revoked in any way
c) that anyone who broke even the smallest part of the Law had no business with God and that only those who kept it completely, did. If anything, by His teaching, Jesus raised the already high bar even higher! (For examples see Matthew 5:21-48)

The Problem
Okay, if you’ve followed up to this point, you should have detected an obvious problem:
a) None of us are perfect (Romans 3:23)
b) God is nothing but perfect! (2 Samuel 22:31, 1 John 1:5)
c) It is impossible for perfection to be in harmony with imperfection (Amos 3:3)
d) So it follows : No one can ever be in relationship with God – what a terrible state of affairs!

The Solution
So what is the purpose of the Law? It seems that it is impossible to keep. Is it to be obeyed? The fact is, the Law was given for this purpose: to reveal our dire situation in relation to God (Romans 5:20), to cause us to be distraught about this and to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24.)

Remember what I mentioned above: Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law; to do what we could not do on our behalf, namely to live a perfect life, to die in our place and allow us to be in relationship with God the Father through Jesus’ own achievements in His life, death and resurrection. Speaking of God’s free acceptance shown to we who are completely unworthy John 1:17 says “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” and 2 Corinthians 5:21 , speaking of Jesus taking our punishment in exchange for His righteousness, says “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

The danger of this question is the emotive response that it may provoke. I think it’s important to argue for morality on the basis of God’s Word rather than on subjective feelings.
 
In response to the question, yes, the whole human population has spawned from Adam and Eve because Cain married his sister as did his other brother Seth. (Gen 4:28)
 
The Bible is very clear that all other people are descended from Adam (Acts 17:26), and Adam is called ‘the first man’ in 1 Cor. 15:45. Eve was so named because she was ‘the mother of all living’ (Gen. 3:20). If Cain married a woman not descended from Adam and Eve, it would imply that God made her as He did Eve (from Adam’s rib). But the Bible simply does not say this and if this were true then she would have been a sinless woman not descended from Adam and therefore she would have never died and would be alive and well today to tell us exactly what happened!
 
Even Abraham testified that he married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and this was a marriage blessed by God, and led to the Messiah. It wasn’t till the time of Moses that God forbade the Israelites from brother-sister marriage (Lev. 18–20).
 
Mutation & Genes

There is a logical explanation for why God waited till Moses to outlaw this practice, when he didn’t with Abraham. Originally, there would have been no risk of this causing harmful deformity in the offspring. There is a problem today, because all of us have inherited copying mistakes in our genes, called mutations, which are usually harmful. Mutations are one effect of God’s curse on the entire creation because of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19, Romans 8:20–22).
 
Fortunately, we carry two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent (called alleles). Usually we inherit mutations in different places, so usually the mutated gene’s effect is fully or partly masked by the ‘good’ gene. But if close relatives marry, then there is a one-in-four chance of a child inheriting mutant alleles in the same place (locus) from both parents. This one-in-four chance applies to each mutation, of which there are thousands, so the chance of some deformity is great.
 
But Adam and Eve were created ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) — the Hebrew ‘meod tov’, in the context of a finished creation which God had already called ‘good’ after most creation days, indicates physical perfection without any blemishes. So they would not have had copying mistakes, so brother-sister intermarriage would not have had the problem it has today. Harmful mutations would take many generations to accumulate to levels where close intermarriage would be dangerous for the offspring. 
 
But as many centuries passed, many harmful, degenerative mutations accumulated in the human gene pool. This is probably a major reason for God giving laws to the Israelites through Moses against intermarriage between close relatives (Leviticus 18–20). Today, there would be even more chance of deformity/disease in the offspring of such a union than in Moses’ time —consequently, even first cousin marriages are outlawed in many countries.