Week 11 Review

From Last Week… Proponents of moral relativism sometimes point to John 8:1-11 as an example of Jesus practicing moral relativism. How would you respond to this?

From Last Week… Support for situational ethics is claimed in the story of Rahab in Joshua 2 (a similar example is used of sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany). What would you say to this?

From Last Week… When trying to establish objective morality, one might object that “God did many evil acts” in the Old Testament. How do you handle this situation?

A Groaning World Evil, Pain, and Suffering

Understanding the Issue This topic requires patience and empathy ▫Often backed by personal experience ▫Often emotionally charged Sometimes arguments aren’t the answer ▫Intellectual vs. Emotional  Logical vs. Evidential ▫Know your audience!

Two Arguments in One Evil ▫The evidence of evil in the world shows that there can’t possibly be a good, loving God Suffering ▫The reality of everyday pain and suffering of innocent people shows there can’t be a good, loving God Both try to attack the existence of God

The Intellectual Problem Arguments against God from suffering/evil ▫Remember burden of proof ▫They make the claim, they must back it up with arguments or evidence ▫We provide answers Ask—impossible or improbable? ▫Logical or evidential

Logical Version “God and suffering cannot coexist”’ ▫An all-loving, all-powerful God cannot exist in a world where suffering exists—No obvious, explicit contradiction Two implicit premises ▫If God is all-powerful, He can make any world he wants ▫If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering

Premise 1 “If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants” ▫One problem—free will (logically impossible) ▫Must only be possible to disprove Premise 1 There are many worlds that God cannot create ▫Any world that violates the free will he has given us

Premise 2 “If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering” ▫Is suffering sometimes necessary for a greater good? (Ex. Dentist) ▫Must only be possible to disprove Premise 2 This requires insight into God’s mind Premise 1 and Premise 2 are too great a burden

Evidential Version “It’s improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting suffering” ▫No longer absolute—inductive instead of deductive (lighter burden of proof) Three responses ▫The human position ▫The full scope of evidence ▫Suffering makes sense under Christianity

Human Limitations We are in no position to say whether God has no good reason for permitting suffering in the world ▫Often we can’t see the point of suffering ▫We don’t have the scope to make this bold claim Two illustrations ▫Chaos theory (butterfly effect) ▫Complexity of our decisions and consequences

The Full Scope of Evidence God’s existence is likely when all the evidence is considered together ▫“Improbable” relative to what? ▫Remember cosmological, design, moral arguments The existence of evil can be used to prove God ▫Evil exists  moral argument  God exists ▫Without God, suffering and evil aren’t a problem

Suffering—The Christian Perspective Christianity actually expects the coexistence of God and suffering ▫The purpose of life is not happiness or comfort ▫Suffering is a natural consequence of sin ▫God’s purpose extends beyond the physical life ▫Knowledge of God outweighs all suffering Suffering makes sense under the Christian God

Question 1 When dealing with the problem of evil, pain, and suffering in the world, do you believe that the objections from most people are emotional or intellectual? Why?

Question 2 When talking about the objection against the existence of God due to evil, pain, and suffering, why is it important to remember who bears the burden of proof?

Question 3 If you began discussing the problem of evil, pain, and suffering with someone and you determined that their problem with God was emotional, not intellectual, what would you do?