Do you have a problem with evil?
I love our apologetics class, it's the crap, to say the least. We just bulldozed through a chapter where Bahnsen showed the blatant contradictions prevalent in past philosophers (e.g. Hume), loading the paragraphs with dictionary-worthy "isms", many of which I would have loved to have heard an extended presentation on (but considering the fact that only myself and Sonja probably would have cared at all, there was not alot of incentive to lecture on it). So the wonderful Chapter on American/European anti-christian philosphy got passed over like a red headed orphan, and this my friends is with crying over. It's not milk don't worry, it's Scotch, but Macallan Scotch is what it is and that is some pricy drink.The Chapter we are on now is titled "The Problem of Evil" which, when extremely condensed, goes something like this...
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omni-benevolent
3. Evil Exists
Supposedly for the believer this has some very meaty consequences. The non-believer is a speedy demon when it comes to throwing objections, like child molestation, tsunamis, murder, etc. into the machine of the Christian Worldview, and then because most Christians are stupid, they don't know how to "give an answer for the hope that is within them" (1 Peter 3:15) and they allow the pagan to believe that he has single handedly screwed Christianity. But when a closer look is taken, more can be seen, as with everything you take a closer look at(except those crafty illusion puzzles, demmed thieves). To make a good,long,and succulent chapter short (which in most cases would be considered heresy), the end product is that unbelievers cannot level this problem of logic at us Christians, because in all actuality, the logic problem lies with the unbeliever. He has no rational for supporting an objective good, other than his subjective wishes. When an unbeliever gets angry at a God who claims to be all loving and all good, you have to ask him, given his presuppositions, to define what "good" is. The end result is always a subjective definition, thus giving the unbeliever no ground to accuse someone (esp. God!) of acting in accordance with his belief, for this is the very thing the non-believer is doing. When the unbeliever is shown his hopeless inconsistency, then, and only then, can you seek to explain the all redemptive purpose of evil, as explained by the Bible, and on and so forth. Shut his mouth first, so that he will listen. The thesis of the book should be, "Atheism Presupposes Theism", to quote Bahnsen himself.
Man, pagans borrow way too much without asking!
posted by Nathan @ 10:47 PM
1
comments
1 Comments:
I didn't mean that the premises I stated were Bahnsen's. I meant those to be the secular assumptions. I also did not mean to imply that because evil exists, therefor God exists. Actually, the traditional problem of evil is exactly the opposite. Evil Exists, therefore God doesn't. Bahnsen is not stupid. If there was any stupidity conveyed from my analysis of what he said, it was because I was the one who tried to relate the info. Obviously this is not a good idea on any part.
My answer to your objection that Bahnsen doesn't even address your idea of the problem of evil is simply that we don't have to answer anything, at first. This is the negative aspect of this presuppositional method. We ask the unbeliever to define evil based on his presuppositions, which, when without inconsistencies, always result in foolishness. Then when we have shown his presupposed ideas to be inadequate, we answer him by showing him the redemptive nature of evil, this being the positive aspect.
You need to think logically about your mixed hypothetical syllogism. When an Atheist is either relativistic or, when he believes there is objective truth, in both cases he has no ground to prove any of those statements. Saying that truth is relativistic is an absolute statement, which obviously is contrary to the prior confessed statement that truth is relativistic. Then when the Atheist makes an objective statement (If P), once again he is faced with the problem that everything he attempts to use to support his statements, whether the laws of logic, or scientific proof, still have no ground to stand on. What does he appeal to? Past similiar happenings? Does he claim that I can do science because in the past, the future was like the past? I would hope not. An Atheist cannot claim any "truth" other than that which is relativistic in nature, which then is answered by the previous defense for relativistic 'truth" claims. All of this had to be condensed yet again, which is a very bad idea when being read by the eyes of John Dyck, so if you have questions regarding the ideas that I base these statements on, feel free to make further inquiries.
Maybe it would help to present the supposed "Problem" of evil like so...
1. God is All mighty/All powerful
2. God is perfectly good, indeed He is the standard of goodness
3. Real moral and circumstancial evil exists in God's world
Here, logic only demands the conclusion that God cannot be either 1 or 2 (or not exist at all) if there are no other possible premises, and there are.
4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists.
This is where we talk about the redemptive purposes of evil. (e.g Romans 8:28) or Jesus' death on the cross. Or we can take your approach, "God knows, you don't, now shut up."
Hope this helps! comment back, I know you will.
Post a Comment
<< Home