A Tragic Option

"Make no mistake, the problem of evil is not just a problem for Christianity--it is a problem for all worldviews because evil is fundamental to our human experience. If any worldview is to be considered plausible it must provide us with the intellectual and existential resources to deal with this issue." ~ Brett Kunkle from Stand to Reason

Yesterday Americans saw another example of the problem of evil up-close and personal with the bombing of the Boston Marathon. When things like this happen, often people will ask, "Where was God?" or some equivalent question. I do not at all mind the question; in fact, it is a good question. I have briefly written about this myself in past posts, and of course many wiser men have addressed this question (here is a good, short example and for a fuller treatment check out The Problem of Pain for pastoral help or God, Freedom, and Evil for a philosophical treatment). I do not bring up the subject today, however, to address the "problem" itself but talk a little about something I read on Facebook yesterday. Obviously Facebook was full of comments about this tragedy. Like most major events that hit the Facebook newsfeed, comments were across the board, and I was encouraged by some, discouraged by one or two, impressed by several, and perplexed by a few. One in particular stood out, and I wanted to share it as well as a comment (a tragic option) that was added to my friend's post.

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday:

Playing off what Steve Childers said:
Our Options When Tragedy Strikes:
Option One: A sovereign God who is not loving. He doesn't care about our suffering.
Option Two: A loving God who is not sovereign. He cares but he's not in control.
Option Three: The all-sovereign, all-loving God, whose ways are often beyond our ability to fully comprehend (Isaiah 55:8-9). The sinfulness of man is far worse than we could imagine. The only hope we have for what happened in Boston is Jesus Christ changing people.
Only He can bring us comfort in the face of tragedy.

I completely agree with my friend's post. In fact, I do not bring it up because I want to add or subtract anything to what he has said. I bring it up because a comment was made on the post that presents a truly tragic option. The individual commented: "Option #4 - There is no God." That is what I want to address briefly.

The simple statement came with no further explanation as to the motive or mindset of this individual, but I think we can assume that this individual added this option because they endorse it. Perhaps they think it deals with the problem of evil and pain (which we all experience) better than any theistic explanation. But, does it? In my option it does not because this tragic fourth option has an important corollary that most do not consider. Most who accept this option do not follow it to its natural, logical end. They exist in a state of inconsistency that attempts to hold that life still has meaning and purpose and yet there is no god. There are a few, however, who have been honest about it. Ablert Camus, for example, rejected the idea of God (following the "God is dead" movement of Nietzsche) and determined that because of this life is absurd:

So long as the mind keeps silent in the motionless world of its hopes, everything is reflected and arranged in the unity of nostalgia. But with its first move this world cracks and tumbles: an infinite number of shimmering fragments is offered to the understanding. We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart.... If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be the history of successive regrets and its impotences. (The Myth of Sisyphus, p. 18, emphasis added)

Without God bringing, giving meaning to the universe, we must despair of ever being able to find any meaning in anything ourselves. In fact, according to Camus' honest look at life without God, it is man's very search for meaning that creates the absurdity of this life:

This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart. The absurd depends as much on man as on the world. For the moment it is all that links them together. It binds them one to the other as only hatred can weld two creatures together.... This is all I can discern clearly in this meaningless universe... (ibid, p. 21, emphasis added)

So, Camus, who cannot give any comfort to the "longing for clarity" that "echoes in the human heart," is forced to conclude:

Hence the intelligence, too, tells me in its way that this world is absurd. Its contrary, blind reason, may well claim that all is clear; I was waiting for proof and longing for it to be right. But despite so many pretentious centuries and over the heads of so many eloquent and persuasive men, I know that is false. (ibid. pp. 20-21)

Without God this world is absurd. The necessary corollary to "option #4" is life is absurd, the problem of evil is unsolvable, and man's search for meaning, unity, and clarity is utterly futile. So, what does Camus, in his honest look at life without God, believe should be our response to this? He tells us that there are really two intelligent options: suicide or "fate surmounted by scorn." (ibid. p. 121) Your only options are to kill yourself or live life with hatred of the absurdity, scorn of this universe, and enough pride and defiance so as never to let the futility beat you. According to Camus, only dogged hate and pride will get one through this life.

As my quote from Brett Kunkle (above) points out, atheists must deal with the problem of evil just as theists must, and for their philosophical world-view to be acceptable, it must give us the resources necessary to deal with this issue and others like it. Does it? With the tragic option #4, what are we going to say to the victims of the bombing of the Boston Marathon? Perhaps: "In the grand scheme of the universe your suffering is utterly meaningless--life and all that comes with it has no transcendent meaning or value," "Take heart, you will soon cease to exist forever and your suffering will be over," or, as Bertrand Russell said, "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system..." so who cares, right? Option #4 cannot deal with the problem of evil, at least not in a way that man's soul will find acceptable. Option #4 cannot offer any hope to the victims of this tragedy or a world living in fear of similar things happening to their loved ones. Option #4 cannot give us any resources for handling the problem of evil other than Camus' two options. Option #4 can only say, "This tragedy is absurd. Life is absurd. The bombing of the Boston Marathon only reminds us that we must either kill ourselves and get it over with or buckle down, hate this universe, live with defiance, and never let the world win." Is that really palatable? Is that anything less than tragic?

Now, do not get me wrong. I do not believe God exists, the Bible is true, and Jesus is the only hope for the world because it is the most palatable option. I believe it because it is true. I believe it because the Hound of Heaven relentlessly pursued me through my rejection of Him and brought me to the point where I could not deny His truth and my desperate need of Him. However, it is also the most palatable option, and I believe that is precisely because it is true, because it is the only world-view that can make sense of everything in the universe. As C. S. Lewis states, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." (The Weight of Glory, p. 140) Only option #3 (i.e. orthodox Christianity) can shed light on pain, suffering, and the universe itself and allow us to understand their meaning.

By His Grace,
Taylor

All Human Life Not Equal?

"The arguments are the same then and now because the two options presenting themselves to us haven’t changed and won’t ever change. Slavery and abortion aren’t just random, unconnected controversial issues, they’re rooted in our view of human beings, and they illustrate the two possible directions in which our country can go as we move forward. Will we embrace intrinsic human value or instrumental human value?
"Whatever we decide as a nation, don’t think for a moment that the principle we settle on will only be applied to abortion." ~ Amy Hall, Stand to Reason

Abortion is obviously an issue over which Americans are deeply divided. A classic "pro-choice" (the politically correct way of saying pro-abortion) tactic has been to argue that an unborn child is not a "human life" until some later-term point in the pregnancy. If it really is not a human but just a "fetus" in the first or second trimester, then there is nothing wrong with aborting it, right?

Pro-life advocates have countered with the argument that life begins at conception. This, I believe, is a powerful argument because it exposes the arbitrary nature of the "pro-choice" tactic. If life does not begin at conception--the point where genetic material comes together and creates a complete genetic human--then all other choices of points in a pregnancy are arbitrary. For example, if you look at the long-haul of my 31+ years of existence, where was the most unique, important, and decisive turning point in my development? Was it when my heart started beating? That is very significant but not the most decisive. The most decisive turning point was when the genetic material from my father and mother came together and created the "genetic me" that has existed ever since. Everything else after that was merely a further expression of the "genetic me" in this world. The "genetic me" was guaranteed to have a beating heart (and every other physical feature I have) at the moment of conception (baring any unforeseen external complications). This is also important because the definition arises from something internal to me (to the unborn child), not external. All the other definitions of human life are extraneous--recognitions that arise in an outside observer. To choose any point of development that depends upon the opinions of society that are based on observations of the unborn child, not anything within the unborn child itself, is arbitrary. In America, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks. What makes that the magic moment? What is the difference between the 24 and 25 weeks? Or what is the difference between 24 and 23 weeks? The choice is arbitrary with respect to the life itself and is based on political and social opinions from external observations. Some "pro-choice" advocates have argued that date is valid because it is the point at which the baby would be viable outside the womb. That is still an external definition, not one intrinsic to the child, and it is not the most decisive turning point in its development. Furthermore, that is only true given the proper medical technology and medical technology is constantly improving. Will we keep pushing that date back as medical technology improves? That makes the value of life depend on the medical advancements of society--again, an arbitrary and extraneous definition of human life. (For an extended and robust version of this argument, see Part 2 of David VanDrunen's Bioethics and the Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions.)

Recently the "pro-choice" tactic has taken a turn. Mary Elizabeth Williams has argued that the unborn are human beings but "a life worth sacrificing," if the mother ("the boss") so chooses:

Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

Ms. Williams probably thinks she has disable the pro-life argument. "Sure," she says, "It's life, but so what?" My brothers and sisters in Christ over at Stand to Reason (quoted above) have written a response showing the above argument is the same argument made for slavery in the sad history of our country and much of the rest of the world. It is worth reading, so make sure you do.

I want to add to their rebuttal. Ms. Williams has not essentially changed the "pro-choice" tactic. Her definition of when abortion can be permitted is still arbitrary: she has just moved the arbitrary choice from when life begins to when life has value equal to the mother. It is still completely arbitrary. When does the life become as valuable as the mother's? When does it become equal to the mother? In the second trimester? When it is born? When it is one week, ten weeks, a year? When it can say its first words? When it leaves the house? Or, does it never reach the same value and should mothers have the right to kill their children at any point?

We must also ask, who determines this value? Is it really the mother herself or is it a consensus of society? If it is either, then the killing of a child could be justified at any point in time simply because the mother or society deems it acceptable. Not only that but we must ask if this value ever leaves the human and if so, when that occurs? Does the child's value ever exceed the mother's? Perhaps when the mother is dependent on the child for survival? Is it acceptable for children to kill their parents if they have started to become a drain on their resources or the resources of society?

The darkest chapters in human history were born out of the opinion that all humans are not created equal. If human value is not the same throughout its life, then it becomes a completely arbitrary "free-for-all" driven by the opinions of society and those with the most political influence. Slavery becomes a very real possibility. Infanticide is just around the corner, and euthanasia of our elders will shortly follow. When all human life is not equal, a pecking order of value is created and oppression (or worse) of any group is up for grabs.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Theological Basis of Science

“I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” ~ C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

I have pointed this out in a few previous posts, but when I ran across such a poignant quote I decided to share it and reiterate a very important philosophical point when it comes to a naturalistic world view. According to this view, the world is a product of blind, purposeless processes. We, our logic, and our reason are then the final result of an accident. If this is true how then do we account for such things as the scientific method, universal laws of physics, or abstract reasoning and the laws of logic? If our minds are the product of an accident how do we expect that they should be able to accurately comprehend the accident? How can we have any sort of confidence in our reasoning processes if the mind is a mere accident of nature?

There has been a lot of argument about the basis of science in the modern era. The naturalistic scientist would like to assume that theology has nothing to do with science, but as authors like Alister McGrath and Michael Bumbulls show, science was birthed in a theological world view. As evolutionist Paul Davies points out, "the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd... So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."

By His Grace,
Taylor

No Intelligence Allowed

"...differences over the development of life, unlike other disputes, spark so much controversy because the collateral stakes are higher than they seem. Where you stand on the origins question often influences your worldview on issues of human life, ranging from cloning to euthanasia." ~ Bruce Chapman

With "Expelled" coming out this weekend I thought this would be a good quote to talk about. It is true that our beliefs on the origins of life greatly affect our opinions on human life. I heard a good example of how evolutionary thought affects society in a song on the radio. Nickleback has recently released a song called "Animals" where the chorus says:

No, we're never gonna quit
Ain't nothing wrong with it
Just acting like we're animals
No, no matter where we go
'Cause everybody knows
We're just a couple of animals

What does it matter if we are immoral when we are all really just animals? For some time abortion was rationalized because it was believed that the fetus goes throw an evolutionary process in the womb. If that is the case why should it matter if we kill it while in a non-human stage? We put down animals when they are old and sick, why not the same with humans if we really are just animals?

Our views on origins of life do matter and affect the way we look at all of human life, even if we do not know it. If we are designed, intentional creatures; not products of purposeless, random events; then we have intrinsic value and reason to fight for human life. If not, then we might as well just act "like we're animals."

By His Grace,
Taylor