"Were a stranger to drop on a sudden into this world, I would show him, as a specimen of its ills, a hospital full of diseases, a prison crowded with malefactors and debtors, a field of battle strewed with carcasses, a fleet foundering in the ocean, a nation languishing under tyranny, famine, or pestilence. To turn the gay side of life to him, and give him a notion of its pleasures; whither should I conduct him? to a ball, to an opera, to court? He might justly think, that I was only showing him a diversity of distress and sorrow”
Which of us has not looked at a deformed child, swallowed hard with pity, and pondered the purpose behind it?
Which of us has seen a mother who has lost her child and not wondered why?
Habakkuk – “why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong?”
Jeremiah – “I would speak with you about your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper?”
Jeremiah – “I would speak with you about your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper?”
I have never been in a conversation with a skeptic who failed to raise this as the principal reason for their skepticism. However, there is a blatant oversight and that is that the skeptics who have raised the question must also give an answer to the same question. How do they explain the problem of pain? Not only must they give an answer, but they must ultimately justify the very question itself – all that, while leaving God out of the picture Here the voices get silent and their own answers border on the irrational
G.K. Chesterton:
“When belief in God becomes difficult, the tendency is to turn away from Him; but in heaven’s name to what?” The Christian does not deny that a meaningful answer must be found, but has the one who denies God found a better answer to the problem of evil? With a touch of humour, and in recognition that many answers come close but not close enough. Chesterton went on to say, “My problem with life is not that it is rational, nor that it is irrational…but that it is almost rational.” Just when we are able to form a cohesive framework, someone or something pokes a hole in it, and we take a step back.”
Ravi Zacharias:
Some time ago I was speaking at a university in England, when a rather exasperated person in the audience made his attack upon God.
“There cannot possibly be a God,” he said, “with all the evil and suffering that exists in the world!”
I asked, “When you say there is such a thing as evil, are you not assuming that there is such a thing as good?”
“Of course,” he retorted.
“But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil?”
“I suppose so,” came the hesitant and much softer reply.
“If, then, there is a moral law,” I said, “you must also posit a moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no transcendent moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. If there is no moral law, there really is no good. If there is no good there is no evil. I am not sure what your question is!”
There was silence and then he said, “What, then, am I asking you?”
Father Copleston vs Bertrand Russell:
The Famous 1948 Radio Debate on the Existence of God:
Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and bad. Russell admitted that he did, and Copleston responded by asking him how he differentiated between the two. Russell said that he differentiated between good and bad in the same way that he distinguished between colours “But you distinguish between colours by seeing, don’t you? How then, do you judge between good and bad?” “On the basis of feeling, what else?”
(full debate -http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)
In short, the problem of evil is not solved by doing away with the existence of God in the face of evil; the problem of evil and suffering must be resolved while keeping God in the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment