As a Christian, and especially as a Pastor, I have often been asked to explain the existence of evil. Although it comes in many forms, the basic question goes something like this: "If a loving God exists, how can He allow evil?". Its a legitimate question and one that deserves a sincere answer, especially in light of the overwhelming presence of evil and suffering (see my previous blog on this subject).
Interestingly though, the difficulty in dealing with evil is not exclusive to Christianity. Have you ever thought of that before? I can just as easily turn to the questioner and ask them a similar question... how would they explain the presence of "good" and "evil" (however they would define it) according to their particular worldview?
I was thinking about this recently when I read the following paragraphs from A Holy Rebellion by Thomas Ice and Robert Dean, Jr. (I've modified their words a bit for this context). As you consider the author's position I would challenge you to consider your own beliefs about good and evil, and how you might engage your neighbor or family member in discussion the next time the subject comes up.
Here goes:
"When confronted with the existence of evil, there are only four possible responses: denial, relativism, existentialism, or the reality of sin.
First, some would deny that evil exists at all. This is reflected in Greek philosophy, some eastern religions, and most mind-science religions (such as Christian Science). Sometimes these systems of thought claim to be dualistic and recognize some form of evil, but since reality for them is "one", if consistent they must deny the ultimate existence of real evil. According to this view what we encounter in everyday life is simply an illusion; it is not real. Pain and suffering are merely illusions; ultimate reality exists on a much higher plane.
Second, some would simply deny morality, claiming that evil is a natural part of reality. For example, the evolutionist has no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate basis for distinguishing between good and evil. T. H. Huxley, a noted evolutionist, clearly recognized this when he wrote:
Interestingly though, the difficulty in dealing with evil is not exclusive to Christianity. Have you ever thought of that before? I can just as easily turn to the questioner and ask them a similar question... how would they explain the presence of "good" and "evil" (however they would define it) according to their particular worldview?
I was thinking about this recently when I read the following paragraphs from A Holy Rebellion by Thomas Ice and Robert Dean, Jr. (I've modified their words a bit for this context). As you consider the author's position I would challenge you to consider your own beliefs about good and evil, and how you might engage your neighbor or family member in discussion the next time the subject comes up.
Here goes:
"When confronted with the existence of evil, there are only four possible responses: denial, relativism, existentialism, or the reality of sin.
First, some would deny that evil exists at all. This is reflected in Greek philosophy, some eastern religions, and most mind-science religions (such as Christian Science). Sometimes these systems of thought claim to be dualistic and recognize some form of evil, but since reality for them is "one", if consistent they must deny the ultimate existence of real evil. According to this view what we encounter in everyday life is simply an illusion; it is not real. Pain and suffering are merely illusions; ultimate reality exists on a much higher plane.
Second, some would simply deny morality, claiming that evil is a natural part of reality. For example, the evolutionist has no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate basis for distinguishing between good and evil. T. H. Huxley, a noted evolutionist, clearly recognized this when he wrote:
'The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and evil tendencies of man have come about but, in itself it is incompetent to furnish any... reason why what we call 'good' is preferable to what we call 'evil'...'Third, some simply resign themselves and accept this tension as part of the absurdity of life. This is the answer of modern existentialism, which says that since life is basically absurd there are no rational explanations of anything, including good and evil, so just enjoy it as best you can.
In contrast to these attempts to resolve the problem of evil on the basis of human wisdom, the Bible teaches through supernatural revelation that evil is neither an illusion nor natural. God's original creation was holy and perfect and devoid of evil. Evil in the universe is a direct consequence of sin... both sin in the angelic realm (Lucifer) and in the created order, through Adam and Eve."
What do you think? Do you buy the authors assertion that these are the only four possible solutions for the problem of evil? Or would you propose another? And where do your own convictions lie? Which explanation seems most credible to you? I'd be interested to read your comments...