Tag Archives: meaning

God, Guns and an Evil World

On June 6th, 2013 Chris Zawahri killed his father and brother in their own house. After setting that home and corpses inside ablaze the 23 year old walked the sun-drenched streets of Santa Monica, California with a .44-caliber handgun that had been in his family for years, and Santa Monica Shooting - Students - USA Today Imagesan AR-15 type rifle, clad in body armor and an intent that can only be described as evil.[1] He opened fire randomly at passing cars, wounding drivers, eventually taking one woman hostage while carjacking her.[2] Mr. Zawahri made his way to Santa Monica College where the shooting continued. Reports are starting to shed light on this very scary and dark event, one that took the life of at least five, two of the victims a father and daughter.  During a time when most college campuses are preparing to celebrate a graduating class, this years celebration will also be a memorial.[3]

On December 14th, 2012 a young man took his mother’s Bushmaster riffle and while she was sleeping pulled the trigger at point-blank range, killing her instantly. From there the young man drove to a nearby elementary school in the Sandy Hook community of Newtown,Sandy Hook Shooting - Angels - Episcopal Digital Network Connecticut armed with that Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a Glock 20 SF handgun, a SIG Sauer handgun, and a loaded shotgun.[4] He entered the school around 9:35 AM by blasting his way with the high-powered rifle through the locked front doors. Once inside Sandy Hook elementary school 21-year-old Adam Lanza went from classroom to classroom, murdering any and all he saw. When this tragic day was over 27 people lay dead in that school including Mr. Lanza who took his own life, along with six faculty members and 20 children, most of which were kindergarteners.[5]

These events have intensified a debate that’s been raging for years.[6] The debate as reported by blog sites and major media outlets has mainly focused on gun control legislation and the availability of medical help for the mentally ill.[7] But are the answers we are really looking for wrapped up in these and the other topics that rule the media’s attention? Some have been writing in recognition of another topic all together, something much more pervasive. While still treated peripherally these events have reminded us that we are surrounded by evil. And as such other questions have been asked, questions that are usually for the theologically minded and relegated to the “Religion” section of the paper, if included at all. “Where was God?” and “How could God allow such a thing to happen?” are two of the more popular. When events such as the most recent ones in Santa Monica and Newtown take place we are often left wondering these and other questions. Often in the midst of tragedies people have difficulty understanding them in context of the existence of God, for many these questions serve as an objection to God’s existence. In fact this is one of the most popular objections to God, known as “The Problem of Evil.” Dr. Keith Yandell writes, “The existence of evil is the most influential consideration against the existence of God.”[8] Below I hope to explore the problem of evil by first discussing the existence of evil. The problem itself is actually made up of two sub-problems, the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. For our purposes here we will only be discussing the intellectual problem of evil. At the conclusion of our discussion we will see that this problem is not a problem for the theist at all and it is quite the opposite actually.

Evil - 123rf

“The fact is that there is evil in the world…”[9] This is something that is clear to us all; it’s considered brute or basic knowledge. The events discussed above serve as evidence that evil exists. We often ignore evil, having become desensitized to it; that is until a man murders 26 innocent people, most of them children or he walks the streets of a wealthy suburb randomly shooting innocent human beings. Then we are jostled and shaken, as if being awakened from a sleep or trance to a cruel truth. Evil exists. Greg Stier, a contributor to the Christian Post writes, “What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School was at a level of malevolence beyond any earthly explanation or solution.”[10] About the Sandy Hook shooting Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy said, “Evil visited this community today.”[11]

Sam Harris, outspoken critic of religion and prolific atheistic author gives his own example of what evil is in a Huffington Post article,

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.[12]

Atheist William Rowe, professor emeritus of philosophy at Purdue affirms the existence of evil, “Intense human and animal suffering, for example, occurs daily and in great plentitude in our world. Such suffering is a clear case of evil.”[13] In that same publication Paul Draper, who is quite well regarded in the area of the evidential argument of evil and also at Purdue equates evil with pain and defines it as “physical or mental suffering of any sort.”[14] The Psalmists writes “Evils have encompassed me without number.”[15] Jeremiah pleads, “Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed?”[16] And Saint Paul tells us “the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now.”[17]

It is evidentially clear that evil exists but what exactly is “evil”? The dictionary definition of evil is “morally reprehensible, sinful, wicked.” We will use this definition as we explore the problem of evil. At this point it is important to note that the burden of proof here in the logical problem of evil rests on the skeptic being that this argument is supposed to be a positive argument for the non-existence of God. It is up to the skeptic to lay out an argument that concludes with “Therefore, God does not exist.”[18] With that let us examine the most often used argument against God.

The Intellectual Problem of Evil

Yandell plainly explains the intellectual problem as such, “That there is evil seems to many a feature of the world that God would not have allowed. Thus they argue that since evil does exist, God does not.”[19] The intellectual problem of evil itself has two lines of argumentation.The Problem of Evil The first is the logical argument from evil, which asserts that it is logically impossible for God and evil to exist. The second way the intellectual problem of evil is expressed is known as the evidential argument of evil and tries to show that it is highly improbable that God and evil exist. We will begin by exploring the first of these, the logical argument from evil.

The Logical Argument from Evil

The logical Argument is usually presented in the following format:

O1. An omnipotent God exists.

O2. An omniscient God exists.

O3. An omnibenevolent God exists.

E4. However, evil exists.

G. Therefore God does not exist.[20]

This problem as stated relies on the notion that it is logically impossible for an all-powerful, all knowing and all-loving God to exist while evil also exists. The skeptic reasons that either God is not O1, O2 and/or O3, given that evil exists, or evil would not exist. Since evil clearly exists (as we have seen), God, as according to traditional monotheism, does not exist.

But why think that O1, O2 and O3 are inconsistent with the existence of evil? This is where the skeptic must own the burden of proof; it is up to them to show that there is a contradiction between them. But there is no explicit contradiction here; that is, one statement is not the opposite of the others. In order for this argument to follow logically the skeptic must bring to the table at least two hidden assumptions,

O4. If God is O1, He can create any world He wants.

O5. If God were O3, He would prefer a world without evil.[21]

In light of these two hidden assumption the argument is that an all powerful and all-loving God could and would want to create a world without suffering. Therefore, it follows that because there is suffering in the world (E4) God does not exist (G). However, for this argument to follow logically the atheist must now show that O4 and/or O5 are necessarily true, a task they cannot accomplish.[22] In order for the skeptic to show O4 and/or O5 to be necessarily true there must not be any logical exceptions to them. In other words to show either or both of the premises false all one must do is provide a possible scenario that would show that God, while being all-powerful could not create any world he wants.

Is O4 (if God is omnipotent he can create any world He wants.) necessarily true? Not in a world in which God created people with free will! It would be logically impossible to create a free people and then force them to do or not to do anything against that free will. This would be the equivalent of having a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle. God, in his omnipotence cannot create illogical impossibilities. On this very subject William Lane Craig writes,

If people have free will, they may refuse to do what God desires. So there will be any number of possible worlds that God cannot create because the people in them wouldn’t cooperate with God’s desires. In fact, for all we know, it’s possible that in any world of free persons with as much good as this world there wouldn’t also be as much suffering. This conjecture need not be true or even probable, but so long as it’s even logically possible it shows that it is not necessarily true that God can create any world that He wants.[23]

In light of this it is clear that O4 is not necessarily true. What about O5, “If God were all-loving, He would prefer a world without suffering.” Is this necessarily true? This premise is easier to navigate for the simple reason that we can all imagine situations in which the allowance of suffering or evil can bring about a greater good. Garret DeWeese rightly points out that when answering this question we are not attempting to show what God’s actual reasons are for allowing evil, this would be equivalent to claiming to be omniscient. We are only showing that there are possible reasons for God to allow evil while remaining all loving and it would seem quite simple to imagine a world in which God could have reasons for allowing evil.[24]

If you are a parent then you have real-life experiences where allowing pain or suffering (evil) accomplishes a greater good, and done so out of love. I have two little girls and a third on the way; just yesterday we brought our youngest to the doctor where blood needed to be drawn, this caused pain to Phoebe but the results from the blood work will hopefully give the doctors clues as to what might help her. Out of our love we allowed our daughter to experience an evil in the hopes of a greater good being accomplished. Similarly God could have perfectly good reasons for allowing evil while loving us perfectly!

The free will defense can also be applied to O5. Given free will it may simply be impossible for an all-loving God to eliminate evil. As a point of fact the free will defense has been astonishingly successful throughout the history of philosophy. So much so that philosophers no longer believe the logical problem of evil exists. “No one can disprove God’s existence by the logical problem of evil.”[25] In conclusion, the skeptic simply cannot stand under the weight of the burden of proof assumed by his hidden assumptions. “It’s widely admitted by both atheist and Christian philosophers alike that the logical version of the problem suffering [evil] has failed.”[26]

The Evidential Argument from Evil

We have seen that the logical argument from evil for atheism fails but the evidential argument from evil is another challenge to theism within the larger context of the intellection problem of evil. The evidential argument from evil, unlike the logical argument, does not contend that there is a logical contradiction between the existence of God and evil. Instead the argument tries to prove that it is improbable that God would exist in light of the evil in the world. William Rowe expresses the evidential argument from evil as,

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without therefore losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad.

2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[27]

In his discussion of this argument Rowe uses an example of a fawn burned in a forest fire stated by natural causes (an example of natural evil). In this example the fawn not only dies but also suffers for five days without anyone ever knowing. Rowe concludes that this is an example of a sentient being suffering unnecessarily without any good that could offset that suffering. As a result it is more probable than not that God does not exist.[28]

Rowe's Problem of Evil - Wikipedia

Simply put Rowe says that [1] it would seem that there is no justifying reason for God to permit certain evils. [2] Therefore, it is “probably true” that there is no justifying reason for God to permit certain evils. He follows that if [2] is correct then it is probably true that the God of traditional monotheism does not exist. This reasoning seems true; if you or I search exhaustively for a reason to justify a certain evil and come up with nothing, it would be logical to conclude that there is more likely than not any justification for the evil done.

However Rowe does not go unchallenged. Dr. Gregory Ganssle of the Rivendell Institute approaches Rowe from the position that Rowe’s “grounds are insufficient for thinking that it is probably true that there is no justifying reason for God to allow the particular evil.”[29] This objection is based upon the notion that going from “seems” to “probably true” is a weak inference, and quite a jump in reasoning.

In order to see how Rowe’s argument breaks down we have to understand what kind of inference he is asking us to make. For example, “It seems as though there is no B-52 bomber in my dining room, therefore, probably there is no B-52 in my dining room,” is an example of a strong inference. It is reasonable for me to look up from my computer and see that there is no B-52 in my dining room, and then infer that there probably isn’t one. However not all inferences are equal. For example, “It seems as though there are no radio waves in my dining room, therefore, there probably are no radio waves in my dining room,” is a weak inference. Anyone can see the difference between these two examples; one is more reasonable than the other.

Ganssle uses the statement, “If there were a X, we would probably know it.” to test whether an inference is strong or weak.[30] The weaker the inference the less likely it is to be true. Going back to our examples, replace the “X” with “B-52 bomber” results in a statement that is true because we would see it. Replacing the “X” with “radio waves” we get a false statement because even if there were radio waves in this room we would not see them.

So, is God’s allowing some certain evil event akin to a B-52 or a radio wave? The statement we must test as true or not is, “If God had a justifying reason to allow a particular case of evil, we would probably know what it is.”[31] When phrased like this it is clear that we should know God’s justification for certain evil events, but there are other events that we would not and should not know God’s justification for. To claim otherwise would be to claim to be omniscient. Remember, we are not trying to ascertain the actual reasons for God to allow an evil event but instead we are trying to determine whether it is reasonable to think that there are justifiable reasons for God to allow that evil event.

Looking at most evils in the world it would be fair to conclude that there are justifiable reasons for God to allow them. In other words often times good can come from evil, even if we aren’t privy to that good in the midst of the evil. This can be said about most evils; good can and often does come from them. Greg Koukl, in his article A Good Reason for Evil says,

“It’s not good to promote evil itself, but one of the things about God is that He’s capable of taking a bad thing and making good come out of it. Mercy is one example of that. Without sin there would be no mercy. That’s true of a numbr of good things: bearing up under suffering, dealing with injustice, acts of heroism, forgiveness, long-suffering. These are all virtues that cannot be experienced in a world with no sin and evil.”[32]

But what about an event like the Santa Monica shooting? Or the shooting at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, CT? As far as I can tell there is no good reason for God to have allowed those people to die in this manner. However, this does not mean that it is more likely than not that God does not have a justifiable reason. Actually I would conclude that if God exists there should be certain parts of reality that we would not understand due to them being beyond our grasp. If God exists I would expect a certain amount of mystery in any number of life’s experiences. In sum Ganssle writes,

The fact that there is mysterious evil is just what we would expect if there were a God… If this is about what we should expect, it cannot be counted as evidence against God’s existence. So even though it might seem, at first glance, that there are no good reasons to allow certain evils we see, this does not provide strong evidence that these evils are really unjustified. The evidential argument from evil, then, does not make it likely that God does not exist.[33]

Contrary to what the skeptic thinks it has become clear that instead of providing evidence against God’s existence, evidential argument from evil actually provides evidence for His existence. The fact that we cannot find justifiable reasons for God to allow all the evil in the world is exactly what we should expect if there were an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omnipresent deity.

Conclusion

Above we have explored only one of the arguments employed by atheists and other skeptics to prove that God does not exist. We have seen that their arguments fail for a number of reasons and for these reasons and others too it is “dubious that the existence of evil is in fact evidence against the existence of God.”[34]As a matter of fact we have seen that their arguments actually point to the existence of a Being that is consistent with traditional monotheism.

With that we have also seen that no matter the merits of the argument or the debate that is had, evil is real. Many times, and often in theThoreau Quote wake of tremendous evils such as public shootings it becomes clear that many do not take seriously the fact that evil is all around us. Going further and from a survey of headlines by major media outlets and what our politicians have to say about such events many do not take seriously the fact that there is only one solution to evil, and more legislation on this or less legislation on that with more social programs is not it. The solution is found nowhere but in God. It is becoming clear that the further away from God we move the more frequent these evil’s will become. Henry David Thoreau is credited with saying “For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil one strikes at the root.” Throughout human history there has only been one person who has been successful at striking the root of evil and that is Jesus Christ. And that we will have to discuss at a later time.


[1] Robin Abcarian, Jessica Garrison, Martha Grove (June 10, 2013). “Santa Monica Shooter’s background steeped in trauma, violence”. LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0611-santa-monica-shooting-20130611,0,1490078.story)

[2] John Bacon (June 10, 2013). “Santa Monica shootings claim fifth victim”. USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/09/santa-monica-shooting-john-zawahri/2405015/)

[3] (June 11, 2013). “Santa Monica College To Celebrate Graduation, Remember Shooting Victims In Dual Ceremony”. CBSLA (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/06/11/santa-monica-college-to-celebrate-graduation-remember-shooting-victims-in-dual-ceremony/)

[4] Steve Almasy (December 19, 2012). “Newtown shooter’s guns: What we know”. (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html accessed Dec. 19. 2012)

[5] Richard Esposito, Candace Smith, Christina NG (December 14, 2012). “20 Children Died in Newtown, Conn., School Massacre”. AP. ABC News. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/twenty-children-died-newtown-connecticut-school-shooting/story?id=17973836#.UOIAHEKhosk accessed on Dec. 17, 2012).

[6] James Barron (December 14, 2012). “Nation Reels After Gunman Massacres 20 Children at School in Connecticut.” The New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school.html?_r=0 accessed Dec. 17, 2012).

[7] CNN Editorial Staff (December 14, 2012). “After school shooting, how do we stop the violence?” CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/school-shooting-violence-irpt/index.html accessed Dec. 17, 2012)

[8] Keith E. Yandell. Philosophy of Religion: A contempary introduction (New York: Routledge, 2004), 124 -125.

[9] Keith E. Yandell. 125. [Just: Ibid., 125]

[10] Greg Stier (December 27, 2012). “Gun Control Is Not the Answer.” The Christian Post Online. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/gun-control-is-not-the-answer-87291/ accessed Dec. 19, 2012)

[11] Susan Candiotti, Chelsea Carter (December 15, 2012). “‘Why? Why?’: 26 dead in elementary school massacre.” CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html accessed Dec. 17, 2012).

[12] Sam Harris (October 6, 2005). “There is No God (And You Know It.” Huffington Post. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-k_b_8459.html? accessed on Dec. 13, 2012).

[13] William L. Rowe, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” In Philosophy of Religion: A Reader Guide, ed. William Lane Craig (Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, 2002), 318.

[14] Ibid, Paul Draper, “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists,” 329.

[15] Psalm 40:12, RSV.

[16] Jeremiah 15:8, RSV.

[17] Romans 8:22, RSV.

[18] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending your faith with reason and precision (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010), 153.

[19] Yandell, Philosophy of Religion, 125.

[20] Garrett DeWeese, “Solving the Problem of Evil.” Biola University recorded lecture series.

[21] Craig, On Guard, 155.

[22] Necessarily true statements are statements that cannot be untrue in any situation. Logical truths are widely agreed to by necessarily true statements across religious and philosophical spectrums.

[23] Craig, On Guard, 156.

[24] DeWeese, “Solving the Problem of Evil” Biola Lecture series.

[25] DeWeese, “Answering the Problem of Evil.” Biola lecture series.

[26] Craig, On Guard, 157.

[27] William L. Rowe, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” In Philosophy of Religion: A Reader Guide, ed. William Lane Craig (Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, 2002), 318.

[28] Ibid, 320-322.

[29] Gregory Ganssle, A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2009), 157.

[30] Ibid, 158.

[31] Ibid, 158.

[33] Ibid, 159.

[34] Yandell, Philosophy of Religion, 161.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Political Idiocy Obscures Rape and Abortion

Due to the insensitive and frankly dumb remarks of a politician in recent days the fire of what’s been a heated debate has been stoked. For the past 96 hours I’ve been surveying Facebook, talk radio and the major news outlets to get a feeling of what the general consensus is in regards to the matter. In my opinion and to my displeasure the major issue has been lost to today’s hash tag-pound climate and been replaced by a political noise and correctness that so often drowns out the real issues while making buoyant something lesser altogether. We all agree what was said was ignorant, insensitive and blatantly wrong. The candidate himself agrees! I’m more interested in what I consider the real issue, can we get back to it now? What should be the topic of discussion is abortion and specifically abortion in the case of rape.

It’s often phrased along these lines: “What about the woman who is attacked and raped? In the process of her rape she is made pregnant by her attacker. Should this woman now be forced to carry that baby to term, give birth and raise him? Wouldn’t that only serve as a reminder of that horrible event, adding to the already unimaginable trauma suffered?”

First and foremost rape is a heinous crime. I can’t imagine the pain and anguish it must cause. I think we can all agree, rape is evil. And to think of the victim of rape becoming pregnant due to the malevolent actions of another breaks my heart. Going further, I think we have to outright acknowledge that the objection raises a true and valid point; by choosing to bring that baby full-term, give birth and then raise him the mother will very likely experience painful memories when she looks at her child. We need to acknowledge these things because this is a very real scenario and as such is deserving of a thoughtful, sympathetic, and compassionate response.

Also to consider is, unlike other aspects of the abortion debate, the “in the case of rape” scenario involves a situation in which the woman has been made pregnant as a result of involuntary action. This means she did not willingly engage in the activity that resulted in her getting pregnant. As a result the pregnancy is quite literally forced upon her. It could be argued that because the pregnancy isn’t the result of consensual intercourse the mother is not responsible for that baby and she is not obligated to care for him.

But shouldn’t compassion also be extended to the unborn child as well? Regardless of how that human life came into existence he is still just that, an innocent human life. And don’t all humans have the right to life, regardless of size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency? I think so. And does the means by which the baby was conceived validate the taking of that innocent baby’s life? I don’t think it does.

Even in the case of rape the woman is still the baby’s mother and she’s the only one who is even capable of sustaining that life. What’s more, what purpose would aborting that baby serve? It wouldn’t undo that horrifying experience already endured by the mother. In fact, and contrary to what many believe having an abortion may only intensify the trauma experienced by the woman. Also, often times children produced through this wicked crime are valued by the victim and the feelings of compassion we might have for that victim being forced to see in her child her attacker are sometimes misguided and not always accurate. Often times when a woman makes the difficult decision of allowing her child to continue living we see the mother experience a great sense of love, joy and happiness. The mother, by raising her child also often feels redeemed.[i]  Instead of ending one life and inflicting harm on another innocent person we would do better to focus our efforts on offering support for both mother and child through the filling of their emotional and material needs and in the process we would be doing what’s right by affording the basic right extended to us all, a chance to live.[ii] 

I’d like to offer what is at the heart of this issue by asking a question presented to me by Scott Klusendorf: Given we both agree that the child may provoke unpleasant memories, how do you think a civil society should treat innocent human beings that remind us of a painful event?[iii] Implicit in this question is another, what is the unborn?

Fetus at 12 weeks.

Modern embryology tells us that the unborn are unique human individual beings. As such should they not also be afforded the same opportunity we have all been afforded, and that’s the opportunity to live? Of course they should, regardless of how they were conceived.

I now lend myself to the wisdom of history’s giants:

“You measure the degree of civilization of a society by how it treats its weakest members.” – Winston Churchill

“A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” – Mohatma Gandhi

“…the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. ” – Hubert H. Humphrey

“The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.” – Dietrich Bonheoffer

‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ – Jesus Christ

If by chance this article has fallen under your eyes and you are struggling with this issue, either having been the victim of sexual abuse and/or becoming pregnant unexpectedly in needing guidence please reach out for help. You can call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) or visit http://referrals-loc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/referrals_loc.cfg/php/loc/enduser/loc.php


[i] For more on this I direct you to David C. Reardon, Jule Makimaa, and Am Sobie, eds., Victims and Victors (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2000), a study of 192 women who conceived through rape of sexual assault.

[ii] Celia Wolfe-Devine and Philip E. Devine, Abortion: Three Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 94-95.

[iii] Scot Klusendorf, The Case for Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009), 173.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Kalam Cosmological Argument – Kalam made simpler

Let’s engage one of the best arguments there is for the existence of God. It’s called the Kalam Cosmological argument. Before we look at the argument itself it’s important to note a few things.

  1. This argument is based soundly on the notion that it is impossible to have an infinite number of past events.
  2. This argument is also based upon sound logical reasoning and as such in order to refute the argument one would have to show one of the premises false or that the conclusion does not follow.
  3. The main goal of this argument is to show that there is a first cause, not to prove the existence of the Christian God. This is important to understand.
  4. I believe this argument is the best argument to start with when addressing a skeptic because it lays a foundation for other arguments and eventually for the God of the Bible.

Let’s dive in shall we. The argument is quite straightforward and easy to memorize. It consists of three simple steps or two premises and a conclusion.

  1. Whatever begins to exist requires a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Simple right? Now let’s look at each step and check its validity.

1. Whatever begins to exist requires a cause:

First and foremost, to deny this premise is to deny a fundamental metaphysical principle and go against the fact that matter can neither be created nor destroyed and science in general. Something cannot come out of nothing. This should be completely obvious to everyone. Nothing comes from nothing. If this weren’t true we would see things appearing in front of us constantly. In fact Craig would say that it’s so obvious that the premise stands on its own. However you may encounter one argument to this premise and that is “Who created God then?” But this is an illogical question because God is necessarily uncaused.

2. The universe began to exist:

I mentioned earlier that this argument is soundly based upon the idea that it’s impossible to have an actual infinite number of past events; here’s why. Today is built on yesterday and yesterday on the day before and the day before on the day before that, etc. Each day is a single thing and knowing that we are here today would imply that a finite number of days have passed one by one. If there are an infinite number of days in the past we would never be able to reach this point in time because there is always one more day at the beginning or, more so, there would be an infinite number of points between and two points in time.

A string or recent scientific discoveries also imply that the universe had a beginning.

  1. The expansion of the universe suggests that the it is not infinite because if you trace this expansion back in time we witness the universe getting more and more dense until it reaches a singular point from which the universe begins to expand.
  2. We witness this expansion of the universe by viewing the distances between galaxies growing, the red shifting of light from cosmic object and what’s called cosmic background radiation.
  3. General Relativity does not permit for an infinite universe. This eventually led to Big Bang theory.
  4. The second law of thermodynamics suggests that in a closed system everything moves towards equilibrium. Basically this means that after certain amount of time the universe will slow down and die what I’ve heard referred to as a “heat death.” Since we are still here we know that hasn’t happened yet so, the universe cannot be infinitely old.

3. The universe had a cause: From the two premises above it is only logical to conclude that the universe had a cause. But what was this cause. Before the universe there was nothing: no time, space or matter. So the cause must be non-temporal (eternal), non-physical, and non-material. So what could satisfy these requirements?

Because there are only two kinds of things that are non-material the cause can only be one of two possible things, an abstract object like a number or a mind. We know that abstract objects don’t cause anything. Minds do however. It is here that we can conclude that a non-physical, non-temporal, and immaterial creator must have been the cause of all we see and experience. By very definition this is God.

This is a very simple argument to memorize but one that can also lead you to some very complicated areas of study. For more information I highly recomend William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. Dr. Craig is also has a plethora of information on his website at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pacifism and C.S. Lewis: Oh, and what I think too.

Introduction

It is the purpose of this post to explore critically two arguments Lewis uses to conclude in his essay “Why I’m Not A Pacifist” that pacifism ultimately fails. This essay was originally presented to a group of pacifists in 1940, addressing the specific issue of whether it is moral to serve in wars under the command of a civil society.[1] Lewis presented four main arguments to support his conclusion that it is in fact morally just to participate in war. Of these four we will explore the two which are most contentious. The first we will title “Personal” or “Basic Intuition” and the second “Authority” which is further split into two subcategories, “Human Authority” and “Divine Authority.” Once discussed it’s my belief that we will have no other option but to side with Lewis. However, this is not to say that everything Lewis holds is agreeable. Along the way we will be interacting with some ideas that are disagreeable, when they arise it will be noted. We would also be remiss if you did not start by mentioning something Lewis writes very early on, war is always a very unpleasant thing. “First as to the facts. The main relevant fact admitted by all parties is that war is very disagreeable.” I also feel that it should be plainly stated that no joy is found in war, to this I believe Lewis would agree. With that now, let us explore the arguments brought by Lewis in Why I’m Not a Pacifist.

Arguing from Basic Intuition

In this argument Lewis points to the basic intuition that love is good and hatred bad; that helping is good and harming is bad. He explains that this intuition leads the pacifist to believe that by doing good we can or must help all. For example, it is not enough to help one homeless person, for if you help one you must help all that you see. He then goes on to refute the pacifist claim by pointing out that by doing good, we choose to whom the good is being done while also to whom the good is not being done. Implicit in the argument is what Lewis describes as the law of beneficence which “involves not doing some good to some men at some time.”[2] This then turns into a slippery slope where helping one while not another slowly turns into helping one while having to ignore the plight of another and then to helping one at the expense of another, the final slip in the slope is helping one while causing harm to another.[3]

Shifting the focus from the individual to society as a whole, Lewis addresses the pacifist underlying assertion that war is always the greatest evil. He goes on to say that the absorption of one society by another and the oppression of religion is in fact worse than the war to prevent it.[4] However it’s here that Lewis makes an assertion which I disagree with wholly. Trying to justify the loss of life during war, Lewis contends that one can be comforted to know that the dead gave their lives while fighting for what according to them was the right or just side. I don’t find this comforting or even true; especially in a world where people are coerced to fight by threats of torture or death and children are kidnapped and forced to fight after being pumped full of drugs and beaten. I would like to ask Lewis if he truly believed all of Hitler’s SS men wanted to be there. Here, while it doesn’t alter the arguments conclusion, I think Lewis falters. In fact I would say that forcing someone to fight is actually a greater evil than war or oppression.

Lewis addresses an attempt by the pacifist to prove their position once they are forced to give some ground; this time through the use of a more political and calculating mode of intuition. When forced to acknowledge that war may not be the worst evil they may rebut, “But every war leads to another war.”[5] And with this the pacifist implies an infinite regress of wars, leading to the conclusion that we must focus our attempts to do away with war. To accomplish this they might suggest that society should propagate the pacifist philosophy far and wide; eventually permeating all societies and cultures globally. To this Lewis responds,

This seems to me wild work. Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists. In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not. If not, you have done nothing. If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbour who does not.[6]

I find this argument basic, correct, and convincing. C.S. Lewis sums it up nicely with the statement, “Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be now Pacifists.”[7] It’s important to understand that while we are not able to eliminate suffering and war, it does not follow that we should ignore the plight of those affected by these things or cease working to a better end. As an alternative to the pacifist position it might be more effective to focus efforts instead of on large, incurable tasks like eradicating suffering, to objectives that are limited. Lewis lists abolition of slavery, prison reform or curing a disease as good examples.

Arguing from Authority – Human Authority

Lewis appeals to human authority by surveying history’s rulers, wars and their heroes. From this survey he concludes that “the world echoes with the praise of righteous wars.”[8] As proof of this names of world leaders who did not shy away from war are listed. He includes in that list his school, parents and even great literary works. He says that to be a pacifist, one must ignore and “part company with” all of this. In effect Lewis asks his hearers to either cast aside these select champions of time or their pacifism. His rationale, since we look at the rulers and men of war with honor and respect, it is therefore proper to also view the battles they waged as just and even  necessary. He also interprets this historical support of war as wars justification.

It is here where I part ways with C.S. Lewis most drastically. I think if we look between the lines of Lewis’ list we see a different picture. Where’s Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan or Napoleon in the list? What about some of Lewis’ contemporaries such as Hitler or Stalin? Why did they not make the cut? While I agree that battle can produce heroics, and with Lewis’ general beliefs regarding there being a just war, I think it fails just to look at the men who fought or waged the wars and say “here is your proof that battle is necessary and good.” And I think it fails as well according to Scripture. A pacifist friend in discussion of this very issue rightly points out that all men are under the effects of Satan.[9] And as such wars are waged both for good and evil. What’s more, Scripture tells us that not one of us is righteous so why would we conclude, as Lewis does, that our wars mostly would be? I don’t think we should or can. War is never to be praised and Lewis misses this. After all King David was refused permission to build the Temple of the Lord due to his many battles (1 Chronicles 22:7-9).

Arguing from Authority – Divine Authority

We now look to what Lewis has to say in regards to Divine Authority. Beginning his apologetic Lewis says that the Christian Scriptures are largely silent on this issue but that the pacifist basis their philosophy on a small selection of Jesus’ sayings and teachings. Most central is Matthew 5:39. He then bolsters his argument with the Thirty-Nine Articles, teachings of Aquinas, and the words of Augustine all showing their support of the Christian’s participation in war.

I was left under impressed with Lewis’ mentioning of  Augustine, Aquinas and the Thirty-Nine Articles for the same reason I cannot agree with Lewis’ argument from human authority. While I agree with his ultimate conclusion, and these things do support that conclusion, I can see why a Christian pacifist would not find these convincing enough to abandon their philosophy. I would rather have had Lewis spend more time discussing Scripture; after all this is where the debate should lie for us. Either the Scriptures justify the saints’ participation in battle, or they don’t. And this is where I find the most support for the view that Lewis and I share.

Matthew 5:39 is the biblical passage most often given in support of the pacifist ideology. C.S. Lewis deals with it well.[10] He says that the scripture should be applied in the context of individual relationships, not to the conduct of soldiers or governments engaged in war. Lewis says, “I think the text means exactly what it says, but with an understood reservation in favour of those obviously exceptional cases.”[11] What Jesus was clearly saying here is that we are not to cause harm to others except in that instance where we are preventing the harm of ourselves, families or neighbors. Surely Jesus did not mean that we would not be justified to protect innocent life from violence with the use of force, even if that force is in the context of war. [12]

Conclusion:

While not everything Lewis asserts regarding the issue of pacifism and military service is agreeable I think it is clear that as saints, we are justified to use violence in certain instances. In Learning in WarTime Lewis writes what I think serves as a wonderful conclusion to this discussion.

The rescue of drowning men is, then, a duty worth dying for, but not worth living for. It seems to me that all political duties (among which I include military duties) are of this kind. A man may have to die for our country, but no man must, in any exclusive sense, live for his country. He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself.[13]


[1] C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses “Why I’m Not A Pacifist.” (New York: Harper Collins, 2009)  [Kindle Fire version] p. 64, Location 612

[2] Ibid

[3] By way of example: saving a drowning man while leaving another slipping to saving the life of a man while taking the life of another.

[4] Lewis, “Why I’m Not A Pacifist” p. 77, Location 734

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid p. 78, Location 734

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid p. 81, Location 772

[9] Moore, T.C. “Why C.S. Lewis Was Wrong About Pacfism,” Academia.edu.  http://gcts.academia.edu/TCMoore/Papers/387653/Why_C._S._Lewis_Was_Wrong_About_Pacifism (accessed May 7, 2012) p. 10

[10] Resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[11] Lewis, “Why I’m Not a Pacifist” p. 82, Location 784

[12] Ibid p. 85, Location 815

[13] Lewis, “Learning In War-Time.” p. 52: Location 1866

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A Journey to Joy from Longing

God found C.S. Lewis among Oxford University’s prestigious lecture halls and dormitories; He found me among Hollywood’s dark, dank dives, firmly seated on one of the many red, cracked vinyl covered barstools. C.S. Lewis was an avid reader from a very early age; one could not pay me to read a book until I reached my early twenties. Despite some very drastic differences in our lives trajectories C.S. Lewis and I do share a very important journey, one from atheism to Christianity. Only I was able to benefit from Lewis’ journey during mine. Looking to his writings and his expressions of what plagued him I was able to put my finger on what it was that also plagued me. Lewis often described a longing sensation that we all share and a journey that that longing produced. It is my goal to discuss in this paper how reading Lewis’ thoughts as he struggled with this feeling of longing, what he comes to call ‘joy’ and his journey helped this average young man come to know the God of the all creation.

The Longing We All Share:

“But words are vain; reject them all – They utter but a feeble part: Hear thou the depths from which they call, The voiceless longing of my heart.”[1] 

 Do you ever pick up a book which you have read more than a few times? Or a movie, have you ever watched one over and again? We all do but why? We know what happens, why read the same thing again? Lewis likens this to a child to whom is told a bedtime story. And when that child particularly likes the story what does she say when the story is through? “Read it again. Read it again!” Why? The plot and its twists and turns are known. There are no more surprises, the end has been revealed. Lewis suggests that we go back to these favorites because we long for the world of the book. It touches us at that place where we long for the only other world where we can really know which is heaven.[2]

Narnia, The Shire, Perelandra, and Neverland, we visit these places in literature as we hunger for something. But it is more than that. This longing extends far beyond the re-reading of stories. In Surprised by Joy Lewis describes one of the first times he sensed this feeling of longing when he writes of his youth and a toy garden his brother had made with moss, twigs and a discarded biscuit tin.

My brother had brought his toy garden into the nursery. It was difficult to find words strong enough for the sensation which came over me… It was a sensation, of course, of desire; but for what? not, certainly, for a biscuit tin filled with moss… and before I knew what I desired, the desire itself was gone, the whole glimpse withdrawn, the world turned common place again, or only stirred by a longing.[3]

Similarly, in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader we once again meet up with two of the Pevensie children. Lucy and Edmond express their ever longing to go back to Narnia and hold close the promise of one day returning, “a promise, or very nearly a promise, had been made them in Narnia itself that they would some day get back. You may imagine that they talked about it a good deal, when they got the chance.”[4] But why do we long and what for?

Lewis later writes that “we found ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”[5] I believe this with all I am. I too sense this longing. Whether it be the notion that things are not as they ought to be, or while daydreaming in my office of past adventures and future ones too; the longing feeling is there. Lewis understood this longing as being so central to our lives that he believed it was woven through the major experiences of his own. He called this longing “joy.”[6] Lewis describes this sense of joy as “an unsatisfied desire which is itself more desirable than any other satisfaction.”[7] He also makes it clear that the thirst of our longings are not quenched through pleasure and happiness. ‘Joy,’ he writes, “must be sharply distinguished both from happiness and from pleasure.”[8] Lewis then points out that the experience of joy in turn produces a longing to experience it again. And perhaps most importantly Lewis makes it clear that we cannot produce joy on our own. C.S. Lewis put words to this feeling in me that just would not go away. And like Lewis, it was the pursuit of this ‘joy’ that sent me on a journey that would forever change my life.

The Journey from Joy:

“[There] is a craving which makes [man] a pilgrim and wanderer. It is the longing to go out from his normal world in search of a lost home, a ‘better country’.”[9] 

We are all so broken. It’s this realization that sent me on a personal journey leading to the Cross of Christ. And it was this longing, this ‘joy’ that made me weary and aware of my brokenness. How I long to be whole and right. If we are all honest about the longing in our heart and we recognize our brokenness, that longing would send us questing for a fix to the brokenness. About this Lewis writes,

We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.[10]

Lewis, through his relationships with friends and many author’s books came to better understand what we have described above. And his recognition of his own brokenness was one of the things that lead to a conversation from atheism to theism and then to Christianity. It is when we all come to this conclusion we see our deficiencies and then our gravitation towards God; or as Lewis put it, “my Adversary began to move.”[11] And it was Lewis’ pursuit of ‘joy’ that lead him to stop asking ‘what did I desire?’ but ‘Who is the desire?’ Bringing him into a “region of awe.”[12] It was then that Lewis for the first time examined himself. “And there I found what appalled me; a zoo of lusts, a bedlam of ambitions, a nursery of fears… My name is legion,” he writes.[13]

Another critical part of our journeys comes once we become aware of our longings and the in ability of earthly pleasures to satisfy them. While we think it is pleasure we are in search of I believe it’s actually something else altogether. In actuality we are not chasing anything but trying our hardest to avoid suffering. We are “far more anxious to avoid suffering than to achieve delight.”[14] This too is an impossibility. Lewis suggests that the desire to avoid suffering stems from a lesser yearning perhaps. He would say, and I agree having experienced this personally, that we avoid suffering because we do not want to be interfered with.

This was my last major obstacle to recognizing God as God. I thought I liked my life. I thought I was pursuing ‘joy’ and gaining on her. In reality though I was refusing to acknowledge what which was the Truth because I refused to bend my knee. I want to “call my soul my own.”[15] Once this attempt proved futile I was His. “The great Angler played His fish and I never dreamed that the hook was in my tongue.”[16]

Where does this journey end, where do the longings cease to be, and ‘joy’ is actualized? This brings us not to the end but the beginning. C.S. Lewis writes that as he made his transition from theism to Christianity that it was only then he started “approaching the source from which those arrows of Joy had been shot.”[17]

The Beginning:

“In Your presence there is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.”[18] 

Our journey of longing, our pursuit of ‘joy’ does not end, not until they are realized in heaven. However, the longings no longer have the significance they once did because they are understood. We have a better perspective but only once viewed from the Christian angle. We can now see that the longings are not intended to be satisfied but instead serve as signs, pointing us to our final ending, which is also our beginning. Lewis compares ‘joy’ to signpost for hikers in the woods. When they are lost a sign is a wonderful sight, helping them again to find their way. The first deserves marvel but once on their proper path they needn’t stop and marvel at them all. Similarly, these longings are there to point us in the right direction, to point us to the glory of heaven, the fulfillment of ‘joy’ and ultimately to God.

            Apparently, then, our lifelong nostalgia, our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off, to be on the inside of some door which we have always seen from the outside, is no mere neurotic fancy, but the truest index of our real situation. And to be at last summoned inside would be both glory and honour beyond all our merits and also the healing of that old ache.[19]


[1] MacDonald, George. Phantastes: A Faerie Romance for Men and Women (London: Daldy, Isbister, 1874) 86. (Emphasis mine)

[2] Root, Jerry, C.S. Lewis: His Thought and Work seminar series at Biola University, Spring 2012

[3] Lewis, C.S., Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Orlando: Harcourt Brace, 1955) 14.

[4] Lewis, C. S. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: The Chronicles of Narnia (Harper Collins, Inc.: Kindle Edition, 2008) p. 5: Location 50.

[5] Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2002) 114.

[6] Surprised by Joy. 15.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid 16

[9] Underhill, Evelyn. Mysticism (Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Books, 2005) 90 (as viewed on Googlebooks.com).

[10] Lewis, C. S. The Weight of Glory (Harper Collins, Inc.: Kindle Edition, 2008) p. 25: Location 257.

[11] Surprised by Joy. 209.

[12] Ibid 214.

[13] Ibid 219.

[14] Ibid 220.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid 204

[17] Ibid 222.

[18] Psalm 16:11 (ESV).

[19] Lewis, C.S. The Weight of Glory, p. 41: Location 406.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Congratulations! It’s a Blog!!!

So, my mother has one of these blogs.  I mean if my mom is “blogging” then I think by law I have to blog too.  Right?

Anyway, I have been doing a lot of searching as of late.  Digging around inside!  Trying to figure life out.  Trying to answer some of life’s tougher questions.  One conclusion I’ve come to is that people, especially young professionals, such as myself, spend far to much time building resumes, chasing wealth, and worrying about worldly things that really have very little importance.  I mean, they’re important but in a temporary sense. 

I was listening to a podcast the other day.  The speaker read a letter written around 1861, during our Civil War.  It was a letter from a Union soldier to his wife.  In his correspondence he expressed his love for her with such beauty and tenderness.  With gentlemanly words he told his own fait.  He explained he was not going to be returning to her.  He was to give his life in the Battle of Bull Run, Battle of Manassas.  The young man explained that he believed he was fighting for his country.  No regrets to be found in any of the ink on the page.  It was poetic.  He ended by telling his love that he would see her in heaven and with the use of words something along the lines of, ‘know that every time you feel a brush of air upon your cheek on the cooling autumn nights, it’s my lips kissing you goodnight.’  I thought of my wife and my love for her.  I thought of my country and my love of it.  I thought of heaven and God and what life was all about.  The point is I thought!

I really feel like we have gotten off track somehow.  Our thinking has became, well, it’s become self centered.  I don’t mean that in the sense that we all think about our selves or that we’re selfish.  I mean that we have lost track of the bigger question.   I would like to address these big questions here.  I’d like to have a place in space to fill with my thoughts on life.  Try to seek the answers to the big QUESTIONS.   I’d like to put my thoughts down and track my progress, who knows maybe it might help someone someday.  So, with that I would like to introduce my very first blog!!!

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized