He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
The Problem of Evil is an oft discussed philosophical problem that is of great significance in the minds and hearts of many who believe in God and many who don't. The Problem of Evil is typically (though not always) presented in a transcendental, metaphysical, or abstract fashion. In its most simple form the Problem of Evil can be reduced to four short propositions, they are as follows: God is omniscient. God is omnipotent. God is omnibenevolent. Evil exists. The juxtaposition of these four propositions is intended to show the impossibility or improbability of them all being true.
The argument goes that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent then evil would not exist. If God had these three qualities it would be impossible for evil to exist because God knows about the evil, God has the power to stop it, and God is only good and would therefore act so as to exclude all evil. In order to resolve this dilemma one must deny the truth of one of the propositions. It seems that it is impossible to deny the truth of the statement, "Evil exists." No one would deny the existence of evil. One therefore must (as the argument goes) deny the truth of one of the propositions about the attributes of God. To deny that God is any of the three things listed is to deny that God is God and is therefore to deny God's existence.
Abstract metaphysical thinking of the type employed above has been highly criticized by many of the most influential philosophers of recent centuries. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Williams James were all suspicious of the ability of metaphysical thinking to get at truth. William James wrote, "Metaphysics means nothing but an unusually obstinate effort to think clearly." Metaphysics are clear and organized, deceptively so, and in so being they fail to account for the complexities and subtleties which are the fabric of reality.
I do not believe abstract metaphysical thinking is an appropriate way to address the Problem of Evil, and evidently neither did Jesus. Jesus does not attempt to provide a transcendental account of how and why evil exists in the world. For Jesus, evil simply is the case in the world and God has a problem with it. The problem presented by Jesus is not how evil can exist given God's existence, but rather, the time at which God will act to remove evil.
Jesus says that God has an enemy who brought about evil in the world. The metaphysically-minded philosopher would ask why an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God would allow an enemy to bring evil about in the world, but Jesus does not. That an enemy brought about evil is the case. The question Jesus addresses is, "Why is God waiting to put an end to evil?" His answer is simple. If God were to eradicate evil then the good in the world would be eradicated along with it.
Evil is the case in this world and evil is part of how this world is the case. The world is a whole and evil is part of it. Evil has its roots deeply embedded in the world. God will eradicate evil, but when God does so God will remake the entire world because part of how this world is the case is that it has evil, the whole world must therefore be remade. God will not remake the entire world until all good that can be brought about in this world has been brought about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(24)
-
▼
January
(16)
- A Reorientation
- I and Thou: All Real Living is Meeting
- Rolling out of the Hills: thoughts on music and th...
- What is Profound
- What is a Self?
- Apocalypse
- What is Valuable
- Jacques Ellul: The Betrayal by Technology
- Meet Me Halfway
- Heart-Mouth Dialectic
- Wittgenstein comments on Kierkegaard and the Bible...
- Propaganda and Christianity
- Identity: Paul and the Self
- More Thoughts on the Soul
- The Problem of Evil
- Thought for the New Year: The Myth of Progress
-
▼
January
(16)
-
►
2011
(135)
-
►
December
(22)
- C.S. Lewis on Individuality
- Identity: What am I?
- What is Life?
- Identity: Consciousness and Infinity
- Form and Content
- Faith and Works
- Thoughts on Christian Thinking
- The Wrong Way to Believe in God: Undoing Naturali...
- Propaganda
- Human Speech and the Incarnation
- More Thoughts on Being and Having
- Enslavement to Comfort
- How Job Did Not Act
- A Thought from Kierkegaard
- Christianity and Philosophy
- Jesus and Irony: The Escape from Absurdity
- Modernism, Postmodernism, and Personalism
- Rain
- The Necessity of Existential Thinking in Christian...
- Meaningless Prosperity
- You're gonna want it all back...
- Identity: Being-toward-death and Judgement
-
►
December
(22)
0 comments:
Post a Comment