A U.K-based Christian apologist has penned a new book dealing with suffering and why God allows it to continue in the world.
Vince Vitale, senior tutor at the Oxford Center for Christian Apologetics in Oxford, England, recently penned the book, Why Suffering?: Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn't Make Sense, with theologian Ravi Zacharias in order to challege the most common assumptions Christians make about suffering.
In an interview with The Christian Post, Vitale shared some of the points he makes in the book about why suffering exists and how it shapes the world we live in.
My comments in red:
"We picture ourselves in this world with all this suffering. Then we picture ourselves in a very different world with no suffering, or with far less suffering, and we think: Shouldn't God have made me in that other world? And the assumption that we usually don't think through is that it's very likely it would not have been you or me who could have existed in that other world," he said."And so, I think sometimes when we understandably wish for a very different sort of world, we're unwittingly wishing ourselves out of existence," Vitale asserted.A world with absolutely no suffering would include drastic changes to our psychology, biology, the laws of nature and the way that we function. A world where many aspects of our existence are altered might give birth to a completely different breed or being, according to Vitale.
So far all he has done is point out that if the world was different, we wouldn't be here. Can't argue with him on that point, but he hasn't even started to address the Problem of Evil.
To illustrate his point about how people sometimes fantacize that their lives could've been better off if, for instance, their mother had married a different man, Vitale shared a story about his parents' dating relationship before they were married."My parents were on their second date and they were standing on the Brooklyn Bridge and my dad noticed a ring on my mom's finger and he asked about it. My mom said, 'It's just some ring one of my old boyfriends gave to me; I just wear it because I think it looks nice.' So my dad said, 'It's nice, let me see it.' So my mom took it off, handed it to my dad, and [he] threw it off the bridge," he recalled."What if my mom had thought: 'This guy's crazy, I need to run back with the old boyfriend.' I might be tempted to think that could have been better off for me. Maybe the old boyfriend would have been taller, better looking or would have had more money. But if I think that way, I think I'm thinking incorrectly, because I'm assuming that it would still be me who existed in that different scenario," Vitale emphasized.He explained that his mother could've had a different child that might've been better off, but it wouldn't have been him. The story illustrates how many people view suffering and the possibility of it not existing.
Still not one word explaining the Problem of Evil. As for the business about the spectacular odds that had to be overcome in order for him to have been born - his mother and father meeting, breaking up, getting married, or going their separate ways - well that is all very interesting, but that has always been the case for every person who was ever born. And despite what he says in that last sentence, his story definitely does not illustrate how people view suffering. How could it?
"If throwing a ring off of a bridge could be enough to change who my mom winds up marrying, and therefore whether or not I come to exist, if changing the world so radically that we remove all the suffering from it were to occur, I think that raises the question of whether or not it would have been me or you who would have come to exist?" he asked.
Actually, if you are looking for the millions-to-one odds that you would ever be born, you need only consider the moment of conception when millions of male sperm swim
towards the female egg. Dozens of those sperm actually reach the egg and
burrow into it and eventually one of them breaks through and all the
other sperm die immediately. If that one sperm out of millions had not
been the first to break through then you would not have been born. Even
if it was 100% guaranteed that your parents would be married and have a
child, the odds are still millions-to-one against you being born in this
world (or any other world). It all depends which sperm reaches the egg
first - and believe me, every one of those sperm is battling hard to win
that race. (And still not a word explaining the Problem of Evil.)
Vitale added that he believes suffering is a result of "free decisions of free beings," but admits to wondering why God would allow it to continue to exist throughout the ages.
"Once free beings make a choice, once the world has fallen into a broken state, why would God allow that to continue?" Vitale asked. "And I wonder if one of the reasons why God might allow that to continue is if it allowed for a world in which certain people would come to exist."
At this point Vitale is preparing to absolve his god from all blame regarding human suffering. Notice how he carefully avoids the subject of suffering caused by natural events like earthquakes and volcanoes, and concentrates on things like 'free decisions of free beings'. He does so because he is trying to shift responsibility away from god and onto humans. In other words, he is preparing to blame the victims for any suffering they have to endure
Vitale also addressed free will in human beings and if the concept could actually exist without the suffering that sometimes comes from their bad decisions. Some free decisions do not bring suffering, such as choosing which color shirt to wear, or deciding not to see a movie on Tuesday night. However, if God only allowed for that amount of free will, it might also lead to limited freedom for His creation, according to Vitale.
"When we start to talk about meaningful freedom, the freedom to either step into relationship or to step out of relationship, I don't think you could get that sort of freedom without there being the possibility of suffering," Vitale asserted.Vitale is being very cute at this stage. His 'free will' examples include things like deciding which shirt to wear, or deciding to step into, or out of, a relationship. Like I said; all very cute, but let me show you exactly where this mealy-mouthed Christian apologist is attempting to lead us.
As long as we allow him to do so, Vitale will try to keep the discussion at the level of wardrobe malfunctions or the sadness felt at the end of a relationship, but I want to use a much more dramatic situation. One that involves the sort of suffering we should be talking about during any discussion on the Problem of Evil.
Suppose a young thug is violently attacking a weaker victim. Vitale will say that god has given free will to mankind and if some people use their free will to cause harm to others, well that is the fault of mankind, not god. But what if a passerby came across the thug during the assault and refused to do anything to help the victim? Would we call that person good? No we would not.
Well god had the opportunity to help the victim, but he refused to do so. Can we call god good? No we cannot.
And while Vitale doesn't say so, it is easily understood that his god respects only the free will of the attacker. The attacker is saying, "I want to use my free will to inflict pain on my victim" and his free will is granted. Meanwhile the victim is attempting to use his free will to get away from the attacker, but god never grants the victim's wishes. God always sides with the attacker! How the hell does that work?
"If God wanted to create beings that He could be in a loving relationship with, they would have to be free beings, because that's what it means to be in a loving relationship — for both parties to have made a free choice to be committed to each other."Here is Vitale again, still pretending that his free will defense for god is all about loving relationships and commitment to each other. He dare not tell his readers that the true purpose of the free will defense is to absolve god from responsibility when he fails to help innocent victims escape their attackers.
Vitale emphasized that he doesn't think God could allow for that "great good" without giving people the ability to say "no" to a relationship with Him or others.
Except if you are the innocent victim - then god will not listen when you say "no".
No comments:
Post a Comment