[Paul Jacobsen's note: This defense of Strobel by Stephenson is based on an earlier version of my Strobel critique. I consider this defense essentially obsolete and may remove this from my site at a future date.]
Answers to a Skeptic
The following paper is a response to a skeptic, Mr. Paul
Jacobsen, who has written a critique of the book by Lee Strobel entitled The
Case for Faith. I have never
met Mr. Jacobsen, but rather found his paper posted on his web site www.caseagainstfaith.com.
I was so impressed with Mr. Jacobsen’s work and his seemingly very
sincere desire to simply uncover the truth that I have decided to write some
responses to Mr. Jacobsen’s work. His
work is unlike most I have seen on this very topic.
While he is quite up front about the fact that he is a skeptic and an
agnostic, he is also honest about his desire to want to believe in God if only
he could be convinced of that which fails his own logic.
I have asked for and received Mr. Jacobsen’s permission to respond to sections of his paper with my own thoughts. I will reprint each of his objections and then follow it with my own thoughts and responses.
My objectives here are threefold. First and foremost I hope that by responding to the sincere objections of Mr. Jacobsen, I will have learned something myself. In researching some of my responses to Mr. Jacobsen, I have already learned a great deal about the skeptical arguments against the existence of God and the arguments for His existence. To this end I already owe Mr. Jacobsen many thanks. Secondly, it is my desire to use both Mr. Jacobsen’s paper as well as my responses as a teaching tool for a class I teach on apologetics. And thirdly it is my sincere hope that upon reading my responses, Mr. Jacobsen will have learned something as well and might possibly come at least a bit closer to having his desire to know God met.
Mr. Jacobsen begins his paper with a short introduction about himself…
First off, I am empathetic to Christian's fears that if there is no God, then there is no absolute foundation for right and wrong, and no ultimate meaning to life. I've read some atheistic counter-arguments to these fears, but I haven't found them to be compelling. So I really want to believe there is a God and that there is more to life than what we see. On the other hand, I am not able to convince myself of that which fails my own logic. "Pascal's Wager" says that one might as well believe in God, because if you are wrong, it won't matter. And I for one would take Pascal on his wager if I could. But I cannot force me to believe that which fails my logic any more than I could convince myself that squares are round if someone offered me a million dollars.
Mr. Jacobsen seems to indicate here that it is out of fear that Christians believe in God. It may be true that fear does play a part in at least initially bringing an individual to faith in God, i.e. fear of death or eternal damnation. But it has been my experience that as a Christian grows, he or she becomes more firmly grounded in the truth of God’s existence and His love for them. A growing, mature Christian, then, will put their faith in God not for reasons of fear, but rather for reasons of love and truth. This may seem to be an insignificant point, but all too often skeptics portray Christians as cowering, quivering people afraid of their vengeful God who will shower punishment on them if they fail to fall in line. But Christianity is grounded on the grace and love of God, not on his wrath. It was out of love that He sent His Son to die and pay a penalty we could not pay. And it is by grace that we are saved, through faith in Christ, and even this is not of ourselves. It is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:5)
I would also like to applaud Mr. Jacobsen here for not following Pascal’s advise. Belief in God to “hedge one’s bets” as it were, is no faith at all and will not do him any good, either for now or for eternity. God promises to reveal Himself to those who earnestly seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6) The questions Mr. Jacobsen raises in his paper are very valid and deserve an answer. The good news is there are logical, satisfying answers to his questions.
In Mr. Jacobsen’s introduction to his critique of The Case for Faith he writes…
Many
critics of Strobel's prior work, The Case for Christ, complained that he didn't
bother including opinions of any skeptics. Perhaps in answer to this complaint,
Strobel's first interview is with Charles Templeton, a former minister that is
now an agnostic and has left the ministry. This is a good interview and in fact
does a good job at raising some of the questions many people have about the
Christian faith.
A supporter of Strobel would
likely use this interview with Templeton as evidence of Strobel's willingness to
take a hard look the tough questions of faith. But there is one thing of
importance to note: Strobel interviews one skeptic, in the beginning of the
book, and interviews eight believers to answer Templeton's questions.
Essentially, eight believers are given the opportunity to rebut Templeton's
questions, but no skeptic is allowed to rebut the believers. This hardly
qualifies as the work of a hard-nosed reporter trying to cover all the angles,
as Strobel would have us to believe.
I believe that Mr. Jacobsen’s criticism here is a bit unfounded. Strobel’s book is not meant to be an unbiased, objective look at both sides of a point-counterpoint debate. His intent is obvious. He wants to answer the objections of skeptics to the historic Christian faith. How would those questions be answered by interviewing other skeptics? If, for example, an English teacher has a question about math, he doesn’t go ask another English teacher. He would ask a Math teacher. In the same way, if a skeptic really wants to know what possible answers to his questions about God might be, asking another skeptic would be “preaching to the choir.” Asking a theologian, however, would give him the answers he needs so he can weigh the evidence for himself and decide whether his objections have been met. While I might agree that Strobel tries to hard to convince the reader that he is “a voice laden with sarcasm,” criticizing him about not including more voices of skeptics seems unfair.
Now, to the body of Mr. Jacobsen’s paper. He lays out his paper in eight objections, each of which corresponds to a chapter in Strobel’s book. I will reprint Mr. Jacobsen’s objections in their entirety and then give my own response after each objection. Some of the objections are rather lengthy, so for sake of order and clarity, I will reprint small portions at a time, give my response to that portion, and then continue with the next portion, and so forth. Mr. Jacobsen’s objections are in Italics; my responses are in regular font style.
Objection 1: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot.
Strobel
spends several pages explaining why he himself struggles with this question, a
very difficult question. In fact, Templeton said that was a major reason why he
turned away from the Christian faith. Templeton said that he saw a photograph of
an African woman holding her dead baby in her arms, having died of starvation
due to severe drought. God allowed all this suffering when all the woman needed
was a little rain. How can there be a loving God if He won't even send a little
rain?
To
discuss this issue, Strobel interviewed Peter John Kreeft, Ph.D. Kreeft offers a
couple of possible explanations for the suffering experienced by the woman who
lost her child. For one, Kreeft says that finite humans are not capable of
understanding the plans and reasoning of an infinite God. Kreeft gives an
analogy, say a bear is caught in a trap. And say a hunter decides to free the
bear from the trap. The hunter may shoot the bear with tranquilizer darts so
that the hunter won't be attacked while freeing the bear. The act of pulling the
leg out of the trap may cause additional pain. The bear would be convinced the
hunter was a threat and an attacker, not able to see the good to come from the
temporary pain. The bear is simply not able to comprehend what the hunter can.
Kreeft argues that we, like the bear, may not be able to comprehend what
eventual good may come from our pain and suffering.
Superficially,
this may seem to make sense, but this logic has several faults. For one,
presumably God had the option of creating us with better understanding, better
able to see and understand what God sees. Why did he not give us better
understanding?
However,
if we are like the bear, unable to comprehend what God comprehends, then God can
hardly blame us if we come to conclusions consistent with our level of
comprehension any more than we can blame the bear for coming to conclusions
consistent with its level of comprehension. If it looks to me that God had other
options - such as making us more aware of what He is aware of - and that
conclusion seems consistent with my ability to comprehend events, how can I be
blamed for coming to this conclusion - even if from God's perspective it is
false?
Mr. Jacobsen here infers from Kreeft’s example of the bear caught in a trap that humans were created without the capacity to understand the workings of God. His objection here is that if God created us without understanding, why then does He punish us for not understanding.
You are very right to say that if we have not the capacity to understand the works of God, then it is unfair, and even cruel, to punish us because we do not understand. However, I do not think that Dr. Kreeft or any other reasonable Christian would say that we do not have the ability to understand God’s dealings with us. In fact, as one continues to read on in Strobel’s book, one sees Kreeft giving examples of people who, once they are through the pain, look back on it and thank God for the lessons learned in that pain. Let’s use Kreeft’s example of the bear as a foundation for this argument, but instead of a bear being caught in the trap, let’s say the animal is a dog. Again, the hunter must cause the dog more pain to get him out of the trap, and because of this the dog, not understanding why the hunter is causing him pain, may try to bite the hunter. The dog simply cannot understand what the hunter is trying to do. However, once the hunter releases the dog from the trap and takes the dog home to care for it, the dog may come to trust the hunter, and even develop a relationship with the very same hunter who caused him pain, but for an ultimately good goal.
God has created us with the capacity to understand Him, especially in His dealings with us. It may be true that, while in the midst of that suffering, one may shake their fist at God and say, “why are you doing this to me?” But I have seen time and again that, once through the pain, those with a faith in God come to an understanding of God’s purpose for the pain. God’s dealing with unbelievers seems to be very similar. In my experience, the number one reason people come to faith in God is because of suffering and a need to understand it. Conversely, the number one reason people reject God, again in my experience, is also pain and suffering. So, it seems to me, the problem is not that we cannot understand God, it’s that we may refuse to take the time to understand. As Kreeft puts it, “That’s part of the unpredictability of the human condition.” Some may become angry that God would allow such a thing to happen and reject the only One who can really help them in their suffering, much like the dog trying to bite the hunter. Others may try to find “easy answers” to their pain, such as drugs or alcohol, which are not answers at all but only make the pain worse. But to say that God has not enabled us to understand Him in His dealings with us is simply not an accurate objection. I have seen remarkable examples in my life of “finite humans” coming to a very good understanding of an “infinite God.”
Kreeft further discusses the
issue of the mother's suffering and says, "Why doesn't he send the rain?
God's answer is the Incarnation. He himself entered into all that agony, he
himself bore all of the pain of this world, and that's unimaginable and
shattering and even more impressive than the divine power of creating the world
in the first place." Um, that's all fine and good Dr. Kreeft, but why
didn't God send the rain? I'm aware of the fact that Christians believe that
Jesus carried the weight of all of man's sins to the cross, and Jesus suffered
in hell to pay for our sins. But why didn't God send the rain? The point I'm
trying to make, obviously, is that Dr. Kreeft didn't answer the question. If God
cares so much for our pain that He is willing to take on our pain Himself, why
does God not simply decrease our pain?
Mr. Jacobsen here
criticizes Kreeft for seemingly avoiding the question of “Why didn’t God
send rain?” But Dr. Kreeft does
not avoid the question. He answers
the question by saying that what the woman needed was not simply rain, but
rather she needed to know God. Neither
Dr. Kreeft nor I can say for certain why God did not send the rain in this
particular instance. This does not
contradict my former position that we have the capacity to understand God.
It simply means that God’s reasons may be many and complex.
The more important question here is “What will the woman’s response
to the lack of rain be?” Strobel
asks Kreeft, “What would you say to this woman?” and Kreeft gives the reply,
“Nothing, at least not at first. I
would listen to her and attempt to understand her in the midst of her pain.”
His point here is that looking at pain as a theological problem or
philosophical puzzle is the wrong way to view pain. Our response to pain, especially to the pain of others,
should be to reach out in love to those in pain.
I think all people, whether believers or not, can look back on their
lives and see how painful moments have caused them to grow in some way.
Pain and suffering challenges our character and makes us stronger.
It can give us a greater appreciation for life and our own mortality. I don’t pretend to like pain, but I can appreciate the fact
that there are numerous benefits that come from it.
Mr. Jacobsen asks the
question, “If God cares so much for our pain that He is willing to take on our
pain Himself, why does God not simply decrease our pain?”
Kreeft does answer that question with a story from his own life of his
daughter trying to thread a needle for the first time.
I can also think of a good example from my own experience to shed light
on this question.
I have a 9-year-old
daughter who takes piano lessons. When
she practices she invariably gets very upset when things don’t come as quickly
as she would like. Most practice
sessions when she begins a new piece bring about tears and frustration.
For her, this is real anguish. Now
I could very easily decrease her “pain” by simply allowing her to drop piano
lessons and forget the whole thing. But
that would rob her of the joy she always finds when she finally gets it and
learns a new song. Now the pain experienced in this world is much more than that
suffered by a 9-year-old learning to play a new song on the piano, but the
example does shed light on the mind of God.
It is arguable that God, in allowing suffering, has a greater good in
mind. In the midst of suffering we
may not see the greater good, but as my experience has always born out, those
who choose to trust God in that suffering eventually find the greater good that
God had for them. It is arguable
that if God were simply to decrease our pain or take it away, which He most
certainly could do, we would then miss out on the greater good. This does not seem illogical to me, as I see examples of this
very principal working in my own relationships, especially with my children.
Dr.
Kreeft also discusses the question of the existence of evil. Kreeft provides
some of the common answers most Christians give to this question.
Kreeft says that in order to completely eliminate evil would require the
elimination of free will and the chance for true love.
He also says some evil and suffering is necessary to make us who we are.
He says that life is like an old Twilight Zone episode, where a bank
robber gets shot and finds himself on a fluffy cloud where he is given anything
he wants. But he soon gets bored and would rather go back to Earth, or even
hell. But then he finds that he is in hell. Kreeft says, "the point is that
a world without suffering appears more like hell than heaven."
Superficially
this sounds reasonable, but I'm not convinced this is a valid answer. No matter
how valid this might seem, it seemingly does not apply to heaven. If Kreeft
believes that an Earth without pain and suffering would be like hell, what
exactly does Kreeft believe heaven is like? Is there evil in heaven, or no free
will and no love? Do Satan, Hitler, Stalin, etc. run around heaven causing
random acts of pain and suffering in heaven so that we aren't bored all the
time? I think most Christians believe that heaven has no such such (sic)
requirement for pain, suffering and evil. But
if so, why would life on Earth have such requirements?
Up until very recently I
had the very same question as Mr. Jacobsen.
If evil is a natural byproduct of our free will, which seems reasonable
to me, then what about heaven? Does
the possibility of evil exist there as well, or do we loose our free will in
heaven?
I would suggest to Mr.
Jacobsen that he find a copy of a book by Paul Copan entitled “That’s
Just Your Interpretation.” I think this book would shed much light on Mr. Jacobsen’s
objections of God and evil coexisting. I
recently checked this book out of my local public library and found it to answer
this very question Mr. Jacobsen asks here about evil, free will and heaven.
Copan gives three
possible alternatives to why the problem of evil verses free will do not seem to
apply to heaven. It was my
intention to summarize the three alternatives, but I am not able to do the
arguments justice by trying to shorten them and put them in my own words.
Here are the three alternatives, in their entirety, as found on pages 107
– 108 of the book “That’s Just Your Interpretation”
by Paul Copan.
Alternative
1: If heaven is a place where human beings no longer have the capacity to choose
to sin but only to do good and where sin cannot take place (compatibilist
freedom), then a more robust freedom (incompatibilist) is an earthly
prerequisite before our choices are "sealed." Our final state is the
fruit of our choice to move toward or away from God on earth. To think about sin
as a possibility in heaven seems troublesome. It appears that heaven (or, more
accurately, the new heavens and the new earth) must be sin-free. But if this is
the case, then there cannot be robust (libertarian) freedom in heaven. But isn't
such freedom essential to who we are as humans? If this is so, we have a
dilemma, and neither alternative looks appealing: (1) preserve human freedom and
open the real possibility for sin in heaven or (2) preserve the pristine
environment of heaven but remove significant human freedom.
How do we go about resolving this matter?
If
sinning is essentially impossible in heaven (and our freedom in heaven would
merely be compatibilist freedom), then the kind of freedom we have on earth (incompatibilist)
is not essential to our humanness. In heaven we are not free to sin, although we
will carry out what we desire—namely, the good.
If
libertarian freedom is not essential to us as humans, that is, it is a kind of
freedom we can live without in a heavenly state, how do we bring together both
heavenly sinlessness and a reasonable understanding of human freedom in a
coherent way? One possible scenario is this: It is on the basis of the robust
(libertarian) freedom to sin while on earth that the redeemed finally become
"sealed" as a result of their directedness toward God. That is, we
live in light of the choices we have made and in which we have become
entrenched. Our final state is ultimately the outcome of the choices of
(robustly) free agents who have chosen (while on earth) to embrace God's loving
influence or to resist it freely.
While
on earth we freely make choices that affect and shape our character and
spiritual condition. We make free choices that move us toward or away from God,
that determine our heavenly (or damned) status. Our final bliss (or condemned
status) is the result of freely made choices that have shaped the direction of
our lives and our destiny. "The choices made for good or evil are directly
relevant to the eternal destinies they determine for us. As we form our
characters, we set our spiritual compass for that location in which the lives we
desire for ourselves are most fully and naturally realized." By
transforming the character of the redeemed into Christlikeness in the afterlife,
God simply gives us the desire of our hearts.
According
to this view, there must be the possibility for evil in order for the heavenly,
sinless state to be realized. Libertarian freedom on earth cannot be avoided,
even though it can be bypassed in heaven.
Alternative
2: It could be that God simply foreknows that no one in heaven will freely
choose to sin; God, therefore, can guarantee heaven's pristine sinlessness. Some
may feel that the freedom we experience on earth must continue in heaven, as
such freedom is essential to who we are as human agents.
We
must always have the ability to choose to act either selfishly or Godwardly.
Such freedom is part of our human essence or nature; without it, we would
not exist, some libertarians might argue.
A satisfying solution for those taking this
view might be that God foreknows that no one in heaven will actually choose to
sin or act selfishly, just as he foreknows that rebellion against him in hell
will freely continue forever. What will preserve heaven as an unspoiled and
untarnished realm is not some divine force or permanent sealing of God that
prevents the redeemed from sinning. The
redeemed just simply will not sin, and God, being who he is (a Being who
innately knows all truths, including ones pertaining to our heavenly future),
knows this. He knows that sinning will not even come to mind as something the
redeemed would act on.
Alternative 3: To strengthen alternative 2, we could add that any
consideration of the possibility of sin will be gloriously overshadowed by the
joys of our union with God and the Lamb. Our magnificent experience of the
unmediated presence of God and Christ will so flood our hearts that not sinning
will be a
How much more mind filling and glorious to be with the Being who is more interesting than anything else that exists! God is omni-interesting. To be in a sin-free condition, finally transformed into the image of Christ, and experiencing God's direct presence through union with him will far surpass what our Edenic ancestors experienced before the fall. In such a glorious condition, sin—even if it is a possibility—will not enter our thoughts as something viable.
We
must note that this wonderful environment and relationship with God will not
cause us to refrain from sinning. We will just be so preoccupied by the pure
bliss and enjoyment of the gaze of God that we will not think of sinning.
Copan ends these thoughts
by saying that these alternatives are exploratory and suggestive in nature. We
cannot be dogmatic about these possibilities, but they certainly do give
possible answers to the questions raised by Mr. Jacobsen.
Kreeft
also asserts that simply recognizing "evil" as being "evil"
in and of itself proves there is a God. If
there is no God, then there is no absolute definition of what is evil and what
is not evil. It is true that if
there is no God, there is no ultimate definition of what is "good" and
what is "evil". But the
fact that we have concepts "good" and "evil" does not
necessarily prove there is God making such definitions.
For example, there is no absolute definition of "hot".
And yet, from our biological perspective, we can judge what is
"hot" and what is not "hot".
Similarly, "pain", if there is no God, then there is no
ultimate meaning as to whether "pain" is "good" or
"bad". Yet we are
biologically wired to interpret "pain" as "bad".
This is part of the preservation-of-the-self/preservation-of-the-species
mechanisms. Also, we seem to have
the ability to empathize. I suspect
that this is also a biological preservation-of-the-species mechanism. Therefore, it seems likely that our concepts of
"good" and "evil" are simply conceptualizations of these
biological functions. So, it seems
that despite the fact that many concepts don't have an ultimate meaning in a
godless universe does not mean that they are without meaning to our biological
nature.
Now
don't think that I'm comfortable with my assessment.
Like a Christian, I would rather there be a universal concept of
"good" and "evil" instead of it just being merely a
conceptualization of a biological function.
But as near as I can tell, that's just the way it is.
After all, if God really has defined a universal concept of
"good" and "evil", He hasn't done a good job of
communicating it to us. Different
cultures and religions often have very different concepts of "good"
and "evil". Sure, there
are a lot of common things. But a
lot of differences too.
In this objection I think Mr. Jacobsen summarizes Kreeft incorrectly. No where in the book does Kreeft say that simply recognizing evil as evil in and of itself proves there is a God. Rather what Kreeft says is that the existence of evil and suffering is 1) not a good argument against God and 2) can be a good argument for the existence of God. These two statements are a far cry from saying that the existence of evil proves there is a God.
Mr. Jacobsen agrees that if there is no God, then there is no ultimate definition of good and evil. But the fact of the matter is good and evil DO have ultimate definitions. Humans know what is inherently good and what is inherently evil. Mr. Jacobsen attempts to explain this as simple biology by saying that we are biologically wired to interpret “pain” as “bad.” Where does Mr. Jacobsen get this idea? While it is obvious that pain hurts and should be avoided if at all possible, I have shown above through example that quite often when we look back on pain in our lives, we are thankful for it. Pain can cause us to grow in our character, our courage, our physical well being, as well as our emotional and, dare I say it, spiritual constitutions. When we look at pain in this way, pain becomes a good thing. If in fact we are “wired to interpret pain as bad,” my next question is “Who wired us that way?” I suspect Mr. Jacobsen might say that no one wired us that way, it happened through millions of years of evolution. But this answer simply does not take into account the “oughtness” of human nature. Humans have a good idea of what ought to be. Were do we get this idea. Kreeft quotes C.S. Lewis, and I will quote him here as well, but more thoroughly:
If the universe is so bad, or even half so bad, how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator? Men are fools, perhaps; but hardly so foolish as that. The direct inference from black to white, from evil flower to virtuous root, from senseless work to a workman infinitely wise, stagers belief. The spectacle of the universe as revealed by experience can never have been the ground of religion: it must always have been something in spite of which religion, acquired from a different source, was held.” (C.S.Lewis, The Problem of Pain, page 3-4)
The mere fact that humans, who have never lived a moment in a world without evil, can conceptualize and visualize a world that “ought” to be, i.e. a world without evil, seems to indicate that the idea was placed in our hearts and minds by an outside source. When we try to search for that outside source, our minds are quickly drawn to the idea of an intelligent and good Creator.
Lastly, to say that God, if He does exist, has not done a good job in communicating good and evil to us simply ignores too much of what life is about. Our entire lives are spent searching for good and combating evil. How then can we say that we just don’t have a good enough idea of what good and evil is? Numerous examples are given in the book, and I can think of many more, of what all peoples in all cultures and religions, and at all times have seen as being evil or good. Mr. Jacobsen acknowledges these common understandings, but fails to grasp the magnitude of these commonalties. He also says there are differences, but fails to give examples. I would contend here that the commonalties of what all cultures would say is good or evil vastly outnumbers any differences, and that these differences can be explained through the fallen nature of man and the desire of fallen man to “justify” that which he knows to be evil.
Dr. Kreeft uses the opportunity
of the interview to discuss some issues not directly related to the issue of
pain and suffering. Many skeptics will ask why does not God show himself more.
Kreeft says, "Scripture describes God as a hidden God . . . If we had
absolute proof instead of clues, then you could no more deny God than you could
deny the sun." The question is then why does God find people believing in
Him without direct evidence to be of more value than people believing in Him
because He has shown Himself? God is often called our "Heavenly
Father." If somebody's earthly father moved to another country and left no
forwarding address, but left a few clues lying around as to where to find him,
would we consider this earthly father worthy of going to go find? If this human
father got mad because some of his children didn't dedicate their lives to
finding this guy, would we not consider this human father rather off his
proverbial rocker? Is not the love of a child for a father that does not hide,
and directly cares for the child actually more rational than loving the father
that runs and hides and gets mad if you don't find him?
Mr. Jacobsen’s question “Why does God find people believing in Him without direct evidence to be of more value than people believing in Him because He has shown Himself?” is poorly stated. God does give direct evidence of his existence, but not absolute proof. He does reveal Himself quite readily, but only to those who will seek Him out. I believe that Mr. Jacobsen would find the answer to his question if he simply read beyond the quote that he uses. Kreeft says in the book that if there were absolute proof, then it is difficult to understand how we could be free to make a choice about Him. He says, “God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want Him can have Him. Those who want to follow the clues will. The Bible says, ‘Seek and you shall find.’ It doesn’t say everyone will find. It doesn’t say no one will find. It says some will find. Who? Those who seek.” In other words, the value of following clues rather than being given absolute proof is that our free will to weight the evidence and choose for ourselves remains in tact. “God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want Him can have Him.” Conversely, God keeps Himself hidden just enough so that those who don’t want Him will not be forced to believe in Him.
The above paragraph, I suspect, is how Kreeft would answer the question. But I might add something to it. What would satisfy sinful man that God does exist? In other words, I ask you, Mr. Jacobsen, what evidence would satisfy your skeptical mind? What evidence will you accept? If you say, “Nothing can convince me,” then you are not as open minded as you think you are. If there is evidence you would accept, then maybe it’s there; you just need to seek. I’ll let these questions ring here and move on.
Kreeft
also tries to dismiss atheism, saying it is "snobbish" and
"elitist" as more than 90% of all human beings that have ever lived
believe in God. Frankly, I found taking Kreeft seriously after this comment
rather difficult. At one time, more than 90% of the world's population had
believed the earth was flat, but that certainly didn't make it so. Please don't
take that comment as my saying that I equate believing in God to believing the
Earth is flat - I'm not saying that at all. But understanding our world and
natural forces has been a quest of man throughout history. And during this
quest, at times, beliefs that were held as unquestionable by the majority are
proven false.
And
Kreeft must of course also realize that 90% of all human beings ever lived have
not believed in his God. Kreeft would likely believe followers of Buddhism,
Hinduism, pagan religions and so on as totally false, but he'll be happy to
accept their members just for the moment to "prove" how
"snobbish" atheism is.
To this objection I have no argument. I am in full agreement that just because the majority believes something is no real proof that it is true. I have heard this argument, and have even used it myself, but it is admittedly one of the weakest arguments for the existence of God. But I don’t believe Kreeft’s comments here negate the rest of what he has to say.
I do, however, feel the need to correct some of Mr. Jacobsen’s errors in this part of his paper. Kreeft here is not arguing the existence of the Christian God, but merely the existence of a God. Remember that the question on the table is, “Does God exist?” Whether or not this God is the God of Christianity or not is a separate issue. I am sure that Kreeft would readily admit that this 90% have not all believed in the Christian understanding of God. But this does nothing to detract from the statement that 90% of all people who ever lived believed in God.
A second error I feel must be pointed out here is Mr. Jacobsen’s choice of religions in his comments. Buddhism and Hinduism do not teach the concept of a personal God, and thus (presumably) would not be included in the 90% that Kreeft is talking about. Only three religions in history have taught the idea of a personal Creator God: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Buddhism and Hinduism are pantheistic religions, meaning they hold to an idea that all is God or the self as God. All other pagan religions teach the same type of concept of God. But Kreeft here obviously means to include religions that teach a personal Creator God.
I am reticent to quote
scripture. As soon as I do, someone will claim that I'm quoting out of context,
or using a translation that doesn't accurately represent the original words,
etc. And since I'm not an expert at biblical interpretation, I'm really not
qualified to debate such a line of argument. So upon that qualification, I will
say that there is scripture that appears to contradict Dr. Kreeft.
Kreeft insists that God is all-good, and only created the opportunity for
evil. But there are at least a few Bible quotes that seem to say that God in
fact does evil:
I
form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD
do all these things ( Isaiah 45:7 KJV)
Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. (1 Samuel 16:14 NIV)
With all due respect to Mr. Jacobsen, to qualify his quoting of Scripture in this way is self-serving. All ideas, whether they be from the Bible or elsewhere, must be understood in their original context and as the original author intended them to be understood. Otherwise all ideas, Biblical or otherwise, are rendered meaningless. For Mr. Jacobsen to say he is reticent to quote scripture as it may be shown that he is quoting out of context or using a translation that may not accurately represent the original Greek or Hebrew text is telling. It indicates to me that he is more interested in using scripture to support his own preconceived notions rather than to really understand what scripture is saying. We must allow scripture to “speak for itself” and in its original context and with its original intended meaning. If we fail to do this, then, as many skeptics might point out, “we can make scripture say anything we want.”
With that, let’s take a good look at the verses Mr. Jacobsen quotes, starting with the 1 Samuel passage.
The question on the table is whether or not God is the creator, or originator, of evil. It is clear in the passage that it is not the Lord who is the originator of evil, but it is the evil spirit that torments Saul, who was the first king of Israel. The fact that the text says the evil spirit was “from the Lord” can be understood to be indicative of the fact that even evil spirits are subject to God’s control and can only operate within divinely determined boundaries. While God is not the author of evil, He is able to use even that which is evil to achieve His good purposes. To this fact I think you will find no Christian argument. (see Isaiah 38:17) So what possible good purpose could God have for allowing, even sending, an evil spirit to torment Saul? As we read on in scripture, we find that Saul sends for David so that he might soothe him with music. Apparently, David’s music gives Saul relief from the evil spirit (vs 25). Through this relationship, Saul asks David to come into his service as an armor-bearer. David later defeats the Philistine Goliath, and eventually becomes the next king of Israel.
Now some may question whether God’s purpose was really completely good. Does God use Saul to introduce David as king? God’s purpose for David was obviously good, but what about his purpose for Saul? Was Saul just a pawn, used by God and then tossed away? I believe God’s purpose for Saul was also good, even though Saul eventually becomes a raving lunatic bent on the destruction of David. I think we can see God’s mind at work, though, as He tries to give Saul and David a basis for a close relationship. The fact that Saul reacts to David rising up as next king of Israel with jealousy, despondency, and violence are the result, once again, of free will choices. Saul could have chosen to graciously step down from his position as king and allowed David to continue his legacy. But Saul allowed his jealousy of David to get the better of him.
Admittedly, the Isaiah passage Mr. Jacobsen quotes was much more difficult for me. Like him, I am no Bible scholar, particularly when one needs to turn to the original language of Hebrew to decipher the correct understanding of a passage.
My first inclination was to argue that Mr. Jacobsen here chose to use the King James version of the Bible, which was not translated from the original Hebrew, but rather from the Latin Vulgate. This problem, as well as the fact that the KJV was translated in the early 16oo’s when very few manuscripts were available to translate from, are what makes the KJV a bit less reliable than modern translation, like the NIV. So I looked the passage up in the NIV translation. It reads, “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster.” Ah-ha, I thought, the KJV simply does not translate the original Hebrew accurately. To check myself, I looked the passage up in an interlinear translation. (An interlinear Bible is one that has the original Hebrew text with a word for word translation to English printed beneath it.) I found that the Hebrew word used is “ra” and the English translation of the word is “evil.” Ugh…back to square one.
As I candidly mention above, I am no scholar when it comes to Hebrew, so I must depend on those who are familiar with the language. So I next turned to Norman Geisler and his book When Critics Ask. In his commentary on this passage he writes, “(God’s) absolute justice demands that He punish sin. This judgment takes both temporal and eternal forms (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:11-15). In its temporal form, the execution of God’s justice is sometimes called ‘evil’ because it seems to be evil to those undergoing it (cf. Hebrew 12:11). However, the Hebrew word for evil (ra) used here does not always mean moral evil. Indeed the context indicates that it should be translated, as the New King James Version and other modern translations do, as ‘calamity.’ Thus, God is properly said to be the author of ‘evil’ in this sense, but not the moral sense – at least not directly.” (page 271)
So my inclination that the NIV translated the original better was right, but for the wrong reasons. The surrounding verses talk of subduing nations (vs1), leveling mountains (vs2), giving treasures (vs3), and bestowing honor (vs4), all of which can be seen as forms of judgment (reward and punishment). In verse 7, then, the translation of “ra” as “disaster” or “calamity” makes more sense, as those, too, are judgment words. So again we see God, not as the author of moral evil, but as the righteous judge.
[I notice that a discussion of
Satan was not presented by Strobel - not in this chapter or any other chapter.
This would have been a good chapter to have brought the subject up.
Given that Strobel and his experts generally believe in most traditional
Judeo-Christian concepts, I expect that they would also believe in the
traditional concept of Satan. I wish they would have discussed Satan so that I would know
their opinion on the subject. Regardless,
I have written some supplemental articles about Satan. Follow this link.]
I whole heartely agree that this would have made an excellent addition to the book. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subject.
About the author: Ron Stephenson is a former Director
of Christian Education in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. He now works
for the US Post Office and volunteers his time teaching a class at his church on
Christian Apologetics.
