INTRODUCTION
In May 2010, I wrote this essay for my Philosophy of Religion course in college. My professor and I hit it off immediately as the chief opposing voices in that class. In the very first class, he opened with a discussion that positioned religions as nothing more than groups who competed to bolster their ranks. I became uncomfortably aware of being in a very hostile environment. I very pointedly explained to him that the 12 disciples were not a "basketball team." They developed a very personal and intimate friendship with Jesus and their purpose was noble. Not ambitious. Well, he did make a mockery of me. People laughed. I remember being very humiliated that first day in class. In retrospect, it may have been his way of knowing who he'd have to deal with. Things mellowed out as the semester progressed, but I stood my ground in class discussion, as respectfully as I knew how, against what was a proud opposition to the existence of God. The unbelieving can be vicious. Besides myself and a few Muslims, not many spoke of their belief that God existed.
In this essay, you will see a badly restrained sarcasm on my part which thank God found expression only in my writing. I've grown since then. It may be important to note that I was immersed in research that revealed undeniable evidence of an occult presence, of mind and in our society. It's a research that I've laid down since. New Age was one of the religions we touched on in class. My professor gave an exasperated sigh when I explained it's roots and practices.
I finished that course well. I initially got a B for this essay, but was given a C because it was a day late.
I believe the existence of evil can
only be reconciled in traditional monotheism for Christianity. It holds for me
the most stable explanation than what other religions have put forward, and class
discussions have been frustratingly short-sighted. But I will limit my
explanation based on those discussions and on the readings.
In
his essay, “The Argument From Evil”, David Hume is asking about God, “Is he
(sic) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able,
but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence
then is evil?” (Eshleman 293). Hume is essentially saying that if there be evil
in the world, then God cannot be all good and powerful. He is wrong.
Let
me flip this. Suppose God did save us from the day-to-day drudgery of
life with all of its surprise disappointments, heartaches and shrinking
pleasures. Suppose God stopped every earthquake, hurricane and holocaust. What does that look like for mankind? The world
hails God! Our Superman! Everything is well. But David Hume groans, “… somehow,
I’m still not satisfied. Why does God allow such misery?” God hears the growing
restlessness and He does double time in the granting of unlimited wishes. The
world hails God! Our genie of the lamp! Everything is well. But the result is a
people grown fat, super-lazy and incurably wicked. Why should people do
anything, never mind reflect anymore?
The
Hip Hop entrepreneur Russell Simmons once said that out of 16 wealthy men that
he knew, only 14 of them were unhappy. Why? A man meets the woman of his
dreams. She's gorgeous and she makes him very happy in the bedroom. But
a year later he hates her guts. Why? Because we are a people that habitually take
everything and everyone for granted. It’s just never enough. We are a clamoring
fast-food type generation and patience is an enemy. We talk a good game about
fairness, integrity and justice, but all of our actions demonstrate that we
think character is a waste of time. It’s very chic to be rebellious as long as
we put a self-righteous spin on it. This is the hidden evil. David Hume, a
malcontent cynic who wants to live his life without accountability and is
offended by people who do.
But
let’s continue. God has created “perfect life” on very imperfect earth. David
Hume is wracked with boredom. He shakes his fists and curses, “How could You
do this to us!?” Man cannot bear this "perfect life" and losing his mind with frustration, he slides fully into his
primitive self and shows the meaning of his misery upside the skull of his
neighbor. Like a drug addict, he feeds off of his emotions. To find peace again, he begins to savor with abandon the simple pleasure of blood lust. But wait! Out of
the ashes of the interrupted holocaust arises a new crop of Hitlers taking
advantage of the great discontent of the nations. Now God must again satisfy
Hume by working quadruple time to stop the violence and “demonstrate His
omnipotence.”
It
should be clear that my illustration of an all-powerful and all-moral God
according to David Hume does not assuage the problem of evil at all. The world
hails God! Our wimpy celestial maid! All… is not well.
God
may demonstrate firmness and wisdom in what is best for His children. The adult man steps out and finds his life easier because of tough lessons; his selfishness and childish beliefs burned out of him in the fires of the difficult trials he endured. He's better for it. History has shown that men failed when
they tried to engineer a utopia, having nothing but horror to show for it. It’s
not what we were intended for. One might insist that heaven on earth could be
had if God wills it. But how do you upload the magnificent, holy and higher
state of heaven into this terrestrial, decomposing mess that we have around us?
Man remains fallen on this plane and the world and everything in it is subject
to corruption. Everything dies here. A utopia on earth is impossible without
the return of Jesus Christ as it is prophesied in the Book of Revelations.
But
David Hume is still not satisfied and he thunders, “No, no, how could a loving
and moral God allow such a massive evil like the holocaust to happen?” I won’t
deny the worthiness of that question and since no one can give a ready and
good answer, certain people in class should abstain from writing that off condescendingly as
“checkmate.” I say that no one on earth can really answer this question- certainly
not David Hume. But would it surprise the atheist to know that it was his
legacy that contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler? Ahh, let’s briefly examine
my mini-assessment of the prequel to Nazi Germany.
After
the middle ages, there was the Renaissance which gave great weight to the study
of the Greeks and the Romans, and from this came Individualism, Humanism and
the delightful values of Machiavelli, effectively loosening the holds of
Christianity on society (no thanks to the corruption of the Church). The
Scientific Revolution came. The Enlightenment came. The Industrial Revolution
won the hearts and imaginations of men, in terms of progress with a helpful
dose of laissez-faire to keep them nice and numb from morality. Realism,
Naturalism and Positivism enters the fray one by one like thugs taking turns
beating the faith out of people… but in a subtle way, of course. Enter Charles
Darwin to great fanfare, with his theory of evolution tucked under one arm and
his principle of natural selection tucked under the other. Mr. Darwin effectively
sounds the death knell of faith that had progressively become weaker from the profane
isms that ailed it up to then- not to mention keeping people illiterate so they
can’t read their bibles. Darwin: the new gospel. If I am an ape and there is no
God to look to for help, what now? The insidious evil of nationalism is kicking
around and gets a nice power-up boost from Social Darwinism. It gets real nasty
out here. My flesh is the new religion! My clique is the new religion! Everyone
is dividing up in clan, in color and in creed. Archduke Francis Ferdinand is
assassinated by Serbs and the unbearable tension that’s had every nation
walking on egg shells explodes into World War I. History clearly shows that the
world enters the 20th Century with a sense of high anxiety. Being a
bully is the new and only philosophy. Enter Adolf Hitler, a consummate failure
who tried his hand at being a soldier, an artist and a priest. He was born in a
time when Germany
was being bullied by surrounding nations into a demoralizing poverty and
hopelessness. We know the story. But hey, cheers to Lil’ Charlie Darwin!
So
the atheist is blissfully near-sighted when he blames God or Christianity for
the moral decline of modern civilization. Man was content to kick God out of
his affairs in the first place and now he’s mad when he can’t find Him. Is it
possible that the Holocaust was a bit of a wake up call for how low mankind had
slumped in their own self-worship and their drive for material gain? That’s a
gruesome conclusion, isn’t it? Well… then the next question should be, ‘does
man listen to God much?’ Think about it. God is not going to bless progress in
as far as it is used to deny His sovereignty by the ingrate and scornful. And
it is a naïve foolishness on the part of Hume to expect God not to correct him.
I am fully sympathetic about the horror that took place in Germany, but I am
certain that God’s intervention in the Holocaust would’ve redoubled military
monsters like Hitler and the awful lesson would not have been grasped. God is
not to be mocked. If God emphasizes that this world is merely a shadow of the
next one, then we must take from that a confidence that death will not be horrible for
those who believe unto Jesus (as promised in the bible). But since we generally
regard death as horrible, maybe God uses that misconception to wake us up from
the stupors we're often prone to fall into.
So
David Hume is sorely in error. If those who are for Hume really must declare “checkmate” in class discussion as the last word about God, then in regard to the
existence of God, Richard Swinburne’s teleological design argument has
“checkmate” completely. David Hume is still on checkers.
Lil’
Charlie Darwin removed the good near completely from the lives of Christians
whose faith wasn’t strong enough to contain it. And when you remove the good,
it’s hard to see in the dark.
Let’s
look at Augustine.
“The greatest
trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.”
-Roger
“Verbal” Kint in the film, The Usual
Suspects.
I
will not overlook the existence of Satan. We’ve already relegated God to pale
philosophy, and leaving out fallen Lucifer in discussing the problem of evil is
a parallel error. If we are going to talk about God, then His angels are
relative to this discussion- even the fallen ones.
In
the essay, “Evil as a Privation of Good” by Augustine of Hippo, he writes, “For
what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?” (Eshleman 291). I like
this because without the sanction of God, Lucifer shrivels up in his own pride
and is this living devouring void. Augustine goes on, “But if it should be
thoroughly and completely consumed by corruption, there will then be no good
left, because there will be no being. Wherefore corruption can consume the good
only by consuming the being” (Eshleman 292). For me, this completely describes
the irredeemable nature of Lucifer and the 1/3 of heaven that fell with him. In
hell, there is no light and there is no peace. Again, Augustine says, “But for
good to be diminished is an evil, although, however much it may be diminished,
it is necessary…” (Eshleman 291).
Unfortunately,
the discussion of the existence of God using blunt logic is already a
significant problem, and to take on the existence of the devil would be
overwhelming. But without straying too far from the parameters of the philosophical,
it’s my belief as well as my summation based in research of certain peoples,
world events and biblical scripture that Lucifer is moving people away from the
Word of God and setting up the world stage for the entrance of the Anti-Christ.
There are educated, scholarly and well-researched men of sober and reputable
dispositions who are noting the physical and metaphysical observations of this
truth.
Lucifer
is a defeated enemy who was bested 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ. His chief
means of oppression is fear and lulling deception. He is very cunning. If I want
to confuse you as to which path to God was the right one, I will first find you
in a desolate state and introduce you to a variety of choices. You will
see this as a generous luxury. In your mind, you’ll think what a liberal and
flexible God we have, and you’ll regard any claim of a “one way to eternal life”
with contempt. Political correctness will give you a card for coolness and be
your security blanket to shield you conveniently from the wrath of an ultra
liberal crowd. Look to the New Age/ New Thought Movement with its roots in
theosophy and Satanism, names like Benjamin Crème, Helena Blavatsky, Albert
Pike, Aleister Crowley and potentially Maitreya, the so-called World Teacher.
Eshleman, Andrew, ed. Readings in Philosophy of Religion.
Wiley-Blackwell, May 2008.
Print.
