The Hope of Evil - Part I

A young lady in my Grade 10 Physical Science class read my previous blog Understanding Depression: My Story. She responded with the following comment: “Sir, does your depression bring you closer to God? Because for me it just makes me doubt more.”  Unwittingly, she summarized which is probably one of the oldest and greatest paradoxes of the Christian faith:

“How can a ‘good’ God allow evil and suffering?”

This is one of those questions that made my heart and mind feel out of sync at times.  I wanted to believe in the Scriptural portrayal of a loving and mighty God, but if He is so loving and so mighty, why does He allow evil? 

THE PRESENCE OF EVIL AND THE ABSENCE OF GOD

Ravi Zacharias wrestles for a whole chapter on the problem of evil in the creation of a good God (2007:178-208).  Atheists often criticize the Christian worldview with the following claim: The presence of evil proves that God does not exist.  This is called the evidential argument for evil and it goes something like this.

1.         There is evil in the world.

2.         If there were a God, he would have done something about it.

3.         Nothing has been done about it.

4.         Therefore, there is no God.

The third point is open for debate. Various kinds of evidence affirm that God has confronted evil in the past.  It might just not have been done in the way we expected it to.  God furthermore promises to judge evil in the future.

The believer can respond to the skeptic with two approaches.

Approach #1

1.         Yes, there is evil in the world.

2.         If there is evil, there must be good (a problem the atheist has to explain).

3.         If there is good and evil, there must be a moral law on which to judge between good and evil.

4.         If there is a moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver.

5.         For the theist, this points to God.

Before I debate the second point, I need to clarify a few things.  Firstly, I believe that the portrayal of creation in Genesis is not just symbolic poetry, but actual history (see www.creation.com). Secondly, when I use the term “evolution” from now on, I am referring to macro-evolution: that different species come from the genetic variation of one organism over billions of years.  I do not agree with that.  I do, however, acknowledge micro-evolution: the genetic variation within an organism, such as bacteria building up resistance against antibiotics, or birds that develop different beak sizes, but the bacteria remains bacteria and does not eventually become a bird.  Any scientist would agree that only micro-evolution can be observed.

So, where does good and evil come from? The pure atheistic evolutionary model cannot explain the concept of good and evil. 

Evolution views development as small changes of improvement that happen by chance.  An animal with a faulty mutation makes it incapable to compete with the stronger competitor, and it dies out.  Evolution observes what is.  It looks at the natural and present order of things: the mutation and the death.  It does not provide a perspective of what things ought to be.  How should the stronger animal treat the weaker animal? With competition or compassion?

One of the main supposed driving forces of evolution is the survival of the fittest.  The goal is for the organism to make sure its genes are transferred to the next generation.  If this is the supreme driving force of life, then we should not have any objection to rape…  “The man was only fulfilling his evolutionary duty to replicate his genes.  He earned this right by showing he was physically and mentally the strongest organism by forcing himself onto the woman.”

At this very moment, there should be something screaming inside of you, “That just isn’t right!”  That is your moral voice.  It tells us what is the right and wrong way to act towards other living beings.  Moral actions may appear different from culture to culture, but C.S. Lewis remarks that there is a universal similarity that runs through all cultures: selfishness is frowned upon and selflessness is honored. 

Heroes and role models are characterized by selfless acts of kindness and love.  Nelson Mandela, the heralded picture of South African morality, is praised for his forgiveness and peace and not for wrath and revenge.  According to the “survival of the fittest” Nelson Mandela should have showed his dominance by retaliating against the apartheid regime and reigned over them in superiority, but no one thinks this to be “right”. Hitler is viewed as an immoral leader who exterminated the Jews, because he viewed himself part of the supreme race.  Our society frowns upon selfishness.

Now, atheists would justify these examples by saying that humans have evolved a synergistic sense of morality within our species.  In other words, we have changed from survival of the fittest (individual survival) to survival of the species (group survival).  We have evolved the idea that our chances of survival are better if we work together.  Like a colony of ants, we are much more likely to survive as a group than separate individuals.  This is why we have developed this instinct to look out for each other.  But looking at society at large, we do not see this altruistic instinct.  Naturally, humans are selfish and vengeful and it takes a great deal of effort for us to offer forgiveness or to humble ourselves to ask forgiveness.  Again, forgiveness implies that we have done something wrong towards another party and we need to make right with them to restore the relationship.

Survival of the species also poses a contradiction.  The thought process goes like this: Humans are better off working together. So, for my own survival it is better for me to take care of other human beings.  This is in essence also a selfish philosophy.  Is the only reason we are nice to others, the benefit we will receive in return?  This contrasts with society’s idea of real goodness. 

Really good people are those who do the right thing, even when they will be disadvantaged in the process.  An example in this case would be Nelson Mandela’s revolution against the apartheid regime.  He believed the right thing is for every man to be treated with the same dignity.  Furthermore, the right thing would be to act on that belief by resisting the laws of the time.  This meant legal opposition from police and government.  At that time, Nelson had no guarantee that things would work out for the better for him and his people.  He was willing to die for this belief.  Not only that, he honored his comrades who were willing to give their lives for this belief.  He saw it a worthy cause to sacrifice his life and the lives of his people.  Nelson separated the current state of affairs (black oppression) from the idealistic view of how things could and should be (universal human dignity).  He was willing to make unselfish sacrifices (legal resistance, imprisonment and the possibility of death) to attain these goals.  This is in sharp contradiction with evolutionism.

Evolution does not have goals.  The mutations are by chance and only influence the current state of affairs: the weakened organism. (By the way, most mutations are detrimental.  Our DNA has a proof-reading mechanism.  It tries to rectify the mistakes of faulty copying to change in back to what it should be.  Mutations are the mistakes that escape this proof-reading).  Evolution does not provide any guidance to how the weakened organism should be treated.

Consider the following illustration: When I invigilate exams learners often refuse a torn paper I handed to them and they ask for a new one.  They have an idea of what a paper should look like.  Based on this idealistic concept, they examine the torn paper and realize that it is distorted and they reject it.  They idea of a   “torn paper” depends on their idea of a “whole paper.”  Similarly, we seem to have an idea of what “good” is.  Based on this idealistic image, we look at the world around us and see so many examples of cases that fall short of this standard. 

The evolutionist cannot explain where this idealistic idea of morality came from.  They merely excuse the mechanism by saying we evolved it.  In other words, the random process of mutation (which is normally detrimental) gave rise to a goal orientated, ideological system of morality.

C.S. Lewis clarifies the relationship between good and evil: good is the original picture and evil is the distortion thereof.  Just like the learner has an idea of a new paper and sees the distortion in the torn paper.  This idea is totally compatible with the Christian worldview:

Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good! And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.

(Genesis 1:31, NLT)

God created a perfectly good world. So where did the evil come from?

When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

(Romans 5:12, NLT)

God, whose nature is good, made a good creation.  This was distorted by the creation itself: man who was tempted by an evil force, the Devil.

This brings us to our second question:

Why would a loving, almighty God allow the distortion of his good creation?  

But I will leave that for Part II ;-)

REFERENCE

Zacharias, R., 2007. Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.