Andrew Sullivan has an ongoing debate with Jerry Coyne, the last post can be found here. Andrew is putting forward an argument that human suffering - from a spiritual perspective - isn't altogether bad and actually may be very necessary. I agree with Andrew's point, but I see it as side-stepping the root of the paradox. Even if the experience of human suffering could be seen as a good thing, you still have to address the existence of evil, in one form or another.
If God:
A) Exists and
B) Is wholely good
Then you must conclude that anything resulting from God's actions (for Christianity that means the entirety of creation) is good.
If we believe any element of existence possesses even one particle of evil, that negates the supposed nature of God. Or negates his existence altogether. You end up a two extremes: A perfect God and a perfect creation (Evil being more of a personal inconvience rather than a universal absolute) or an imperfect God and an imperfect creation (like the Greek myths).
A Christian might counter by invoking the idea of agency. God created man with the power to freely choose his actions (a property with is good), and as a result Man chose evil and has "fallen from Grace". This tactic attempts to shift the focus to Man, and away from God. Man freely chose evil, therefore man is responsible for the existence of evil.
I don't think this is a fair argument. A perfect God would be able to create a version of Man which always freely chooses good. In other words, a perfect man. You can argue that nature of perfection and free-choice until the cows come home, but the most important facts are that the existence of imperfection contradicts the supposed nature of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment