Request:

I have a former student who is in college and really questioning his faith and is starting to believe in the arguments presented by Hitchins and Dawkins. Recently he posted this "question" asking for people to comment and give him feedback. I am looking for anyone who could help me give some meaty and though provoking comments.  (rest of question and response below)

Request:

I have a former student who is in college and really questioning his faith and is starting to believe in the arguments presented by Hitchins and Dawkins. Recently he posted this "question" asking for people to comment and give him feedback. I am looking for anyone who could help me give some meaty and though provoking comments.  Any help would be appreciated. I am pasting his very lengthy questions below thanks.

Editor’s Note:  The comment by the friend of the questioner will be in italics, as this will get fairly long.

Hello everyone, The question of God’s existence and the reliability of the Bible and all of that are very commonly debated. Usually the same arguments are used repeatedly on both sides. On one side we have the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the argument from morality, and various other arguments. All of these arguments have some strength, but with all arguments, there is at least one problem or weakness. On the other side we have the atheist or a naturalist perspective, their purpose is to show that the arguments for God are flawed. They also purpose that the universe can be explained through naturalistic means. What I am getting at is there are usually the same issues talked about when the question of the Christian God is brought up. Usually people tend to think that there is a deadlock on these issues, no matter what the person says the other person will not be persuaded. A debate usually goes something like this, the atheist brings up the problem of evil, and then the theist responds by saying that God has reasons for allowing evil. The free will defense is commonly brought up, as well as the idea that the greatest good can only be achieved in a world that has the potential for evil. The atheist usually responds by saying that this is a cop-out.

However, I think a better question to begin with is this. Why would a fully sufficient, infinitely happy, completely fulfilled being create such a universe as this? The history of the world is one filled with death, destruction, violence, and chaos. 99 percent of all species of animals that have ever existed are now extinct; most of the population of humans through the years has died before reaching adulthood. Millions of humans have died that hadn’t even been born yet. These are the simple facts of the Earth. Now, we have Christians who claim that the Bible provides the answers to these questions. The Bible teaches that God created the world, he created animals, and he created humans. But soon after his masterpiece was complete, it was utterly ruined through the "rebellion" of the humans he had created. They were provided an option to disobey God, God said that they could eat from any tree or any bush except for one. He explained that they were not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But one day Eve came across a talking snake, which tempted her to eat the fruit. She was tricked by this talking snake, and therefore ate the fruit and then gave some to Adam as well. This is why the history of the world is the way it is, because the first two humans ate a fruit that they shouldn’t have eaten. But wait, why did this snake tempt them? I thought there was no evil in the world until after the "fall". Apparently there had already been a rebellion that had taken place before the universe was even in existence. The first thing that God created was not the universe, it was heaven, his dwelling place (why he wanted/needed a dwelling place, I do not know). Then he created angels to inhabit this realm with him (Why he wanted/needed them I do not know). Apparently one of these angels decided that he wanted to be God. God then proceeded to kick him out of Heaven. This angel, now called the Devil, or Satan, decided to go down to earth and occupy the body of a serpent in order to tempt the humans. Why God would allow this fallen angel, who hates him with all his being, into his masterpiece called earth in order to tempt his most beloved creatures, is beyond me. However, he does allow this to happen. Adam and Eve listen to the mischievous reptile and the future of the world is now started on a path of utter chaos. It is at this point where we learn that the consequence of disobedience to God is death. God decides that he will now require everyone that commits a "sin" to slaughter an animal in order to atone for his wrongdoing. This seems very perplexing to me, now that evil has entered the world God decides the best way to deal with it is through killing animals as a replacement for our own lives. But we are not to worry about this, because God had a plan to solve this problem once and for all. Roughly 2000 years ago there lived a man named Jesus. He was a carpenter from Nazareth and claimed to be the Son of God who had come to take away the sin of the world. This seems very promising, but the question is how is he going to do that? Well the answer is this, since Jesus is both man and God; he will end the bondage of sin and sacrifice by allowing himself to be crucified. Then he will rise up again 3 days later and sin is conquered. Isn’t this beautiful? God shows his wonderful grace by laying his life down for us all. He has provided us with this amazing thing called grace. However, what actually took place was barbaric sacrifice that God decided needed to happen. Why on earth would we be so happy about such a terrible thing when it was so unnecessary? Regardless of how unnecessary it seems, God decided that all it takes is for you to believe in Jesus and his ability to save you from your sins and you will live in eternal bliss. This does sound pretty good, all that is required is that we believe in Jesus and we are saved. But that leaves us wondering about all the other people who don’t believe in Jesus. What about the millions of people, if not billions, that lived before Jesus? Or even before the Bible was written? Well, according to God’s design and will, they will be tortured for eternity. Ok, so this is currently where we stand. God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and all powerful. He knows all possible options, he knows what is morally best, and he has the power to bring about the combination of these things. How can we reconcile these attributes to what I have just informed you? God is the one who decided that death was necessary to reconcile humans to himself; God is the one who decided what is considered good and bad. God, if he wanted to, could bring all his creation to live eternally with himself. Or if all these things are necessary, then God could have not created anything at all. It is completely unnecessary for him to create a world like ours if he is eternally and completely fulfilled. Not only is it unnecessary, but it seems rather cruel to the beings he supposedly loves. Please feel free to comment if you genuinely want to provide meaningful insights. Also please don’t just say that we have "finite minds and that we can’t comprehend God." I feel this is not acceptable because it doesn’t actually try and answer any questions. Thanks for reading!

Response:

I believe that the characterization of the Christian idea given here is relatively accurate. It is certainly much more fair than anything that Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins would be willing to say, which I, personally, appreciate. Making straw-man arguments is not helpful, and this is a typical methodology of the "three horsement" of the new atheist movement. Like I said, I believe the depiction of the Christian message above is not terrifically far from accurate, but there are a few mistakes. In any case, since you asked, I would like to respond.

First of all, I do not believe that we can "prove" that God exists. The question comes down to the most reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence, for whether there is a supernatural presence in the universe and whether the universe we live in was created by some sort of intelligent creator. I believe that the evidence falls clearly on the side of the conclusion that the universe is not just some sort of accident. We at ARS sponsored a debate on the premise "Does God Exist" four years ago between Michael Shermer and Douglas Jacoby. (available at www.ipibooks.com). Shermer has won many of his debates with believers because he is very good at what he does. In this particular debate he was soundly defeated. The reason is that he came up against a person who believes in science, who believes in evolution, who believes in reason and who is not a young-earth creationist or an Intelligent Design believer. The reason Shermer lost, despite his wonderful witty style and great one-liners is that his arguments were extremely weak. Bottom line, he had no evidence that God does not exist. His only argument was that unbelief is the default postion! Well, I will have to say that defending an argument by assuming the answer is not a strong argument. The premise was: given the nature of the universe we actually live in, which is the most reasonable conclusion–Does God Exist? The "burden of proof" argument is not an argument. In the end, when you strip all the rhetoric away from Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins (and I have listened to or actually watched a number of debates), they have no evidence that God does not exist. Their arguments are very weak. The argument from design, from the existence of moral absolutes, from the fact that the universe exists and was created (ie has not always exists), the fine tuning argument, all these arguments, although I do not believe that they amount to proof, are very real reasons for believing in a creator/designer/truth which is responsible for our existence. Obviously, some do not agree with this conclusion, but I have really yet to hear a single strong argument that God does not exist. I challenge anyone to break down the arguments of Hitchens, Dawkins et al and ask what their actual, logical, empirical, rational, factual arguments are. Remove the rhetoric and real zingers and you are left with practically nothing. They typically prove that a straw-man type God of some particular religion or a God who is definitely not the one found in the Bible, for example, does not exist, but that there is no supernatural presence and no designer/creator they have virtually no argument for.

In the points made by your friend above, it seems that there are two broad areas. One is only argued for briefly. The other category seems to be the dominant one. The first category is attempts to refer to Hitchens’ Dawkins’ and friend’s arguments against the existence of God. This is found in the first paragraph. The much larger area of discussion above is an attempt, not to prove that there is no God, but to argue against one particular picture of God–a stereotypical depiction of the God of Christianity. Because the second category is apparently the chief concern, I will allow my first paragraph above to be an initial response and will proceed immediately to respond to the depiction of the Christian God.

I have already said that this picture is not completely accurate, but it is also not a completely unfair summary of the Christian concept of God. I will try to clear up the misrepresentations, but principally respond to the fair representations. So, here we go. Here is the first question: Why would a fully sufficient, infinitely happy, completely fulfilled being create such a universe as this? First of all, this is assuming a particular definition of God. One must be careful of one’s premises and definitions. The assumption being made here is that a fully happy, fully sufficient being would be happy and fulfilled completely alone in the universe–without interaction with any other beings. Now, I am the parent of three children. I believe the fact that I chose to bring three children into the world is not evidence that I am deficient or flawed or weak. The reason my wife and I had children is because we, like the God of the Bible, want to love and be loved. Like the God whose image we bear, we are creative beings who are fulfilled in and through relationships. This may not be "logical." It may not be worked out easily in a mathematical equation. The laws of physics may struggle to explain it, but God is love. God wanted a relationship. God wanted to create persons who he could love and who could love him. I believe that this is the central message of the Bible. God created the universe because he is a Creator by nature and because he is love–he is "fulfilled" through creating and through giving and receiving love. If the charge is that this is not fully logical and rational, I suppose I will have to concede to this. However, I believe that the arguments against God above would almost equally well be arguments against human beings having children and becoming parents.Having children does not make sense. It is not about logic. It is about love. The argument I just presented is not "evidence" for God, but I believe it is a sufficient answer to the question. It also makes complete sense from a limited, human perspective.

Next point/question: The history of the world is one filled with death, destruction, violence, and chaos. 99 percent of all species of animals that have ever existed are now extinct; most of the population of humans through the years has died before reaching adulthood. Millions of humans have died that hadn’t even been born yet. These are the simple facts of the Earth.

I agree with these facts. It seems that the one listing these facts is, again, making an assumption. The assumption being made is that death is somehow evil or bad. I do not agree. I see no evil in a species going extinct. How is it an argument against the Christian God if people or foxes of bunnies die? It is apparent that the Creator chose, for whatever reason, to create a large universe in which life could be created, could survive and could change over time through evolution. Death is not evil. It is not "wrong" for a lion to kill an antelope. It is not evil or bad that people suffer physical death.

Now, let me respond to the next paragraph: The Bible teaches that God created the world, he created animals, and he created humans. But soon after his masterpiece was complete, it was utterly ruined through the "rebellion" of the humans he had created. They were provided an option to disobey God, God said that they could eat from any tree or any bush except for one. He explained that they were not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But one day Eve came across a talking snake, which tempted her to eat the fruit. She was tricked by this talking snake, and therefore ate the fruit and then gave some to Adam as well. This is why the history of the world is the way it is, because the first two humans ate a fruit that they shouldn’t have eaten. But wait, why did this snake tempt them? I thought there was no evil in the world until after the "fall". Apparently there had already been a rebellion that had taken place before the universe was even in existence.

Personally, I believe it is "good" that God gave us a choice. In fact, love, BY DEFINITION, gives choice. If God had not allowed room for those whom he loved and whom he wanted to love him to either accept or reject his love, then there would have been no relationship. Now, this is the Christian message and no person is compelled to accept this message, but I believe that it makes perfect sense, given the human condition. God’s masterpiece was not "utterly ruined" by our rebellion. My work as a parent is not proven evil (or to not exist) if my child rebels against me and chooses to ruin his life. The reason the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in the garden (whether the tree was literal or metaphorical is not the key here) is that God wanted to freely give and receive love and a relationship with his creatures. This is not a sign of the weakness of God or of failure. It is evidence of his love.

Then the writer makes another incorrect assumption. He assumes that the Bible says there was no evil in the world until after the "fall." The Bible does not discuss the topic all that much, but the only reasonable conclusion I have seen is that Satan is one of God’s angelic creations who was also given a choice, who rebelled, and who fell from God. The Bible creates a picture of spiritual beings and forces, some of whom have chosen to rebel against God and have become evil by their decisions and acts. The parallel to the human condition is clear.

Unbelivers can argue all they want that there is no evil, but I believe that there is evil in the world, and that evil is the result of God’s creatures rejecting the love of God. I am sure that this argument will make no sense to the materialist who does not believe in evil, but I will confess that I believe that there is evil. I believe that the evil in the world is the result of God’s created higher beings, angelic or human, choosing to reject God’s love and to rebel and bring "sin" into the world. If anyone wants to fault God for creating us or for giving us the right and ability to choose to do right or wrong, I invite that person to do so. I, for one, am glad that God created me and gave me a choice of whether or not to accept his love. This is what a good parent does.

By the way, the rebellion referred to in the paragraph above occurred after creation of the universe, but before creation of the first people with a soul. There was about 13 billion years of time between the creation of the universe the coming into existence of intelligent life on earth. So, there is another incorrect assumption (that the rebellion had taken place before the univere was even in existence).

I am going to skip the next paragraph, as I have already alluded to responses to these points. So, I will proceed to the next paragraph. It is at this point where we learn that the consequence of disobedience to God is death. God decides that he will now require everyone that commits a "sin" to slaughter an animal in order to atone for his wrongdoing. This seems very perplexing to me, now that evil has entered the world God decides the best way to deal with it is through killing animals as a replacement for our own lives. But we are not to worry about this, because God had a plan to solve this problem once and for all.

This is a slight misrepresentation of the biblical point of view, although it is not completely off. It is also stated with some admirable humor, which I appreciate. The "death" which came into the world because of sin is a kind of spiritual death. It is sometimes called the "second death" in scripture (for example in Revelation 20). This "death" is a separation of God’s creatures from God. Adam and Eve were never intended to live in their mortal, physical bodies forever. The biblical picture is that God intended all along for an eternal destiny, but not one in our frail, physical bodies. Romans 5 and other passages make it clear that what God is telling us is that if we rebel against the love of our Creator, it creates separation. Let me bring up an unpopular fact about the biblical message. God hates sin. Why? Because sin destroys us. It makes us into something that God never intended for us. Everything God told us not to do is hurtful to us. Yet, God does not force us to do the right thing—the thing which is for our own benefit—because of his nature which requires that the relationship be built on love and on a choice. The Bible depicts God as loving Creator. It also shows God to be just. Bottom line, God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows (Galatians 6). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Perhaps some people do not like this quality of God. Well, I bet the same people who do not like the idea of consequences for sin like the idea of justice. We believe in justice until we are on the wrong end of that justice. We say, "It ain’t right!" Murderers, rapists, extortionists, arrogant people of wealth who do nothing for the poor, those who abuse their wives–such people deserve justice. We understand intuitively that wrong behavior should not happen with impunity. In that sense, our human nature, which is to believe in justice, is in harmony with the God of the Bible. Some people do not appreciate God’s justice. OK. Fine, but it is nevertheless real.

About animal sacrifice:  The sacrifice of animals in the Old Testament was intended by God to be a kind of "tutor" to prepare for the New Testament message. Next, the writer mockingly, but mostly accurately, describes the gospel message: Roughly 2000 years ago there lived a man named Jesus. He was a carpenter from Nazareth and claimed to be the Son of God who had come to take away the sin of the world. This seems very promising, but the question is how is he going to do that? Well the answer is this, since Jesus is both man and God; he will end the bondage of sin and sacrifice by allowing himself to be crucified. Then he will rise up again 3 days later and sin is conquered. Isn’t this beautiful? God shows his wonderful grace by laying his life down for us all. He has provided us with this amazing thing called grace. However, what actually took place was barbaric sacrifice that God decided needed to happen. Why on earth would we be so happy about such a terrible thing when it was so unnecessary? Regardless of how unnecessary it seems, God decided that all it takes is for you to believe in Jesus and his ability to save you from your sins and you will live in eternal bliss. This does sound pretty good, all that is required is that we believe in Jesus and we are saved. But that leaves us wondering about all the otherpeople who don’t believe in Jesus.

As a believer, I will concede that this message is not “logical.” But then, again, love is not logical. Romans chapter 3 verses 21-26 says something fairly similar. God’s justice demands a life. Jesus offered himself to meet that just demand of God. Why? Because God loves us and wants us to have a relationship with him. I will concede that this is not logical. The question is not whether it is logical, but whether it is true. The question is not whether we agree with it or whether it is what we would have done if we were the Creator. The question is whether it is true. The evidence from the life, the death, the miracles, the fulfilled prophecy in the life of Jesus says that this message is true. I understand that not all will believe this message, but I have been convinced by the evidence that it is true.

The writer then raises the next obvious question: But that leaves us wondering about all the other people who don’t believe in Jesus. What about the millions of people, if not billions, that lived before Jesus? Or even before the Bible was written? Well, according to God’s design and will, they will be tortured for eternity. It is my opinion that this may be the most difficult question, at least on an emotional if not an intellectual level, to answer with regard to the Christian message.

My response is that God does not want anyone to be separated from him. God does not choose anyone to go to hell. However, God created us and God gave us a choice. Either the choice was real or it was an illusion. If it was an illusion, then God’s love would not have been real. We are not automatons. We are not animals. We are created in God’s image, which means that we are morally responsible agents, given a choice of whether to be what God wants us to be or not. As a parent, I understand this dilemma. Again, if God had simply forced us to do what was right, then how could we have loved him and what would that mean about his love for us?

I am not convinced that those who go to hell are literally tortured for eternity, but I do believe that they are separated from their Creator and suffer the consequences of their decision to not do the will of their Father and Creator. If some people do not appreciate this situation, I can understand, but it is the situation we, as human beings, are in.

OK, so now we get down to the bottom line of this person’s argument.  Let us get it out there: God, if he wanted to, could bring all his creation to live eternally with himself. Or if all these things are necessary, then God could have not created anything at all. It is completely unnecessary for him to create a world like ours if he is eternally and completely fulfilled. Not only is it unnecessary, but it seems rather cruel to the beings he supposedly loves.

True. We can argue, in the abstract, that God did not have to create us. However, it is apparently his nature to want to share his existence with his creation. This fact, admittedly, is a mystery. But the fact remains that we do exist. The universe also exists. The existence of a Creator is by far the most obvious explanation of the known facts about the universe. Making the argument that the God of the universe did not have to create us is a bit of a red herring. Like I already said, it appears that the reason the universe exists and that we exist is so that we can know God and be known by him. I do not believe it is a cruel thing. In fact I am infinitely grateful to have been given life. I am not about to commit suicide. I am thankful for the wonder of creation and the beauty of human experience, emotion and our ability to have relationships with one another. I say that the creation is a beautiful thing. If this writer disagrees, that is his choice, but perhaps he ought to be grateful to have been given that choice by his Creator. One of the deepest mysteries of existence is why anything exists at all. Certainly Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris have no answer to this question. The Bible does have an answer. It is up to people as individuals whether or not they will accept that answer.

As for other materials on this subject, I want to suggest a recent book which is “God is Not a Moral Monster.” This book with a strange-sounding title attempts to answer some of the questions raised above. The author does not duck the hard questions, as indicated by the title. Also, we at ARS have an entire 10 hour course on the topic “Answering the Hard Questions.” You can get more information on our Apologetics Certificate program at the web site. I hope this will get you started. 

John Oakes