Number Fifty-One

Tealiberasophoterianistic Perspectives

Posts Tagged ‘Theology

The Biggest Problem: Red Herrings and the Problem of Evil

By Joey Phillips

 

This is going to be a decently long post. I would encourage you to skip it unless you have time to read the whole thing. If you skip it, I will understand. The reason I am writing this is two-fold.

  1. Whenever Christians in a public forum offer a biblical perspective on any given issue (political, social, cultural or otherwise) the most common response from those in disagreement is not a counterargument. The most common response is “How do believe that when the Bible also says _________? “ What most often fills that blank is some reference to severe laws for the Israelites, or God ordering the Israelites to wipe out other nations etc. This article, albeit indirectly, will address that issue. For the purposes of this blog, it will allow us to not have to rehash a response every time somebody throws a red herring about the horrors of the Bible into a discussion.
  2. Despite what I just said, my topic for today is the most intellectually compelling argument against Christianity, in my opinion, and as such, I wanted to throw out some thoughts to see what you guys think about how we should answer perhaps the most common objection to our worldview.

If I asked you what the biggest problem a Christian faces in defending the faith from a philosophical perspective, what would you say? Is the existence of God a difficult question? For many, yes, but philosophically there have been great answers to that question for a long time now.  Answers that atheists have never adequately addressed. (Yes I know Dawkins and the others would have a heart attack if he/they read this, but it really is true. If there is nothing eternal, there is no logical explanation as to why anything would exist. There has to be an eternal uncaused cause.  An eternal Being by definition is self-sufficient. Once you establish the existence of a self-sufficient, eternal Being, the atheists and agnostics have already lost.) Is big, bad, evolution a big problem for Christianity? Even if you buy into the whole of evolutionary theory, it isn’t a big obstacle to Christianity as long as the historicity of Adam is maintained. (See how easily I dismissed thousands of years of debate over the existence of God?)There are other big issues, of course, but I would argue the most challenging argument against Christianity is the Problem of Evil.[1] It is the most frequently used argument against Christianity, and when stated well, a response is difficult to find.

Stated in its basic form, the Problem of Evil is this: If God is omnipotent (all powerful) and benevolent (all good) then why does evil exist? Either God must not be all powerful (so he created and was unable to stop evil from occurring, but fights on the good side) or he is not all good. This argument is the root of most attacks on Christianity and the Bible, in my experience. Unbelievers know that if they can demonstrate the inconsistency of believing, in the midst of an evil world, that God is all powerful and all good, then the God of the Bible is unbelievable. That gives them an excuse for their unbelief. So whether the argument comes in the form of ‘How can you believe in a God that orders the killing of people…or a God that sends people to hell?’ or ‘I can’t believe in a God that would allow me to get cancer’, the underlying assumption is that an all-powerful and good God would not allow bad things to ever happen.  

That is a quick and dirty, basic, formulation of the problem. I want to get into it a bit more in depth than that. In most arguments, quick and dirty is the extent of the objection, and so an answer may need to be in kind. But the actual philosophical issue is as deep as it gets, because it gets at our understanding of the nature of God, ourselves, and reality. So I want to present a more thorough description of the problem. Fyodor Dostoyevsky presents the problem in an utterly thorough and searing way. The passage below is long, but powerful and I think it provides the necessary weight to this particular issue.

“But I’ve still better things about children. I’ve collected a great, great deal about Russian children, Alyosha. There was a little girl of five who was hated by her father and mother, ‘most worthy and respectable people, of good education and breeding.’ You see, I must repeat again, it is a peculiar characteristic of many people, this love of torturing children, and children only. To all other types of humanity these torturers behave mildly and benevolently, like cultivated and humane Europeans; but they are very fond of tormenting children, even fond of children themselves in that sense. It’s just their defenselessness that tempts the tormentor, just the angelic confidence of the child who has no refuge and no appeal, that sets his vile blood on fire. In every man, of course, a demon lies hidden — the demon of rage, the demon of lustful heat at the screams of the tortured victim, the demon of lawlessness let off the chain, the demon of diseases that follow on vice, gout, kidney disease, and so on.

“This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty — shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn’t ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child’s groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can’t even understand what’s done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child’s prayer to dear, kind God’! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I’ll leave off if you like.”

“Nevermind. I want to suffer too,” muttered Alyosha.

“One picture, only one more, because it’s so curious, so characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of Russian antiquities. I’ve forgotten the name. I must look it up. It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men — somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then — who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they’ve earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys — all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general’s favourite hound. ‘Why is my favourite dog lame?’ He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog’s paw. ‘So you did it.’ The general looked the child up and down. ‘Take him.’ He was taken — taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It’s a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry…. ‘Make him run,’ commands the general. ‘Run! run!’ shout the dog-boys. The boy runs…. ‘At him!’ yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother’s eyes!… I believe the general was afterwards declared incapable of administering his estates. Well — what did he deserve? To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!

“To be shot,” murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.

“Bravo!” cried Ivan delighted. “If even you say so… You’re a pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha Karamazov!”

“What I said was absurd, but-“

“That’s just the point, that ‘but’!” cried Ivan. “Let me tell you, novice, that the absurd is only too necessary on earth. The world stands on absurdities, and perhaps nothing would have come to pass in it without them. We know what we know!”

“What do you know?”

“I understand nothing,” Ivan went on, as though in delirium. “I don’t want to understand anything now. I want to stick to the fact. I made up my mind long ago not to understand. If I try to understand anything, I shall be false to the fact, and I have determined to stick to the fact.”

“Why are you trying me?” Alyosha cried, with sudden distress. “Will you say what you mean at last?”

“Of course, I will; that’s what I’ve been leading up to. You are dear to me, I don’t want to let you go, and I won’t give you up to your Zossima.”

Ivan for a minute was silent, his face became all at once very sad.

“Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows and finds its level — but that’s only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can’t consent to live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it? — I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair. Surely I haven’t suffered simply that I, my crimes and my sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them? That’s a question I can’t answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of questions, but I’ve only taken the children, because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers’ crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn’t grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: ‘Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.’ When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can’t accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child’s torturer, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ but I don’t want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It’s not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to ‘dear, kind God’! It’s not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don’t want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother’s heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don’t want harmony. From love for humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket.”

“That’s rebellion,” murmered Alyosha, looking down.

“Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that,” said Ivan earnestly. “One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature — that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance — and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”

“No, I wouldn’t consent,” said Alyosha softly.[2]

When I was a freshman in college taking my first philosophy course, this passage from The Brothers Karamazov was our reading assignment one day in class. The assignment was to read that passage, and then write a two paragraph response to this question: If you were a Christian, how would you respond to Ivan’s last question? I remember sitting there for 10 minutes, not having a clue how I could respond. First of all, I had never read or heard the problem of evil presented so powerfully, and the weight of what was being said was hitting me. Secondly, I couldn’t see a way around Alyosha’s response, but I knew it was the ‘wrong’ answer for a Christian. So I sat and didn’t write anything for awhile.

How would you respond? How do you answer someone who has been through, or is going through, incredible suffering and is asking why a good God would allow this? What do you feel if, like John Piper had to do, you walk up to a man sitting in the street looking at the tarp-covered body of his daughter who just slipped by him and into a street and was instantly killed, and he is just sitting there, staring blankly saying “I didn’t mean to. I didn’t mean to.”[3] Obviously you feel brokenhearted for him, but how do explain this reality in light of what we believe about God?

One of the more popular responses to the problem of evil among theists, is to turn the question back on those asking, and ask them how they even justify having a category for ‘evil’ apart a moral code established by the character of God. So the acknowledgement of evil becomes a problem for the atheist, not the believer. This is tricky of us, but of course it doesn’t actually address the problem.

The most popular response is the introduction of free will, and the scaling back of God’s sovereignty, which gives us the opportunity to say “God gave us the choice of whether there would be evil, and we chose evil. He created the potential for evil when he created being with free will, and that decision was best because otherwise we would have been robots. So he is not responsible for evil, he is simply responsible for giving us free will, and we bring the evil on ourselves.” I think this answer introduces an aspect of the correct answer (our responsibility in all this) but I think it fails on a couple levels. 1) Part of omnipotence is omniscience, so God knew what we were going to choose, knew the evil that was going to result, and created us anyway. So evil and suffering have always been in the plan of God. Ivan understood this, and his question to Alyosha reflects that. Unless omnipotence and omniscience are removed from the equation, introducing free will is only part of the answer. 2) In our efforts to defend God against the charge that He directly created evil, we need to be careful we don’t make him into a God of our own choosing. What I mean is, denying God’s omniscience or omnipotence is incompatible with Scripture, and while it would be convenient to say that God elected to curtail his own sovereignty in order to give us “genuine” freedom (which, again, is noble in its attempt to defend God), it simply isn’t an idea found in Scripture and creates all sorts of problems. Not the least of which would be that freedom of the type that releases us from the sovereign control of God’s plan would be simply trading in God’s sovereignty for the slavery to our own sin and the random chance of circumstances. If your perspective is that God’s sovereignty interferes with our freedom, then God would have to remove Himself from our lives for us to be truly free. This isn’t a path we want to go down.

So I think that the free will argument hits on part of the answer, but it’s typical formulation creates more problems and ultimately isn’t compatible with the God of the Bible. Another way of answering Ivan would be to dismiss the idea of evil as a positive reality at all, and say that evil is simply deprivation of good. Like darkness is simply an absence of light, so evil is absence of the good. In order for God to create anything, it would have to be other than himself, and the separateness from Him would necessarily create a deprivation of His complete goodness. So evil is not a problem for Christianity, it is a logical necessity based on the character of God and the nature of reality. Despite the appeal of this type of argument on paper, it is hard to translate in real life. Is the lord who set his dogs on the serf boy simply experiencing the natural lack that comes with his separation from the good, which is God? Or is he willfully exercising a positively evil will that counts his own amusement and petty, prideful vengeance as more important than the life of a small boy? The beauty of Dostoyevsky is his refusal to let us off the hook with an answer that doesn’t address the horror of sin. Evil isn’t (only) the deprivation of good. It is the corruption, and the willful destruction of good.

Another argument that uses the idea that evil is a logical necessity would be the Best Possible World argument. I won’t embarrass myself with much of a discussion of this argument in case Joe Anderson happens to read this. The basic idea is that because of the fact that God is all powerful and benevolent we know that he has created the best of all possible worlds, and so any sin or ‘evil’ contributes to this best possible world. This sort of thinking is exactly what Ivan was getting at with his question at the end of the passage I cited. “Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last” Imagine, in other words, you are creating a reality that ultimately is greatest thing imaginable. Because no one argues it’s best right now…no one tries to justify the problem of evil by saying “Evil, what is that? You are making up a problem that doesn’t exist.”[4] Always we are pointing to the bigger picture. The tapestry being woven by God whose beauty is dependent on the different colors of its threads; sorrow and joy, fall and redemption, sin and forgiveness, wrath and mercy, heaven and hell. All working towards a glorious conclusion where God’s ways are revealed and harmony is achieved. But Ivan’s question nags. Is it worth it? Is Alyosha simply wrong? How do we reconcile what the Bible says about God’s character, with His choice for the foundation of His glory to be built on a world full of suffering?

This is what I wrestled through that day in class. I scrambled for a reasonable Christian answer and was coming up empty. A minute or so before the class was going to end and I had to turn in a two paragraph answer, I thought about the most basic Christian answer to everything. Jesus. I immediately began writing. It wasn’t well written, and it wasn’t two paragraphs. I didn’t have time and I’m not that good a writer. But I remember what I said.

I could never answer Ivan’s question, because I am not God and cannot see the whole picture. However, I know that the God who chose to create a world in which evil and suffering exists is also the God that sent his own Son to take the worst of that evil on himself, to be tortured himself, to be ravaged himself, so we don’t have to experience the full effects of our sin and we can trust God for what we don’t understand.[5]                        

At home that night I didn’t sleep. It is the only night I can ever remember staying up all night in bed (not working or studying) and not sleeping. I knew my answer was partially right. I was just struggling to believe it. The problem of evil is the most difficult problem for Christianity because it is unanswerable. Only God knows and understands why evil is necessary. We know parts of the answer. We know that we can trust him because he is sovereign and he demonstrated His commitment to the destruction of evil at the expense of His own Son. We know we can’t approach the question as victims because we choose evil ourselves, and He never has. We know that God did not spare His own Son from the effects of evil, and so accusations of injustice are foolish.  

So although we can’t answer the question fully, we can answer it confidently. The funny thing about that class assignment was that the passage ended right before Dostoyevsky gave an answer. Very tricky of the Professor. Here is the part directly after our previous passage ended.

“And can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? And accepting it would remain happy for ever?”

“No, I can’t admit it. Brother,” said Alyosha suddenly, with flashing eyes, “you said just now, is there a being in the whole world who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? But there is a Being and He can forgive everything, all and for all, because He gave His innocent blood for all and everything. You have forgotten Him, and on Him is built the edifice, and it is to Him they cry aloud, ‘Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed!’

The next time you encounter someone who is struggling with the problem of evil, whether they are bitterly attacking your beliefs in a blog forum[6], or brokenheartedly questioning goodness of God at the hospital while a loved one dies…you may not have all the answers…but you have the only one that you, or anyone you ever meet will ever need. His name is Jesus.

 

 

 


[1] Obviously this whole section would need to be expanded if I was seriously trying to establish in this post why I think the problem of evil is the biggest problem. I would need to show how prevalent the argument has been historically (it’s all over the place). I would need to more thoroughly show why the existence of God is not a big problem philosophically. I would need to actually defend my statement that evolution isn’t really a big problem etc, etc. Suffice it to say I think I could defend this position if I needed to. Let me know if I need to.

[4] Well…idiots do that. We are talking about reasonable folks.

[5] My professor gave me back my sheet of paper the next class with a comment that it was the best Christian response he had ever gotten. I was very proud. Of course, I decided to major in Philosophy after that class…and never got that sort of compliment again.  

[6] Here is the tie-in to the comment I made at the beginning of the article. Though usually irrelevant to the actual topic at hand, the reason people throw out comments attacking the character of the Christian God so often is because they think that Christians don’t realize that the Bible portrays God as being extremely severe at times. And he is. The part that escapes them is that the Bible never shies away from that fact, because sin always deserves a severe and thoroughly wrathful response from God. The surprising thing shouldn’t be that God occasionally exercised judgment against rebellious people. The surprising thing should be that he, with great patience, endured the insolence of man and stood by His plan of redemption.  

Advertisements

Written by Jake Phillips

July 5, 2011 at 1:40 pm

Yes, NBC, I accept your apology

with 34 comments

To Whom It May Concern:

I am aware of a variety of responses that people had to your decision to omit the words “under God” from the pledge allegiance aired in your US Open telecast this past weekend. Some cheered. Some seethed. I took the moment to reflect on the great power of God and the utter ineptitude of any human attempt to ignore or deny him.

As you said in your apology, it was “regrettable” if not unintentional that these words were not included in the clip you aired. Although, I would venture to guess that we have different reasons or thinking this decision was regrettable.

I know that you probably view this apology as a necessary step you must take to appease the right-wing fanatics who actually care about God and the importance of faith in society. But I can say that while your antics are not new, novel or particularly effective, it did provide a great teaching moment on the ineptitude of your failed ideology, which I am grateful for.

Your biggest failure was not that you removed the words “under God” from the pledge. Your biggest failure was that you failed to see the irony and ineptitude of removing a reference to God from an introductory clip to a telecast of a golf tournament in which that God was so immanently involved and tangibly recognized. It was delightful for me to watch the birth of a star in Rory Mcilroy and to see the world universally recognize his God-given talent. It brought me great pleasure to hear a young man attribute his success to his (traditional) family and God’s gifts of a dedicated father and mother, and take the world’s stage as the best athlete the deeply religious country of Northern Ireland has to offer.

All of this transpired and was made evident without a mention of God. I’m actually glad Mcilroy did this without saying Jesus’ name because it proves my point that not mentioning God does nothing to disprove him. Our nation, and the entire world, is under God whether we acknowledge it or not, just as young Mcilroy’s talents are a gift from God whether he mentions that fact or not.

I do feel a sense of empathy for NBC, knowing that as far as sports go, golf is probably the hardest one to remove God from. Anyone walking that course, witnessing the breathtaking beauty of the nature around them came away with a sense of God that “The Decision” to remove him from the pledge could not suppress. Natural law is a tough one to overcome, isn’t it?

As I mentioned earlier, there is nothing particularly novel about the approach. People have been failing in this way for centuries, dating back to the time when my faith was born. It wasn’t just the founding fathers of our country that believed the existence and immanence of God was “self-evident”. This is actually a cardinal teaching of the Christian faith as well.

“For what can be known about God is plain…his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:29-20).

So thank you, NBC, for proving the point you sought to deny. That beautiful clip you kept showing of the island green out on that serene lake said it all. Your regrettable decision on the pledge aside, anyone who saw the beauty of that single clip knows everything they need to know about God and has no excuse not to believe in him.

No harm done.

– Jesse Phillips

Written by Jesse Phillips

June 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

Gambling, Politics and Theology

with 11 comments

By Joey Phillips 

I have gotten into a couple semi-debates recently regarding gambling. I wouldn’t call them real arguments because I haven’t firmed up my understanding of the issues, and hence don’t have a fully formed opinion/conviction regarding gambling. There are several different aspects of this discussion, and I can’t tackle them all on one post (plus, there are a couple of red herrings that folks try and throw out there that I want to avoid). So let me say a couple things up front.

  1. Poker is gambling. Many people try and argue that it is not really gambling because it is a game of skill, not chance primarily. I’m going to ignore that silly argument, since it is akin to saying that Golf is not a sport because you don’t have teammates. Poker fits every definition of gambling that has ever been put in a dictionary. I know because I checked every single dictionary in the world.
  2.  Just because something (like, say…investing) involves risk, it doesn’t make that thing gambling. Putting something valuable at stake (risk) is an aspect of gambling, but it’s not the only thing that makes something gambling.

I am just going to define gambling, real quick so that it diffuses some of the arguments Alex will try to bring up later…and I am going to post links to a series of blog posts by Phil Johnson on the topic, since he dealt with most of these issues and I am borrowing his specific definition of gambling.

To gamble is to wager on a contest or play in a game of chance for stakes. When you gamble, you are risking something valuable on the outcome of something that involves chance, uncertainty, or hazard, for the possibility of winning something somebody else has put up as a stake. So there are four elements of gambling. 1) Something valuable is put at risk. 2) Something belonging to someone else is put up as a prize. 3) An element of chance is involved in the outcome. 4) No new wealth is created in the process.

Ok so now that we have gotten that out of the way, I have two questions I want to ask and then talk about:

Is gambling immoral?

Should it be illegal?

I think the question of the morality, or immorality, of gambling is separate from the question of whether it should be legal. Plenty of things are immoral that are not illegal and vice versa. Let’s start with some arguments for why gambling should be considered immoral.

  1. Gambling is addictive – This is a common aspect of gambling that is brought up to argue both that it is immoral and that it should be illegal. Similar to arguments about smoking, the idea is that any activity that is addicting, and potentially dangerous (physically in the case of smoking, and monetarily/emotionally in the case of gambling) has to be immoral.
  2. Gambling violates a number of biblical principles – see the links at the end of this article for Phil Johnson’s extensive treatment of this issue. I will be talking about this in a minute, and it will help if you have read at least a couple of those articles to become familiar with his arguments.
  3.  Where there is gambling, other vices abound – It is argued that crime rate rises wherever gambling is legalized, therefore it must be immoral.

So those are the main arguments. I would argue that gambling can be very immoral. I don’t think many people would argue with that. Someone could gamble selfishly, foolishly, lazily, or cruelly. Someone could play football all of those ways too. The question is in regards to its inherent nature. Is gambling inherently immoral, like adultery or murder or covetousness?

I don’t think the addiction argument works for determining the inherent sinfulness, or immorality of gambling simply because it is not universally addictive. It is estimated that 2 to 5 percent of people who gamble socially can be considered “addicted.” (See medicinenet.com for an article on this). While this is a lot of people…millions in the US…it clearly isn’t addictive for everyone. In other words, being addictive is not an inherent aspect of gambling. I also think the guilt by association argument is weak. It is clearly built on a logical fallacy, and there are any number of reasons why crime rate is higher in the same areas you find gambling. (I haven’t actually seen a study that proves this, but I believe it’s true, simply because gambling is legal in places like, oh, SIN CITY.)

The strongest argument that gambling is inherently immoral comes from argument that it violates biblical principles. Is gambling, by definition, covetous? Is gambling, by definition, a lack of charity? Etc. I have read Phil Johnson’s arguments and find them very compelling. Enough so, that I would say that gambling is sin the vast majority of the time. I still am not convinced that it is inherently sinful though, for a couple of reasons.

First, each principle that is typically violated in gambling doesn’t have to be. Trying to win your neighbors money in a game of chance is usually going to be covetous. But $2 over the course of a night? Can you play a game of poker and your motives be purely to have fun, fellowship, and entertainment? I think so. I think the amount of money you are playing for probably reveals what is going on in your heart. If the game can only by fun if the payoff is large then it’s likely you are coveting your neighbor’s possessions, or the thrill of the risk involved is important enough to you that taking a portion of your neighbor’s income to feed that rush is no big deal. Gambling is typically trying to win money without working for it. For most people, this is why it is fun…the possibility of quick, unearned cash. But again, it doesn’t have to be. Again, if poker is only fun when the stakes are high then laziness and trying to get money without working for it is probably the motive. If money is simply what is being used so people will play for real, and the payoff is not large…then it is possible for motives to be pure. The larger the amount of money involved, the more difficult to argue that biblical principles are not being violated.

So in sum, I would argue that gambling is not inherently immoral, it is just a tool that easily lends itself to sin, so a lot of wisdom is needed in its use.  This post is long enough…I’ll wait on talking about the argument regarding legality till next time.

Links to Phil Johnson’s posts:

 

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-gambling-ok-dont-bet-on-it.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/gambling-some-definitions-and.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/answering-couple-of-objections.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/oh-and-one-more-thing.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/gambling-vs-faithful-stewardship.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-mutual-consent-eliminate-evil-in.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/good-question.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/sin-of-putting-god-to-test.html

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/gambling-moral-antithesis-of-charity.html

Written by Jake Phillips

June 17, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

Atonement, Peter Abelard, and the Moral Influence Theory

with one comment

 

By Jake Phillips

 

We are taking a diversion from politics into theology in this post, and, although I possess no qualifications to do so, I am addressing an issue of some importance to today’s Christian, especially those attending college, or those who engage in any circle wider than a Reformed church.  With that run-on sentence finally over, let’s address that issue, which involves the Moral Influence theory of the atonement.

 

Reductionistically speaking, the Moral Influence theory was invented (or taught, depending on your perspective) by Peter Abelard in the 11th century.  Abelard was responding to the Satisfaction Theory of the atonement (which St. Anselm had articulated.)  Abelard postulated that the main point of Jesus’s atonement was to bring positive, moral change to the world.  He believed that the fact that Jesus died because of our sins would cause people to re-evaluate their own lives and seek to live like Christ.  (Trust me, I know that my explanation is woefully short, and does not do Abelard justice.  There have been books written on the subject.  But that’s the basic idea.)  Some historians have argued that this was actually the view of the early church fathers, but this is not strictly accurate.  The early church father’s certainly had elements of the theory in their writings (because elements of the theory are found in the Bible), and thus some revisionists historians have tried to legitimize the theory by pretending that the church father’s did not also teach some form of Ransom theory, Christus Victor, and Penal Substitution. 

 

Many modern, Emergent theologians claim to ascribe to the Moral Influence theory of the atonement.  My contention is that they do not actually believe this theory, or hold to it.  Claiming to ascribe to it is a clever thing for them to do, because it allows them to argue their position, while you, or your Reformed friend, are busy arguing against the Moral Influence theory, instead of what their argument actually is.  The problem that they should have to face, and what we should force them to face, is that Abelard, and a true believer in this theory, believed that we really do sin.  And Jesus really did die and rose again, and he had to die because of sin (if we continue down this road, we disprove the theory itself.  But that’s for another post.  And it’s probably Joey’s job, anyways.)  Abelard would not have claimed that Jesus did not actually die.  He just didn’t think Jesus had to die because of something owed either God or the Devil.  (I’ve not had a run-on sentence, invented a word, and written a double negative.  I’m on fire.)  Modern liberal theologians, for the most part, don’t believe Jesus actually died and rose again.  This is a problem, because it means that they don’t actual believe in the atonement, and thus cannot intellectually honestly say that they believe any theory about the atonement, unless it is a theory that the atonement doesn’t exist, and never happened.

 

Instead of arguing against the Moral Influence theory as we normally would, my contention is that we need to include a fifth popular view of the atonement, call it the Non-Atonement Theory, and decide that if we are arguing against a liberal Christian (theologically liberal, not politically liberal) they probably believe in the Non-Atonement Theory.  Don’t let them pretend to be fans of Abelard.  Don’t let them bring up the Moral Influence Theory, and, if they do, tell them how happy you are to know that they believe Jesus literally died and rose again.

Written by Jake Phillips

June 15, 2011 at 7:43 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with ,