No, I'm not going to rebut every comment, I do not have the time. There was one particularly striking comment, however. There were many comments on the "problem of suffering," as, in the article, John Lennox made the statement that "science does not resolve the problem of suffering." While several people made the false statement that the problem of suffering "causes problems" for religions (while hey, maybe it does for some, but not Christianity), someone made the declarative statement that science does not have a problem of suffering.
This is possibly a misunderstanding as to what the problem of suffering actually means. See, the "argument from suffering," is often used against religion and God, and it usually goes something like this:
An all-loving God wouldn't allow suffering, therefore God is not all-loving. Therefore God is [not who He says He is]/[not worth worshipping]/[fill in your atheist conclusions here].
The problem of suffering is not the argument from suffering. The problem of suffering is: why is there suffering? What is the purpose of suffering? What can we do about suffering? It's not a method of argumentation, it is quite literally a problem. It is a problem like a flooded basement is a problem. It's an issue in life that needs solving. Suffering as a problem is resolved by Christianity, suffering as a problem is left unresolved by pure naturalism.
While answering the argument from suffering would be very lengthy, I'll summarize it quickly with some key points.
The Christian worldview states that this world is temporary. Our decision to follow Christ or not in this life will ultimately decide our eternal fate. Choosing to follow God and accept Jesus' sacrifice for us will allow us to spend eternity with Him, while denying God will end in our separation from Him. Therefore, anything that happens in this incredibly short life has the ultimate purpose of helping us make our decision to accept Christ or not. If suffering leads us to Christ, then it is for ultimate good.
Furthermore, we have free will in this world. This world is broken from sin and we can choose to sin. Sin leads to destruction, and ultimately, suffering. God will not stop us from making our free decision to follow Him or not because love, by definition, must be freely given. If we were forced to love God, it would not truly be love. Therefore, God will not impede upon our free choice to love Him or not. He therefore will not impede upon our free will. If God were to "stop suffering," He would impede upon our free will, as the decision to murder, rape, or torture is a free choice. God does not break His own standards.
As quick and to the point as I could get it, there are some answers to the "problem of suffering" from a Christian worldview. We suffer because we are in a broken world, suffering has the purpose of helping lead us to God and an eternity with Him, and, briefly, we can't really do anything about suffering - God will take care of it when His plan is finished, as He will ultimately banish sin to Hell. There is far more - very long books have been written about this subject - but this isn't the point of this writing.
So, sure, there is no "argument from suffering," to make against "science" or, more correctly named, naturalism. Naturalism says that there is suffering because there is suffering. No one caused it, no one is at fault, no one is doing it on purpose, no one is allowing or disallowing it. It just is. You can't argue that science is not just or all-loving because of suffering, that would be nonsense. So, yes, there is no "argument from suffering," for science. The problem of suffering still exists, as it always would. Nothing about science makes the problem of suffering simply... go away. It still needs to be answered. John Lennox has correctly stated that science has not solved the problem of suffering.
John Lennox is not attempting to make an argument from suffering against science, he is saying specifically that scientific advancement, scientific methods, science as a field of study, and science as a concept does not resolve the problem of suffering. That problem again being, why do we suffer, for what purpose, and what can we do about it?
The commenter further states that "science has done far more to alleviate suffering than religion has."
So, moving forward, why does science fail to resolve the problem of suffering and has science really done anything worthwhile to alleviate suffering?
The problem of suffering, as told by naturalism:
Why do we suffer?
We suffer because there is suffering.
What is the purpose of suffering?
There is no purpose for suffering.
What can we do about suffering?
Learn about the root causes of suffering and attempt to cure, stop, or bring relief to those suffering temporarily.
Do these answers resolve suffering? If you said yes, you may be naive.
There is no resolution here. We suffer because there is suffering, there is no purpose to it. We can do nothing but simply attempt to medicate it away. These answers are incredibly unsatisfactory - based on these answers, suffering is an unstoppable and uncontrollable problem that absolutely no one understands or can explain. This is a position of hopelessness.
The problem of suffering doesn't go away just because you gave it vague and unsatisfying answers. If your house was being foreclosed on and you asked why, but were told "because that's the way things are," that would be quite unsatisfactory. The problem of having your house foreclosed on still exists - the answer was useless and it did nothing to resolve the problem. You have been given no explanation, no reasoning, and no alternatives. Christianity gives these things - it explains why there is suffering, what the purpose is behind it, and the ultimate resolution for - and alternative to - suffering. Naturalism does not. It simply states "it is what it is, get used to it, and then die."
So, yes, naturalism certainly has a problem of suffering. If you don't believe it does, ask someone to punch you in the face and see how that goes for you. Furthering that, it also lacks a resolution to suffering. If you think it has a resolution to suffering, let me know if that resolution is anything other than death. Ironically, death without Jesus will still lead to suffering. A devotion to naturalism ultimately leads to eternal suffering, so we could argue further that naturalism actually enables suffering.
As for the alleviation of suffering, has science - or, naturalism - done anything for that?
Yes, the advancement of science has alleviated suffering. Naturalism, however, has not. Scientism and belief in naturalism has not alleviated suffering. If your intentions in proclaiming that science has alleviated suffering is to somehow assume that because of this, religion has fallen short, that is a misclassification. Science is not at odds with religion. If God created the heavens and the earth, then He created all of the things that science is based off - therefore, using scientific advancement to alleviate suffering is not outside of the realm of God's design. The early churches established places of higher learning - the early philosophers were pushed specifically by their faith in God to learn more about His creation. Our modern day universities were established by those of religious faith - they were originally religious organizations. This modern day belief of science vs. religion is a farce.
So what are we left with? The realization that not only does naturalism not resolve suffering, but if Christianity is true, then devotion to naturalism will ultimately lead one to eternal suffering. God has given us tools to alleviate suffering in this world, but He will ultimately deal with suffering, giving us our resolution.
Not only does the argument from suffering not do anything to disprove or discredit God, but suffering without God is actually hell. That is, in fact, what hell is. Hopelessness. Suffering and hopelessness.
No comments:
Post a Comment