In a discussion about Katrina, a commenter alluded to the age-old question, how could a powerful and good God have allowed so much suffering? Before we can credibly explore that question, we have to confront a preliminary topic.
We can’t very well say that God allows suffering unless we’re confident that he could have acted to prevent it. But Christianity and other religions haven’t done a good job of explaining (at least not plausibly) how God might intervene in the world. There seems to be a spectrum of belief:
- At one extreme is hard-core deism: God supposedly set the universe in motion like a wind-up toy, and has been more or less letting it run by itself ever since. In theory, this view absolves God, at least to a certain extent, of any moral responsibility for suffering. .
- At another extreme is hard-core theism: Everything that happens in this world
results from God somehow pushing buttons, pulling levers, and otherwise manipulating his creation to make it so. A lot of Christians seem to believe this; every time something good or bad happens, they attribute it to God’s action, or at least to his will. - Then there are the folks who doubt God’s omnipotence and question whether he even has the power to intervene in the world in the way we might wish he would. Political and social commentator Gregg Easterbrook addresses this question in his intriguing book, Beside Still Waters.
Unfortunately, too many otherwise-faithful Christians assert beliefs like this without ever asking whether those beliefs are supported by evidence — the revelation of what God (by hypothesis) has actually done, as distinct from we wish, or hope, he has done.
Leave a Reply