Blogs For Victory

You know, so that we can, for once, tackle a non-controversial subject here at Blogs for Victory? Well, then, lets have at it with Michael Novak’s piece over at First Things:

Let’s suppose there is no God. The same evils still exist. Are atheists suggesting that the nonexistence of God and the existence of evil fit neatly together in a logical argument? That, if little children, beaten into submission, sob in the night, it is somehow a telling argument for atheism?

Christopher Hitchens has argued that before our time human beings suffered 98,000 years of disease, cataclysm, bloodshed, and famine without intervention by any Creator. If a human creator had deliberately chosen to put hundreds of millions of his fellow humans in such a parlous state, he would be regarded as a monster. It follows that if God willed that long, bleak, agonizing history, God in his omniscience and omnipotence is an even greater monster.

Could it possibly improve things to believe that the long pain of human evolution was set in motion by chance alone? The atheist view of the world is actually rather bleaker than that of Jews and Christians: Suffering under the weight of evil is meaningless, and so is any struggle against evil. Everything in the atheist’s world begins and ends in randomness and chance…

…St. Thomas Aquinas posited the striking thought that for this world to be as good as it is, the existence of evil is necessary. Evil is not a “thing”—no substantial thing at all. Against the Muslims, Aquinas flatly rejected the centuries of Eastern philosophy that divided the world into good and evil, as if they were equal contestants, equally substantial and active and potent.

Not so, Aquinas reasoned. Everything that the Greatest of all Goods has created is suffused with good up to the brim of its capacity. But for the world as a whole to be good, it must be populated by the most beautiful and god-like creatures of all—creatures capable of insight and deliberate choice. It requires the liberty of human minds and wills. Only at this peak of nature can human creation be considered made in the “image of God.”

The Jewish Creator offered every woman and man in his creation his friendship, and in this way treated each as a free person, not as a slave. Such human liberty required God to create a world in which human beings can of their own deliberate choice turn away from the good. This is how Aquinas defined human sin: a considered and willful deviation from the good, an absence of the good, a deficiency.

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. The leaders of the Anglo-American Enlightenment believed that liberty was God’s underlying purpose in creating human beings, and in shaping the rest of creation accordingly. They believed that in the war between the Americans and the British in 1776, though both worshiped the same God, the God of liberty would favor those who fought for freedom, not against it.

A world in which liberty can flower must be a world of laws, regularities, and probabilities, but also a world of contingency, happenstance, serendipity, surprise, and suspense. All the stuff of a good story depends on creation being not just a world of iron logic and inflexible arithmetic, but also a world of immense crisscrossing variation and “blooming, buzzing profusion.”

Even the “angelic” light of advanced mathematics (so highly abstract and removed from corporeality) must in a world of liberty be constituted not only by arithmetic, geometry, and deductive reasoning, but also by the statistically random.

In such a world, there cannot be human freedom without the possibility of falling away from the good.

C.S. Lewis observed that God made a world in which the wood from a tree could be used to build a house – or to make a club. Now, God could have set things up so that as soon as someone made a club the material would transform into something which could do no harm…but that, of course, would be to deny us our choice. If we can’t choose to do wrong, then we have no choice at all, and God wants our choice to be voluntary. He’ll take us in if we choose him, and he’ll ratify our choice if we reject him. To say that because there is evil in the world there must be no God is to presume that the only good world is a world in which we’re all automatons doing what we’re programmed to do. As to why God made us this way rather than another way – well, he says it is good, and I’m not going to gainsay God.

To me, the logic of there being a God (outside of the unanswerable argument of there necessarily being a First Cause) rests upon the fact that I can think – that I can reason. No amount of materialist evolution would ever come up with an evolutionary product which could refuse its office. We can choose – we can decide to this, or decide to do that. And while we know what our brain is and a great deal of how it works, we haven’t the foggiest notion or what our mind is or how a thought is generated. You can tell what parts of my brain are working when I think of, say, the football game – but you can’t in the trial of a thousand years figure out why I think the Chargers are better than the Patriots, last year’s records be darned. Itis mind which doesn’t fit into the natural world – and so, in my view, mind must come from outside the natural world (as a side note, I recently read an interesting question: The Universe is expanding. What is it expanding in to?…if the universe is complete and yet growing larger, there must be something outside the universe, greater than it, which allows the universe to grow larger).

Take a First Cause and add a Mind, and what you get is a God who not only creates, but who can act in his creation..alter it and move it towards the goals he designed from the start. While such a belief does not, in and of itself, verify my Christian faith, it does leave aside any thought that we are either the result of random chance, or the result of an uncaring Creator.