Samson a Terrorist?

A recent caller to Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show asked if it was ever okay to commit suicide in order to kill your enemies.  He then went on to draw comparisons between Samson and the 9/11 hijackers.  Such an argument can deliver much rhetorical force.  Indeed there are several similarities between Samson and the hijackers.  First, they both prayed before the onset of their actions.  Both took actions knowing that their deaths were certain.  Both killed around 3,000 people with their actions.  Yet Samson is viewed as a hero while the hijackers are viewed as villains.  What gives?  Is this a case of a double standard?

The weakness of the above line of reasoning is common.  In fact, many make the same mistake when comparing the religions of the world.  They assume that if a few things, people, or systems have some commonality then they are basically the same.  All too often, however, a vast gulf of differences divides the things, people, or systems being compared in spite of the similarities.  It is the differences that count.

In the case of Samson, his nation was at open war with the Philistines.  He was a prisoner of that war.  He was already tortured (in the real sense—not how we use that word today) by having his eyes burned out.  The men and women who were killed were his captors and his open enemies.  Samson’s actions were therefore justified.  In fact, they would fall in line with Code of Conduct used by men and women of the armed forces today.

On the other hand, the hijackers were not at open war with America.  They were not captives but free men.  They had not be tortured or wronged.  The men and women they murdered were innocent civilians.  There can be no justification for their actions.

Do not be deceived by a few similarities.  It is the differences that count!

Post Script:  One must be careful while reading the Bible not to turn a descriptive passage into a prescriptive passage.  Whether it is ultimately right to pray for God's help during a "suicide mission" isn't answered by the account of Samson in the book of Judges.  This account simply describes what happened.

"Good" Nontheists?

A new advertising campaign by the Coalition of Reason (CoR) began recently in Little Rock.   These ads are a part of a nationwide campaign that has used the same and similar ads on buses and billboards across America.  The Little Rock ad asks, “Are you good without God? Millions are.”  The statement seems simple enough on the first read, but clarity is needed.  What is meant by the phrase “without God”?  It is possible that CoR uses this phrase to convey “without a belief in God who does actually exist”.  It is doubtful, however, that this interpretation is correct.  “Without the existence of God” is more likely what is intended.  If that is the case, then further questions need to be asked.  What does CoR mean by “good”?  Who gets to decide what is “good” and what is “bad”?  Their website (accessed on 12 October 2011) states that the ad campaign’s purpose is simply to make those of a nontheist* persuasion aware that there are others of like mind in their area.  If this was truly the only purpose for the campaign, one must ask why they do not simply use another version of their ads that states “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.”  The use of the Little Rock version indicates that CoR is also attempting to make a statement to the general public.  CoR’s ad is making the claim that nontheists abide by a recognized standard of ethics.  In order for this to mean anything worth saying, this recognized standard must be substantive, not merely a changeable standard of preference.

Evil: An ongoing problem. Part 5 of ??

In my last blog I discussed the origin of evil, but the following questions may still be asked.  Why does God allow evil to persist?  Couldn't He just stamp it out?  Again I'm going to subdivide persistent evil into two categories.  Most philosophers lump pain and suffering in with evil.  I'm going to treat them as a separate category.  I'm specifically referring to pain and suffering as a result of a lack of food or water, disease, stubbing your toe, getting sunburned, etc.  The second category will consist of your run of the mill evil acts (which also bring about some level of pain and suffering).

Evil: Just Desserts. Part 4 of ??

I've made the point in my previous blogs that the problem of evil can only be assessed by theists as evil points to a standard which points to a standard giver.  So while the problem of evil may exist for atheists, their world view does not give them the resources to required to wade into the problem.  That makes this problem an "in house" problem.
So, what do we who are "in the house" do about this problem?  How do Christians deal with evil and suffering?  I'd like to split this into two topics.  The first is the origin of evil; the second the persistence of evil.  Let's start with the origin of evil as I think that is the most difficult hurdle.

Evil-o, Evil-o! Wherefore art thou Evil-o? Part 3 of ??

So, what is evil? Where did it come from? Did God allow evil to exists? Could He have stopped evil from existing? What makes rape wrong and telling the truth right?

I heard Ravi Zacharias on his radio broadcast define evil as the absence of good resulting in a violation of God's purpose. I rather like this definition. But, before we delve into the opening questions or define evil further, let's review syllogisms. I'm sure you heard this one:

P1) All men are mortal.
P2) Socrates is a man.
C) Socrates is mortal.

For a syllogism to be meaningful it has to fulfill two conditions. First it must be logically consistent. In other words, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. Second, the premises must be true. If these two conditions are met, then we are forced to take the conclusion. Looking over the above syllogism, we note that it seems to both have logical consistency and true premises. Let's test this out by playing a little switch-a-roo:

Evil: What's Your Problem? Part 2 of ??

So for my second post on evil, I'm still leaving the matter proper alone. I want to point out another flaw in the challenge. Remember that the typical challenge goes something like this: "God cannot be both loving and all powerful since evil exists". This is the philosophically correct challenge. But you may run into this version of the challenge as well: "I cannot believe in God because there is so much evil in the world." I want to point out how this challenge is flawed at the get go.

Many things have a parent child relationship in our world: Tree, fruit/seed; Mother and Father, child; Parent Node, child node (computer science); etc. This holds true for good and evil. The only way we can have evil is to have a standard which one breaks. This standard can be referred to as "good".

Evil: What are you trying to prove? Part 1 of ??

Hey, I decided to get back to blogging. (Okay, I'm a sprinter not a marathoner!) I have great intentions, but it may be a year or five before I post again--you never know.

Anyways, I wanted to talk about evil. If you've taken a philosophy class or been in on the giving or receiving side of an argument about evil, you'll be familiar with the following challenge.

"How can an all powerful and loving God exist if there is evil in the world?"

While there are several aspects to the question that need to be addressed, I don't want to speak to all of them in one post (hence the "Part 1 of ??"). For this post, I want to look at what can be proven with the above challenge.

So at first, let's assume that the challenger's argument succeeds for the sake of discussion. Let's agree that God cannot be both all powerful and loving since there is evil in the world. Granting this, we see three options that remain to us. First, God could be loving but not all powerful, wishing He could remove evil. Second, God could be all powerful but not loving, being okay with some evil. Third, God could be neither all powerful nor loving.

While none of these options bode well with the Christian, what has the challenger actually proven? Certainly not that there is no God. Indeed, how the Christian understands God would have to change. But in no way has the existence of God been disproven.