- God is cruel for creating all things while allowing suffering and designating individuals for Hell; and,
- Individuals claiming to follow or represent God commit atrocities.
Responding to the first posit, Lennox also plays the "cruelty" card. Atheism permits only the impersonal forces of material interactions. For Lennox, the random forces of chance are cruel in rendering all things meaningless and worthless: you are just a combination of programmed responses to physical stimuli and chemical reactions. As for the second, Lennox points out that, logically, a purely atheistic system precludes any objective morality, thus the system is permissive of atrocities. He keenly points out that, yes, people identifying as Christians have committed atrocities but this is in violation of Christianity; whereas, atheists commit atrocities without violating atheism. The amoral atheistic system results in an endgame where Might does make Right; the fittest do survive; and Nietzsche's Übermensch–a superior race–should dominate. The fallacy in Hitchens' worldview then, is the absence of objective goodness, which if Hitchens is to remain consistent, he could not deign something or someone as "not great"–as his book title proposes. In this debate Hitchens partially concedes this lack of objective morality in Atheism, but he still admits that he still thinks morality does exist.
What is considered cruel then? For both individuals, cruelty takes on forms of determinism. Hitchens essentially asks: If God is [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, good and loving], does He orchestrate the entire composition and circumstances of an individual, knowing full well that this very person is thus fated to commit evil, reject God, and be sentenced to Hell? Is one unavoidably faced with harm and folly? Does God orchestrate the suffering of millions over time? Such questions address the problem of evil and destiny that any worldviews should attempt to answer.
Lennox counters by portraying the cruel determinism of atheism. Under such a system we are irrevocably compelled to act and behave because we as electrochemical-soup-sacks are all "dancing to our DNA" (quoting Richard Dawkins). No matter how terrible our actions or their consequences, everything and everyone is just moving, colliding, and drifting for no reason at all. Disaster strikes, suffering happens without any explanation. Life is meaningless. Atheism doesn't allow you to "make your own meaning" because you're just fooling yourself.
Coming from a Christian background, I propose the overlooked characteristic in [blue list] is that God is also just. If God's measure of goodness is perfection then His measure far exceeding human standards. Bring justice in and everyone is left guilty and at fault with God. Does this then remove choice and free will? Not necessarily, a choice is to be had but the reward and consequence are in stark contrast: eternity with God or eternity separated from God. Is such an opportunity to choose even offered? According to the Christian worldview, the Book of Acts shows that, "Yes," this is the offer:
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. -Acts 17:26-27
Such questions seem much more critical than the question of origin (creation-evolution debate). It is ironic then that Hitchens claims solace only in science but directs his efforts at philosophical issues removed from science. My minor gripe for Lennox is that he states that God bestowed on humans "infinite value." Yes, we cannot put a price on human life, but are humans of infinite value? Wouldn't that warrant redeeming everyone? By Lennox not providing further justification, I believe he actually meant intrinsic value.
No comments:
Post a Comment