Knowing Enough

Just returned from a debate at the Oxford Union between Professor William Lane Craig and Professor A. C. Grayling. Famous Christian theologian/philosopher vs. famous atheist philosopher on "Does belief in God make sense in spite of tsunamis?" It was thoroughly enjoyable and provided much food for thought.

Prof Craig went through the logical problem of evil and the probabilistic problem evil - the two main formulations which dominated the academic literature. There was even a handout laying out both arguments with premisses and conclusions and assumptions and rebuttals. (You will be glad to know that I won't be getting into specifics here)

To cut a long, complicated, often times quite intense debate short - If God is ominpotent and omnibenevolent, why does he create a world in which there is evil and suffering?

Prof Craig argued that the existence of free will meant that any possible world with free creatures would contain sin and evil. If we are all given the ability to choose, we all choose differently and some choose better than others. God is omnipotent, but that means that he can do all logically possible things. He cannot make a square round, or make someone freely do something - these things are logically impossible.

And so it is quite conceivable that the existence of both evil and God is not a contradiction.

I think it's quite apparent to most of us that a lot of the bad stuff that goes on in the world is a product of human choice - from the exploitative institutions that we create (just ask the Marxists), to the wars we fight, to the hurt that we cause the people in our lives.

But the question still remains - what about the exceptions of accidents and natural disasters? Prof Grayling argued that it was inconceivable that any loving God would cause such pain.

Prof Craig argued that it is possible to argue that God has morally sufficient reasons, reasons that do not have to be apparent to us, in allowing suffering in the world (even tsunamis). That it is all part of his providence, over the course of all human history, to build his kingdom by drawing as many people into it as will freely choose.

He spoke about the million contingencies in every moment - how could we possibly know which actions will achieve the best outcome overall, in the long run, over the course of all of human existence? Only God knows. And he holds all of history in his hands.

Prof Grayling said that whenever he spoke to people of faith he always had the problem of them saying that they know something which they claim to be the whole truth, but that they do not know these other things.

Prof Craig had pointed out the limitations of human cognitive abilities and how we simply would not be able to fully understand all the details of God's plans, and how great suffering could be a part of it. For how could the finite completely reach the infinite?

Prof Grayling then retorted by quoting Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, saying that we have enough light in our minds with which the fathom the world.

At this point alarm bells went off in my head because I've read Locke and that is not what he says.

In the Introduction, section 5. "For, though the comprehension of our understandings comes exceeding short of the vast extent of things; yet we shall have cause enough to magnify the bountiful Author of our being... How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments, that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties."

"Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life, and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery the comfortable provision for this life, and the Way that leads to a better."

Locke is arguing that the light that we have in us, which is given to us by our Maker, is sufficient for our understanding of the things that we need to know. There are things that we shall never fully understand, like how exactly grave suffering fits into God's plans, but we know enough to have faith. Knowing God through the reading of Scripture, knowing God through his presence and his continuing work in our lives - that is enough.

Prof Craig pointed out that for most people the problem with suffering is more emotional than intellectual. And yet the Bible tells us of the God who shares our suffering in the person of Jesus Christ. Him, who was wholly innocent, but who was prepared to endure death on the cross and the sufferings of hell itself, so as to bear the sins of the whole world, so as to die in our place that we might have eternal life.

God isn't distant or remote, especially in suffering, for he suffered for us and he suffers alongside us still. In our darkest moments, it is his presence that comforts us and his love that gives us light.

Not only did Grayling twist Locke's words, Locke's very words can actually be used against him. Yes, we know enough to know. We know enough to have faith.

I wanted to raise my hand and point this out during the Q&A session, but I didn't. I guess nerves must have gotten the better of me. It would be quite funny (and slightly intimidating), telling Grayling that he didn't read Locke properly, especially since he wrote quite a few of the books on our philosophy reading lists. Even so, that doesn't make him right.

I don't know everything. But I know enough to believe that what I know is true.

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." - John 8:12