I've noticed that for
some people commenting on social media is a lot like driving in a car alone.
Certain drivers do things like pick their nose they would never do in polite
company. It isn't that they don't know their vehicle's windows allow others to
see inside as much as they can see outside. They simply feel protected and they
haven't given their actions a second thought.
Similarly, people will say
things online that are not thought out seeking to prove a point. One such
statement was a conversation I witnessed on Twitter yesterday where a couple of
atheists were making claims about how God couldn't exist. Their arguments were
pretty pedestrian to begin with, but then they devolved to this:
So, let's take stock of what just happened here. All parties seem to know
that children in areas across the globe are suffering. (The tweets seem to
conflate children starving with suffering from certain medical maladies, two
separate questions.) Given that they are accusing God of being silent, they seem
to believe this situation is wrong and it needs to be rectified.
The
question of why does God allow suffering is one with a long history. I've
written about why God
doesn't suppress all evil, Explained
why evil must exist if we are to be loving creatures, and gone into longer
answers on the problem of evil
here and
here.
Of course when these atheists point out children suffering as wrong, they are
themselves appealing to that which
points to God's existence. But that isn't what bothered me.
Why Not Applaud the People Reducing Suffering?
What bothered me was the callous way these suffering people were being pointed to and how those pointing seemed to feel that it is God's fault and responsibility to do something about it. I don't think these commenters are really that concerned with the plight of
those suffering. In the conversation they distance themselves from what's really
going on, using and confusing the starvation of real human beings as a chip in
their self-congratulatory position that God does not exist.
For example, when a
Christian countered that Christians are actually on the ground feeding thousands
starving in the poorest parts of the world, he received these responses:
Really? Instead of applauding that someone is trying to do the right thing,
they turn and criticize God for not doing more? Of course wanting God to come in
like some cosmic genie and clean up the mess that human beings have made in
allowing their fellow man to suffer is a pretty easy out; it requires no work on
the part of these Twitter commenters. Such a response is too slick.
What if
the Lord is calling people to help but they're refusing to acknowledge him? He isn't going to force people to do what's right. Even much of the "natural" suffering we see isn't natural at all, but merely the
ultimate outcome of immoral people doing immoral things, and it's the evil in men's hearts that allows such suffering to continue.
I really
don't know if either Sandra or "ArtDeco" have contributed to alleviating the suffering
of these children they so easily parade as proof of God's non-existence. But I
do know that it's demonstrable that those who are religiously active don't just
pray. They do more, give more, and work more at alleviating suffering than any
other group. Arthur C. Brooks
writes:
Religious
people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91
percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent
to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data
show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion
itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend
worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared
with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other
religions.1
Brooks even sought to eliminate
religious-compulsory motivations like giving due to social pressure or giving to
the church in order to "have rewards in heaven." He looked at giving to
nonreligious charities such as schools or civic groups and still found
"religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than
secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer
(60 percent to 39 percent)."
2
It isn't the theists
that are the problem in the plight of suffering children; it's the secularists.
Thus, an argument could be made that by trying to convince others there is no
God, one is actually increasing the inaction of support for alleviating the
suffering of children in the world. As to the charge that a God should do something about it, Brooks' article leads with an apropos quote by the American Puritan John Winthrop:
...When there is no other means whereby our Christian brother may be relieved in his distress, we must help him beyond our ability rather than tempt God in putting him upon help by miraculous or extraordinary meanes. (Emphasis added.)
That's the best response to the problem of
suffering. Let's each one of us to roll up our sleeves and get to work reducing
it rather than acknowledging it then chastising God for not doing his part.
References
