Keep up the good work!

“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” - Romans 3:7

Another expose on the insidious nature of religious fundamentalism, using the language of science and statistics to distort the truth…

Thank you. That meant alot to me.

but at the same time, i’m stunned into silence by the ignorance and narrowmindedness.

what is wrong with these people?

Jan 29, 2005, ST.

Why God ‘allowed’ deadly tsunami to strike

Recent attempts at philosophical/theological reflection on the tsunami disaster by Mr Tan Tarn How (’Evil? No way, come hell or high water’; The Sunday Times, Jan 9), Ms Chua Mui Hoong (’Where was God when the tsunamis hit?’; Jan 16) and Dr Andy Ho (’Where God was when the tsunami struck’; ST, Jan 22) raise interesting points, but contain important mistakes.

In the great monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is believed to be (1) existing, (2) omnipresent (all present), (3) omniscient (all knowing), (4) omnipotent (all powerful) and (5) omnibenevolent (all good).

However, the challenge from the problem of evil is this: given the presence of suffering in this world, it is not possible to affirm all the five properties of God stated. Accordingly, Mr Tan denies (1), Ms Chua denies (4) and Dr Ho denies (5).

Firstly, Mr Tan states that the problem of evil provides evidence that God does not exist. This is based on a wrong conception of evil. Evil is not a substance or a thing; it is a state of lack of something good. So, the concept of evil is parasitic on the concept of good. This being so, the existence of evil does not disprove God. Rather, the reverse is true.

As St Thomas Aquinas (1224-74) teaches:

Boethius introduces a philosopher asking the question: ‘If there is a God, how come there is evil?’. The argument should be turned the other way: ‘If there is evil, there is a God.’ For there would be no evil, if the order of goodness were taken away…

Next, Ms Chua believes that God is not omnipotent because He created people with free will and cannot force them against their freedom. This is based on another conceptual misunderstanding.

Freedom is part of the essence of a human being. Someone without free will is not a human, but an animal or a robot.

To say that God is not omnipotent because He cannot stop humans from being free is like saying that God is not all-powerful because He cannot make pigs fly.

To blame God for not being able to go against human freedom is to accuse God of an inability to perform a meaningless contradiction.

Lastly, Dr Ho believes that God is not benevolent to all His creatures but ‘only some whom he chooses so his will is worked out’. He comes close to the view of John Calvin (1509-64) who taught double predestination in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Calvin held that God only chooses to save some people (the elect) because He predestines some to heaven and others to hell. Unfortunately for Dr Ho, very few modern Calvinists still uphold this doctrine because it creates a wholly inaccurate and cruel image of God. Actually, the simple reason why God allows evil is that if He did not, then a lot of good would be lost. To quote St Thomas again:

Hence many good things would be taken away if God permitted no evil to exist; for fire would not be generated if air was not corrupted, nor would the life of a lion be preserved unless the ass were killed…

Also, contrary to Ms Chua and Dr Ho’s opinions, evil does not show the limits of God’s omnipotence or omnibenevolence. Again, the reverse is true. As St Augustine of Hippo (354-430) explains, God is ’so omnipotent and good that he can bring good even out of evil’.

Edmond Eh Kim Chew

I don’t know what happened to not bearing false witness, but it seems like these Fundies are the ones with forked tongues