Critiquing: Why Should I Thank God for Fixing a World of Pain and Sin That He Created?

February 13, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Analogy Misuse — Knowledge Claims — Circular Reasoning — Lack of Evidence — Appeal to Emotion

---

Introduction

The content begins with a question: “Why should I love and thank Jesus for creating a world where pain and sin exist and then fixing it by sending his son?” This sets the stage for a discussion on the problem of evil and the justification of suffering in the world.

Misuse of Analogies

The content employs several analogies to explain complex theological points, such as comparing God’s knowledge to human perception of an elephant versus a gnat. While analogies can be useful, they can also oversimplify or misrepresent the issues at hand. For instance:

“If there were an elephant in the room, we would know that. But we’re not in a very good position to know if there’s a gnat in the room.”

This analogy suggests that our inability to perceive certain things implies that some knowledge is inherently beyond human understanding. While it acknowledges human limitations, it does not address the core issue of whether the existence of evil and suffering is justifiable.

Knowledge Claims

The content frequently asserts that humans cannot know God’s reasons or plans:

“We’re not in a position to be able to assess that. The only person that’s in a position to be able to know that is the person who sees everything and knows everything and that would be God himself.”

This claim presents a significant challenge to logical coherence because it relies on the assumption that divine knowledge is both inaccessible and unquestionable. This argument effectively shuts down further inquiry or criticism by placing ultimate knowledge out of human reach, which is problematic from a rational standpoint.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning appears when the content assumes what it tries to prove:

“We do know some things from the Bible about God’s goal. And so, if we can look at the goal of God, we can see, okay, does this method actually meet that goal?”

The argument presupposes the truth of the Bible to validate the goals of God, which in turn are used to justify the existence of pain and suffering. This circular reasoning undermines the logical coherence of the argument by failing to provide independent verification for its premises.

Lack of Evidence

Several claims made in the content lack substantiation:

“Just because we can’t see how some suffering and difficulty and pain and anguish could be worth it in the long run that God would allow it for some greater good in the long run. Just because we can’t see that doesn’t mean it’s not there.”

This statement appeals to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) by suggesting that the absence of evidence against a claim is evidence for it. Without concrete evidence or a plausible explanation, the assertion remains speculative and unconvincing.

Appeal to Emotion

The content frequently appeals to emotion rather than logic to persuade the audience:

“Johnny Eric’s and Tada saying she wouldn’t trade her wheelchair for anything because she knows that her suffering has been worth it because of what it’s revealed to her about God.”

While personal testimonies can be powerful, they do not constitute logical arguments. The use of such emotional appeals can distract from the need for rational evidence and argumentation.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

The content makes several claims that are both unsubstantiated and dubious, such as:

“Without a morally good God, you can’t have any categories of good and evil that are incumbent upon people, obligations, moral obligations.”

This claim is contentious and requires substantial evidence and philosophical justification. The obligation to substantiate such claims is crucial, especially when they form the basis of the overall argument. Unsubstantiated claims weaken the credibility of the argument and make it less persuasive.

Testing Alleged Promises

To critically evaluate the promises or claims made about God’s actions and intentions, one would need to establish clear criteria and methods for testing them. For example:

1. Historical Analysis: Investigating historical records and events to verify claims of divine intervention or fulfillment of promises.
2. Philosophical Inquiry: Engaging in rigorous philosophical debate to examine the coherence and plausibility of theological claims.
3. Empirical Evidence: Seeking tangible, empirical evidence that can either support or refute the claims made.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is essential to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. In this context, the content often assumes a high degree of belief without corresponding evidence. For instance:

“Just because we can’t think of a reason doesn’t mean there isn’t a good reason.”

While it is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, this statement does not justify a high degree of belief without substantial supporting evidence. Rational belief should be proportionate to the evidence available, and in this case, the content fails to provide sufficient evidence to justify the degree of belief it promotes.

Conclusion

The content presents several logical inconsistencies, including misuse of analogies, circular reasoning, lack of evidence, and appeals to emotion. Claims made without sufficient substantiation undermine the argument’s credibility. To critically assess the validity of the content, one must demand rigorous evidence and logical coherence, aligning belief with the degree of evidence available. This critique underscores the importance of scrutinizing arguments from a rational perspective, ensuring that beliefs are grounded in solid evidence and sound reasoning.

---

Thank you for reading. If you would like to discuss these arguments further, feel free to join the conversation in the comments section below.