Critiquing: #046 — Big questions from and about children
November 5, 2020 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier
- Children’s theology — Parental guidance — Faith and suffering — Heaven and Hell — Biblical education
Episode Assessment:
| Metric | ——— | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Accuracy | B | The episode generally presents accurate information but sometimes oversimplifies complex theological concepts. |
| Degree of Coherence | B- | The discussion is mostly logical, though occasionally meandering, making it challenging to follow at times. |
| Absence of Fallacies | C | Some arguments present logical fallacies, such as oversimplification and appeals to tradition. |
| Degree of Evidence | C+ | While NT Wright provides thoughtful answers, the evidence to support certain claims, especially around the nature of suffering and evil, is sometimes sparse. |
| Degree of Testability | D+ | Many of the claims, particularly those relating to theological interpretations, are not testable by empirical means. |
| Rational Confidence | C | The level of confidence in the conclusions drawn is moderate; however, it relies heavily on faith-based assumptions, reducing its rational confidence. |
Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:
1. Oversimplification of Complex Issues
“The hardest questions come from children because you sort of, you can’t get away with the theological fudging.”
This statement oversimplifies the challenges adults face when answering complex theological questions. Children’s directness doesn’t necessarily mean adults can always provide straightforward answers without addressing deeper, more complex theological nuances.
2. Appeals to Tradition
“We have to distance ourselves from this bubble that we’ve lived in the last 200 years in the western world, which is basically the world is a nice place…”
Appealing to how people historically faced more hardships doesn’t directly address the theological questions children ask today. This approach may dismiss contemporary concerns by overly relying on historical context rather than engaging with present-day realities.
Formulations of Major Arguments
Argument 1: On the Existence of Suffering
Premises:
- God created the world as a good project.
- Human beings were meant to help bring this project to its intended completion.
- Human sin disrupted this project, leading to suffering and evil in the world.
- Jesus’ life and suffering provide insight into God’s ultimate plan for new creation.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the existence of suffering is a consequence of human sin, but it is within God’s plan for eventual redemption and new creation.
Counter-Argument:
The existence of suffering challenges the concept of an all-powerful and benevolent deity. If God is omnipotent and wholly good, the presence of unnecessary suffering, especially among innocents like children, remains problematic. An alternative perspective suggests that suffering could indicate limitations in our understanding of divine power or benevolence, or that naturalistic explanations might better account for the presence of suffering without invoking theological justifications.
Argument 2: On Heaven and Hell
Premises:
- The Bible promises a new creation where heaven and earth come together.
- Traditional views of heaven and hell have been influenced by Platonic dualism.
- The New Testament emphasizes the bodily resurrection and new creation over disembodied souls in heaven or hell.
Conclusion:
Therefore, Christians should focus on the promise of new creation and bodily resurrection rather than traditional dichotomies of heaven and hell.
Counter-Argument:
While emphasizing new creation and bodily resurrection aligns with certain biblical passages, the traditional views of heaven and hell have deep roots in Christian theology and practice. Ignoring these traditions might neglect the spiritual experiences and understandings of many believers. Moreover, the symbolic and metaphorical language of scripture can support multiple interpretations, suggesting a more nuanced and inclusive approach might be necessary to fully grasp eschatological promises.
◉ Addressing Argument #1:
The Coexistence of Biblical Promises of Suffering and Protection
The promises in the Bible concerning suffering and the lack of suffering encompass the entire logical space of possibilities. Christians are promised to have “tribulations” and are also promised to be protected by God. There is no possible state of affairs along the spectrum of extreme suffering to an entire lack of suffering that Christians cannot point to and say, “God is behind that,” and cite their favorite cherry-picked verse that corresponds to the state of affairs. There is no falsifiability possible, and the universe under these claims remains fully coherent in a universe in which no divine action exists.
The Christian worldview embraces a dual promise: the inevitability of suffering and the assurance of divine protection. This paradoxical stance is deeply rooted in the scriptures, where believers are forewarned of trials yet assured of God’s unwavering presence and support. For instance, Jesus proclaims, “In this world, you will have trouble” (John 16:33), acknowledging the reality of suffering. Simultaneously, the Psalms declare, “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want” (Psalm 23:1), reflecting a promise of divine care and provision.
This duality allows for interpretative flexibility, making it possible for Christians to find theological justification for any circumstance. Whether facing immense hardship or experiencing peace, believers can turn to scriptural evidence to validate their experiences. During times of tribulation, verses like Romans 5:3-4, which speaks of suffering producing perseverance and character, become pertinent. Conversely, in moments of tranquility, passages such as Philippians 4:19, which promises that God will meet all needs, are often cited.
The logical coherence of these promises poses a challenge to falsifiability. In science, for a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable and refutable. However, the Christian claims about suffering and divine protection are structured in a way that they remain immune to disproof. Every possible scenario can be seen as a manifestation of God’s plan, thus making it impossible to empirically falsify these claims.
Moreover, the coherence of this theological framework remains intact even in a hypothetical universe devoid of divine intervention. The world operates under natural laws where suffering and well-being are part of the human condition. In such a universe, the Christian explanation remains consistent: suffering serves a purpose within God’s plan, and protection is provided according to divine wisdom. This alignment of faith and reality means that the absence of observable divine action does not disrupt the theological narrative.
This adaptability leads to a theological conundrum. If any state of affairs can be theologically justified, then the belief system is unfalsifiable and can persist regardless of empirical evidence. This unfalsifiability highlights a potential weakness in the argument, as it suggests that the claims are immune to critical scrutiny and scientific validation. Consequently, the belief in divine orchestration remains a matter of faith rather than empirical certainty.
Thank you for reading. We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your thoughts and perspectives are highly valued, and we look forward to engaging in a meaningful conversation.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment