The Authorial Analogy & The Problem of Evil

One of the most important philosophical and theological questions we can ask is about God’s relation to the world. There are various ways to think of God’s relation to the world, and the way we prefer would have an impact on our view of God. The Bible itself is fond of the use of analogies to help us understand God’s relation to the world. So there is biblical warrant for the use of analogies. The analogy I think is the best is the authorial analogy. The authorial analogy frames God’s relation to the world as the relation between an author and his story. So God is the author of this story called history. I won’t go into the reasons why this analogy best explains God’s relation to the world in this article (there’s a really good article explaining that here). That’s because in this article I want to highlight the authorial analogy’s strength in dealing with objections to Christianity - specifically, the Problem of Evil.


The Problem of Evil has been a topic of debate in philosophy of religion for centuries. In general, it aims to show an inconsistency between a morally perfect God and the existence of evil or suffering in the world. Over the years, the arguments have taken a variety of forms - from deductive, to inductive, to abductive. Christian philosophers and apologists have responded to the problem (and the arguments that arise from it) in a variety of ways. But the approach to addressing the problem that is becoming increasingly attractive to me is appealing to the authorial analogy. 


The authorial analogy has been commonly appealed to by theological determinists (Calvinists) in order to respond to the objection that theological determinism makes God the author of sin in a way that renders God morally responsible for sin. But I think the analogy has far wider uses than that. I think the analogy sheds light on a lot of issues and can help us answer numerous objections., the problem of evil being one of them. I believe that if the relationship between God and the world is understood properly, the problem of evil ceases to be a problem.


Simply put, if we conceive of the relation between God and the world as being analogous to the relationship between an author and a story, then the existence of evil is compatible with the existence of a morally perfect God. This is because there is a metaphysical discontinuity between God and the world (analogous to the discontinuity between an author and his story). The discontinuity between author and story is such that we cannot infer anything about the moral character of the author from the events that occur in the story. This position is plausible and tracks our intuitions. We do not question the morality of authors when they write villainous characters in their stories. So if the authorial analogy holds, we cannot question the moral character of God on the basis of evil and suffering in the world. The authorial analogy blocks all inferences from the events in this world to the nature and character of God. So the only way for an argument from evil to work is for the atheologian to argue against the authorial analogy. I have no idea what such an argument would look like.


Graham Oppy characterizes logical arguments from evil this way:


A logical argument from evil contains three distinctive kinds of premises. The exemplars of the first kind of premise collectively make up the characterisation: a claim about properties that God possesses if God exists. The sole member of the second kind of premise is the datum: a claim about the existence of suffering in our universe. The exemplars of the third kind of premise collectively make up the link: a claim that, in concert with the characterisation and the datum, entails – or is alleged to entail – that God does not exist. [The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil, Chapter 3]


What we want to say is that there cannot be a successful defense of any kind of link premise in an argument from evil. Even stronger, we want to say that a link premise cannot be true because it requires that a morally perfect God be committed in some way to creating a morally perfect world. But if the authorial analogy holds, this is just like claiming that a morally good author must always write a story with morally good characters or events. This is an obviously false claim. So there cannot be any link from evil or suffering in the world to a morally imperfect (or the non-existence of a morally perfect) God.


Evidential arguments from evil do not fare any better. Evidential arguments from evil want to say that suffering in the world makes it more probable that a good God does not exist. But as we have already pointed out, the authorial analogy blocks any inference from the nature of the world to the nature of God. Furthermore, the authorial analogy shows us that the existence of gratuitous evils (evils with no moral justification) is compatible with a morally perfect God. Even if there is no point to the evil and suffering in a story, it does not follow that the author is morally evil. This is not to say that there are actually gratuitous evils in the world. This just to say that even if there were, it does not follow that a morally perfect God does not exist. So the existence of seemingly gratuitous evils does not serve as evidence for the non-existence of a good God.



The authorial analogy does have the implication that we cannot infer the goodness of God purely from the existence of good in the world,  though. The authorial analogy, due to the metaphyseal discontinuity it posits, blocks all inferences from creation to Creator. This means that it takes out pre-dogmatic natural theological arguments as well. But for a Van Tilian presuppositionalist, who has independent reasons to eschew a pre-dogmatic use of natural theology, this is a very delicious bullet to bite!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more