Good People, Bad Things?

"Why do bad things happen to good people?" Such is the age-old query that is leveled at Christians who affirm the reality of a perfectly good God who oversees a world full of suffering and evil.

Many Christians take the question as reasonable in itself and proceed to try and answer it with various apologetic strategies. I myself think most of the answers to this "problem of evil" are quite good and, among philosophers and professional apologists, the argument that the reality of pervasive evil disproves God's reality has been sufficiently refuted.

But what if we take a different approach to this question than that of most apologists? That is, what if we question the very legitimacy of the query itself? Interestingly, it appears laced with an assumption that is in fact at odds with what Christians believe.

The church, in accord with Scripture, has traditionally disbelieved that any human person is really good. It's true that some people do some good things, but ultimately everyone is sinful and bad and in fact deserves eternal punishment in the eyes of a holy being, i.e., God.

From God's vantage point, then, no humans are good. Thus, from a Christian perspective, this classic question is mistaken initially. The real question becomes, "Why do bad things happen to bad people?" (I first heard the question reformed in this way in Norman Geisler's excellent book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.

This changes the context considerably. For if people are truly bad and deserving of Hell, as Christians hold, then is it really true that we would expect God to salvage us from bad events? If we found that a serial killer somehow was killed in a hurricane, would we feel bad about this? Surely we wouldn't. We would in a sense say that he got what was coming to him. But then why should we say anything differently about "good" people who experience suffering? It's true that they are not as bad as a serial killer, but they are morally bad and blemished nonetheless, so much so that they deserve eternal torment.

Putting this question in this new light shows the question to less striking than originally thought. Humans don't, after all, deserve good lives. They have remarkably good lives only because the morally perfect God has chosen to be merciful to them. This is, in effect, a privileged, not a deserved contentment. If this contentment is intruded upon by suffering, we should be neither appalled or accusatory towards God -- the only truly good Person.

UFC 55 Predictions

Alright, it's time for another excellent UFC pay-per-view event, this one falling on a Friday rather than Saturday. I can't wait. While not having the hype or the highest caliber of fighters as many other UFC cards, UFC 55 does have some fine matchups and will make an entertaining night. Herein lie my predicitions, fight by fight.

1. Andrei Arlvoski vs. Paul Buentello

A fight between two heavyweights with quick, powerful hands. Boxing-wise, I give the speed to Buentello, but the technique to Arlovski. Apart from the standup game, however, I think it's all Andrei. Besides punches, he has an arsenal of kicks and knees, as well as an excellent ground game. Buentello always has a chance for a knockout with his striking skills, but I think Arlovski will hold him off and beat him with some part of his varied arsenal. Arlovski by TKO, round 1.



2. Forrest Griffin vs. Elvis Sinosic

Griffin continues his TUF fame and takes on a wily veteran in his second PPV bout. Griffin has always been well-rounded -- great grappler, good striker -- and has surely honed his skills since reaching the UFC. Sinosic is experienced and well-versed in the submission game. He'll definitely want to take things to the ground. Griffin, though, can hold his own anywhere in the Octagon and I give him the edge. Griffin by submission in the second round.

3. Joe Riggs vs. Chris Lytle

This is the matchup I'm dying to see. Two welterweights with great boxing ability and ground games. I give Riggs the edge in power, since he moves down to welterweight here from his previous middleweight position. However, Lytle is a professional boxer and has never been knocked out, which doesn't bode well for Riggs. These two will bang away much of the time, but at some point it will go to the ground where Riggs will overpower Lytle. My estimation: Riggs by TKO in round 2.

4. "Babalu" Sobral vs. Chael Sonnen

A matchup of excellent grapplers, Babalu has been a tear the last couple of years. He was at least his last 8 fights and I don't see the streak ending here. He has the whole game: strking, wrestling, submissions. He is both powerful and quick. Sonnen is no slouch and has a fine ground game, too. But Babalu is top-ten caliber in this weight class. He'll beat Sonnen by submission in round 1.



5. Dennis Hallman vs. Jorge Rivera

An interesting matchup of contrasting styles. Rivera is a Golden Gloves winner in boxing and has a decent ground game. Hallman is very skilled in submissions (submitted Matt Hughes twice) with a decent striking game. I give the edge to Rivera due to the weight advantage (Hallman is moving up from welterweight for this fight). Rivera by knockout, round 2.

6. Keigo Kunihara vs. Marcio Cruz

A heavyweight bout between fighters I know nothing about. I blindly take Kunihara by TKO in round 3.

7. Ron Faircloth vs. Alessio Sakara

Same as above, but this time with light heavyweights. Prediction: "Ronzilla" by knockout in the first round.

8. Sean Gannon vs. Brandon Lee Hinkle

I only know a little about Gannon who has controversy surrounding him. The Boston cop is said to have excellent boxing skills (Gold Gloves winner) and is an expert in judo. If that's true, he'll prove a powerful force in the UFC heavyweight division. I know nothing about Hinkle. I estimate Gannon will win this by knockout in round 2.

Ultimate Fight Night 2 predictions

SpikeTV has another excellent line up of Mixed Martial Arts television this Monday, October 3. The highlight of the night is of course the Ultimate Fight Night 2 live event featuring seven fights with some of the best young fighters on the planet.

This is the second Ultimate Fight Night put on by UFC and Spike and should prove to be as exciting as the first. Of course, part of the fun of fight events is making my predictions and comparing them to the actual results. I've done this previously on this blog and been fairly sucessful. I try again here. (I will make comments only on four of the fights, since I am unfamiliar with the fighters in the other three.)

1. David Loiseau vs. Evan Tanner

This is an awesome main event featuring two of the brightest stars in the UFC. Tanner is an accomplished veteran and has an impressive list of wins in his long mixed martial arts career. Loiseau is a young, exciting kickboxer with excellent ground skills too. This is a very tough call. It almost certainly won't go to decision since both guys are good finishers. Loiseau is the better striker, but I think Tanner will be significantly better on the ground and as a grappler. Tanner's standup should be sufficient to hold of Loiseau's attack until he can take Loiseau to the ground. From there, I give an edge to Tanner, who will get the win by TKO in the 2nd round.

2. Chris Leben vs. Edwin DeWeese

Leben is an exciting, well-rounded fighter who has an iron chin. The guy has massive knockout power and is slick on the ground too. Deweese is perhaps more talented on the ground, but does not have nearly the power or striking of Leben. Both are tough young guys, so this will prove to be an exciting bout. I give it to Leben by knockout in round 2.

3. Drew Fickett vs. Josh Koscheck

Koscheck was a great, great collegiate wrestler and NCAA champion. He is fairly new to MMA, but has progressed well with his excellent training squad at American Kickboxing Academy. He's also shown ability with submissions, as well (i.e., his previous fight against Pete Spratt). Fickett is also an excellent wrestler (not as good as Koscheck) and probably has superior jiu-jitsu than Koscheck. In the end, I think Koscheck will control Fickett on the ground, however. I doubt he'll be able to submit Fickett and certainly won't knock him out. Thus, I take Koscheck by decision.

4. Brandon Vera vs. Fabiano Scherner

Never seen either of these guys fight, but Scherner is an awesome jiu-jitsu practicioner. I'm not sure of his standup ability. Vera appears to be Olympic-caliber wrestler with good muay thai skills in addition. He also seems well-trained in jiu-jitsu. As a somewhat blind prediction, I'll predict Vera taking this one by knockout in round 1.

Van Til's Argument, Part 2

In my previous post I mentioned that the Transcendental Argument expounded originally by the late apologist, Cornelius Van Til has been oft-refuted by fellow Christian scholars. Erudite critics the likes of William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and Norman Geisler (among others) have all taken shots at the "presuppositionalist" Van Tillian apologetic. See the book Five Views on Apologetics ed. Steve Cowan in this regard.

The complaint of these critics is that Van Til's fundamental claim -- that nonChristians cannot even reason or argue without first presupposing God's reality --is never backed up with any sort of argument or support. In his writings, Van Til seemingly never explained why one should believe this. Thus, his argument is simply question-begging at best.

I agree with this criticism of Van Til, but several commentators on this blog have said I'm wrong. They hold that Van Til's argument was well articulated and not at all question-begging. Apparently, they claim, I have not read the works by contemporary Van Tillians like Greg Bahnsen or John Frame.

But this is mistaken. I have read them, but my worries are not addressed by them. In fact Frame himself admits that Van Til never fully supported his claims and that without doing so the Transcendental Argument cannot work. Others have told me that James Anderson, another modern presuppositionalist, shows Van Til's argument to be valid in a paper written earlier this year. The problem with Anderson, though, is that ultimately he says Van Til relied on four sub-arguments that supported his Transcendental Argument. Frame echoes this same sentiment, saying Van Til would've had to rely on other arguments to ultimately construct his presuppositional approach.

But here Frame and Anderson must be wrong, since Van Til adamantly opposed a cumulative case approach to apologetics. That's why he favored presuppositionalism rather than traditional classical apologetics. Van Til disdained natural theology and thought it irresponsible to try and argue the unbeliever to God. He notes this over and over in his pamphlet, Why I Believe in God, for example.

Thus, Van Til would eschew such a syllogistic model. Rather, I think he would've pressed the idea that believers must help the unbeliever see the hidden assumptions he makes in reasoning and even reasoning against God. That is, we don't have to make arguments to show that God must be in place before we can reason or discuss anything, including God. Rather, the apologist must make the implicit, explicit. The unbeliever is like the... From what I can tell, Van Til's apologetic was merely to show the nonChristian what he was missing.

But this doesn't require deductive or inductive arguments on the apologist's part. He doesn't argue; he digs. He digs into the unbelievers thought life and shows him what must be in place while he's thinking, namely God.

This seems like a reasonable approach to me. For reasoning of course requires the immaterial laws of logic and morality. Morality comes into play in the sense that we always feel the requirement or obligation to follow a line of reasoning to its end. Failing to do so is to be dishonest in a sense, even if only to one's self. Moral and logical laws are real but transcend time, space, and matter. Moreover they are necessary; they exist in all possible worlds. Interestingly, they press in on us and when we push against them we feel obligation and guilt. We, as thinkers, then, interact with an invisible realm of morality and discourse which rules us in a sense.

This realm is peculiar also in the sense that the truths it holds are discovered, not invented by us. The truths are in a sense "held" there for us to find. Also telling, is the fact that for us to think rationally, our faculties must be attuned to this nonspatial dimension specifically. Our minds can "intuit" certain facts and discern facts in a specific manner, as if humankind and the transcendent truths were meant to meet.

With these thoughts in mind, it seems the nonChristian must agree with us then that in his rational conversations he relies (even implicitly) on a realm of invisible, immaterial laws of logic and morality and true propositions. The remarkable that humankind has the specific faculties to interact with these things will undoubtedly arouse the problem of anticipation: were these things simply waiting for humans to exist, as if they were meant for human minds?

This is all very peculiar if the standard naturalist (or any other nonChristian) theory of the world is true. Out the window with standard materialism; in with a world full of spirit-like being emanating truth and morality. In fact, the nonChristian appears to have been all along in agreement with the opening chapters of the Gospel of John which speaks of Christ, the Logos who formed the world and all in it and Who is the Truth and Light. Without Him, nothing would exist, including truth.

Thus, denying God and any transcendent foundation for this thought or life, the unbeliever discovers that He has known God all along and suppressed that fact. For his thought and life have had their foundations on the Logos Himself--the very Lord Jesus Christ.

This, I think, is the spirit of Van Til's thought and insight to apologetics. That, to me, is the most natural way to read him. He did not fully articulate these things, but nonetheless I think he hints at such a method. It is at least my attempt to revive his apologetic, an attempt far more successful in my opinion than most of his other supporters.