A Tremendous Faith:

The seat of evil and secularisms proposed solutions

Locating the Thrones of Evil

Philosophers and intellectuals for well over two thousand years have tried to pinpoint the seat and explanation of evil. How can we explain the atrocities which man commits against his fellow man? How can we find a solution if we do not know or understand the root from which evil acts germinate and flower? Both theologian and philosopher alike have come to an agreement on the issue, the seat of evil resides in the heart of man. From my experience it is predominantly the secularist and the atheist who are still in denial. Why? Consider the words most profoundly expressed by Solzhenitsyn;

“If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest and destroy them. But the dividing line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”ⁱ

It is a point of contention in propounding a theology or philosophy of evil which puts the onus on man for the evil in the world, but unless we come to grips with this simple fact, there is no hope. The epidemic must be first quarantined and then inoculated. How can that take place in the face of such stringent denial that the problem is in man? Jesus taught;

“Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. Do you not know that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..."ⁱⁱ

Lest this idea be passed off and mocked simply because it is biblical, I would like to draw attention to the simplest of observations. Watch a child at play. The innocence of a child is a thing of beauty to be safe guarded, and has inspired great works of literature; consider, as an example, “Catcher in the Rye” by Salinger. But the illusion of innocence quickly evaporates when a child doesn’t get his or her own way and the temper tantrums start. What’s more is that a child never needs to be taught to lie, or to steal, or resort to violence. Left unchecked, it can through the physical maturing process, result in the acts of the Nazi’s.

The protection against children maturing into adult personifications of evil is to have loving parents who place restraints to position, lead, and guide a child to understand his moral agency and responsibility. Destroy the family, and the downfall of culture is sure to ensue. If we remove the restraints, the child will inevitably go delinquent. Freedom from restrains is not true freedom, but license for every child to selfishly assert freedom and manipulative control over everyone else.

In the case of a culture based upon the death of God, the restraints of “love your neighbor as yourself” have no foundation, and crumble while being pushed aside to the ruble pile. Atheistic and secular ideals are ultimately doing that; they are setting aside the freedom protecting restraints of the eternal Father for the sake of living according to the desires of their hearts and the opinions of the day. This is not true freedom. It is anarchy, a certain delinquency fully matured, which is the complete breakdown of equality and collective freedom. It degenerates into the ultimate expression of selfishness and individualism at the cost of everyone else around. It is what atheists call enlightened self interest. It results in might makes right. Is it any wonder that as we explore and instill the ideals of evolution as foundation for society that we see kids, taught from youth they are matured and evolved monkeys, inevitably start to acting like them? What we are seeing today with increasing crime rates, skyrocketing acts of sin and evil, is the ripe fruit of an unripened infantile morality. How can we recover from this once it is so intricately engrained into our cultural paradigm?

The reality is every man knows he is not perfect. Unless we have an implanted knowledge of what the ultimate standard is, this becomes a meaningless platitude. Yet, when we fail, we all at some point appeal to this higher knowledge as though it is a good excuse. The fact is, we all need to ask ourselves; “How do I know I’m not perfect?” We must do this in the same way we need to ask what wet is to a fish. The point of reference is outside ourselves, but we are immersed in this imperfection to such a degree that it is the mercy of God to have implanted this revelation or conscience within us, or else we would never be able to find the cure for the sin which ails us, nor would it be sought. Deny this divine revelation, and we are doomed to repeat the atrocity and recurring attempted genocides of the last one hundred years. We are not simply nurtured into this as though by the command of the leaders of our culture we progress into our behaviors;

“The spontaneity, inventiveness, and enthusiasm with which the Nazis degraded, hurt, and killed their victims also argues against explaining their behavior as simply the responses to authority’s commands despite the perpetrators abhorrence toward their own actions, and without hate toward their victims. It must have come from within…”ⁱⁱⁱ

While there are those who level the charge of evil at God, and use it as an excuse for the denial of His existence, I have to wonder at the unwillingness to confess and admit culpability from the same people. If there is no God, then logically man alone is left to blame, otherwise, evil becomes an abstraction for which there is no logical basis, and it cannot be used as valid argumentation against the biblical Creator. Since we intrinsically know of evil, and cannot logically deny it, we by necessity argue God exists because the absolute standard by which to measure it exists, even if man argues about morality’s specifics. We cannot forget it was the denial of God’s existence which formed some of the key ideological foundations upon which Stalin and Hitler masterminded their national machines of cruelty. What is more fascinating to me is their actions do not illogically follow the ideas they are based upon in these examples. As with a game of dominoes, the tiles fall in perfect succession in these cases. If a Christian acts in evil ways it stings everyone as wicked hypocrisy, but if God does not exist, there isn’t anything wrong with such acts. Nietzsche foreknew this result of his philosophy, and even prophesied the twentieth century would be the bloodiest ever.

A tremendous faith comes into play, asserting man can save himself, or trusting in inherent good in each of us to win over evil. An illogical step of tremendous faith occurs in asserting the value of a soul as justification for doing good to one another. There is no value in a chance mass of chemicals, and we cannot assign the value to ourselves. It is exceptionally self serving. How in ethics does it follow to state “we must be thoroughly selfless to be more thoroughly selfish?” Valuing others just so we can be valued is no longer a statement of prescriptive morality, it is opportunism.

Many researchers of evil and atrocity have commented on the ordinariness and ability of man to get “caught up” in acts of evil. One such person is Barbara Colorosso, who has had a thirty year interest studying the mechanical workings of genocide. She comments;

“I don’t think it is possible to understand such evil, nor would I want to. That should not prevent us from studying it. Genocide is not outside the realm of ordinary human behavior. At the same time it is not normal, natural, or necessary.”^iv

And…

“By conceding that genocide is not outside the realm of ordinary behavior, we can begin to examine its roots and the climate that facilitates its pathological growth.”^v

How can it be so ordinary, and yet unnatural? It is precisely that man is naturally inclined to evil works that it is not outside the realm of ordinary human behavior. Concurrently, it is fascinating that researchers of the 1994 Rwandan atrocities or the holocaust can make such admissions, self-contradicting or not, out of one side of their mouth and yet out of the other proclaim faith in the same fallen humanity to make society better.

“I have come to the realization that religion is neither sufficient nor necessary in order for someone to act with integrity, civility, and compassion, to stand up and speak out against injustice, to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. When asked about his beliefs, the renowned war photographer James Natchwey answered, ‘I do not put my faith in God or divine intervention. I put my hope in humanity because all we have is each other.’ Natchwey, who has witnessed some of the most horrific acts of violence, committed against children and photographed the mayhem in hopes of shattering our collective indifference to the horrors of war, mass murder, and genocide, still puts hope in humanity. Can those of us who have witnessed far less not do the same?”^vi

How is it they can readily admit from observation that the seat of evil is in the heart of man and yet look to that heart in hope? What naivety in spite of the years of research into the highest forms of atrocity. What a denial of all God has provided for us so we may know our need for our creator.

Notes:

1. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “The Gulag Archipelago”, New York, Harper and Roe, 1974.
2. Matthew 15:11-20, quoted from the NKJV.
3. Leonard s. Newman, Ralph Erber, eds. “Understanding Genocide”; New York, Oxford University press, 2002, pg 100
4. “Extraordinary Evil; a Brief History of Genocide”, Barbara Coloroso, Penguin Group, Toronto, 2007 pg xxi.
5. Colorosso, “Extraordinary Evil…”, pg 51
6. Colorosso, “Extraordinary Evil…”