(June 17, 2015 at 8:48 pm)Spacetime Wrote: One last point; one week ago, I reached out to probably one of the most learned men in the field of theology in the United States, hoping he would respond so that I could ask him to explain theodicy to me like a 3rd grader. Just 1 hour ago, I got his reply. I hadn't yet asked him to present his argument for his views on theodicy, but he replied and the opportunity is there. Part of me wants to abandon it, and another part of me wants to ask him outright... "Why does our personal God sit idle when children smaller than my own are starving to death? Why, when we know He can, did God not write down the ultimate guide to human understanding? If his insight is so infinite why, then, did he leave us a book that compounds the complexities of the practice of worshiping Him." The latter part of me is screaming, "too late, motherf*cker... if you had it, you would have presented it on YouTube."
Spacetime-
I hear the pain and struggle, and that makes my response seem kinda theoretical and detached from where you're at. And yet, what I'm about to post IS the plain truth about the "Problem of Evil" that you are grappling with. Worth a shot, anyway...
The Problem of Evil
The Intellectual or Logical Problem of Evil
Those who argue the logical problem of evil are attempting to show that God is a contradiction. Typically, the argument follows a form such as:
P1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good.
P2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil.
P3. Evil exists.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.
However, for this argument to work, it must also prove an implicit fourth premise:
P4. God can have no good reason to allow evil to exist
Theist Response:
If God has morally sufficient reasons to allow even one act of evil, then the argument falls apart, because this would show that God and the existence of evil are not logically contradictory. God might allow evil in view of His overriding goals for mankind, such as the goal of giving human beings free will.
If God had made us like robots which did evil things, then God would be responsible for those evils since as robots, we would simply do as we were designed. However, we are not robots; we have free will, and we can choose to do good or evil. Consequently, God is not responsible for our choices.
Agnostic scholar Paul Draper acknowledges that “theists face no serious logical problem of evil” while J.L. Mackie, a staunch defender of the problem of evil argument reluctantly admits “We can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another.”
The Evidential Problem of Evil
While the existence of evil may not be logically incompatible with God, the huge amount of suffering in the world seems more compatible with an absent God rather than a purposefully inactive one. This is known as the evidential problem of evil, and the argument follows like this:
P1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist.
P2. Pointless evils exist.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.
Theist Response:
There are at least two possible responses to the evidential problem of pain argument.
A. The “good reasons” approach
The “good reasons” approach simply claims that God has good reasons for allowing both more and natural evils to exist—reasons that may be completely unknown to us. For example, courage and compassion are good things, and natural disasters provide opportunities for us to exhibit courage ourselves and to offer compassion to others.
At first glance, this may give the impression that God is just as malicious to the people He created as an abusive husband is to his battered wife. However, this fails because while no one would deny that the husband hurts his wife solely for the purpose of inflicting pain, God can use the suffering in our lives–no matter how profound–to strengthen us.
Another variation of this argument is:
P1. If someone could stop an evil X from happening but didn’t, that person would be immoral.
P2. God could have stopped evil X but didn’t.
B. Therefore, God is immoral. (And thus contradictory and therefore non-existent.)
The problem with this argument is that if God is obligated to stop a single act of rape, would He be obligated to stop all acts of rape? And murder? And burglary? At some point, God would have prevented every evil and severely limited man’s free will. Our remaining choices would be trivial as we lived out our lives in a programmed state of being.
The bottom line is that God may have good reasons to allow evil in the world, and the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that He doesn’t have any good reason to allow such evil.
B. The “no-see-um” approach
If a man looks out into his backyard and sees no elephants, he might exclaim, “I don’t see any elephants in my backyard.” But if he says, “I don’t see any fleas in my backyard”, would that justify him in also saying, “There are no fleas in my backyard?” The fact that he can’t see any fleas—because they are so small—does not mean that there are no fleas present. Similarly, when an atheist says, “I cannot see any good reason why God allows evil events to occur”, it does not follow that there are no good reasons.
Another variation of the “evidential problem of pain” is the “probabilistic problem of pain” which argues that while the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible, it is highly improbable because the extent of evil in the world is so great that it is improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it.
Theist Response:
The theist has at least three responses to this charge.
1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has sufficient moral reasons for the evils that occur.
2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil.
a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness but knowledge of God.
b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.
d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable.
The Emotional Problem of Evil
While searching for the silver lining in evil events may be helpful for some, for others, the crushing weight of pain, suffering and emotional loss can be more than they can bear. People in this situation are not usually in a position to be able to objectively evaluate logical arguments for the existence of God—they are in too much pain. The answer is not Christian apologetics but Christ Himself.
Your thoughts?
