The Problem of Good

[RobbyPants]

Theist apologists frequently cite free will as being the answer to the problem of evil. It's important that we have the choice to do bad things, even though we're not supposed to do those bad things. So, when people cause problems, we are to blame, even if God could have prevented it.

The problem of this bit of apologetics is it doesn't mesh with the other half of what they claim to believe. It doesn't take good into account. People are always praising God for things that people do. I'm constantly hearing praises for getting a new job, getting better after medical treatment, or doing well on a test after studying. Every single one of these things hinge on human action. When people do good things, they say it is because of God and not the person (don't want to admit to pride), but it's never God's fault when they do bad things.

So, when everything is going great in the world, apparently God can muck around with that all day long, and anything good that happens ever is because of God. But all the bad stuff is never his fault. That's just us. Their stated belief is that God is such a powerful being that he literally sticks his hands in every facet of life, no matter how small, until it comes to us misbehaving. Then, he takes a strictly hands-off approach, because we need to be free to misbehave. Even more strange is that God gets people jobs, allows medical treatment to work, and lets people recall key facts on tests regardless of their behavior. There seems to be no correlation between a person's behavior and how often God "blesses" them.

If moral autonomy is so precious to the theist apologist, they should stop giving their god credit for the good things people do. I thought people have to be free to make those good choices. This god of special pleading is fatiguing and trite.

[bennyboy]

+1 for the title. That's clever.

Good thesis, too.

[Lek]

Why would God help us do something which he has told us not to do?  We rely on God's help to do his will, not to go against it.  When we do evil, we are refusing God's help.

[Minimalist]

People are largely full of shit.  (See above.)

[Lek]

People are largely full of shit.  (See above.)

You're right Mini, but it's not me that's full of it. (See above.)

[Mister Agenda]

Why would God help us do something which he has told us not to do?  We rely on God's help to do his will, not to go against it.  When we do evil, we are refusing God's help.

That's the question, isn't it Lek? Bad awful people who do bad awful things frequently get 'blessings'. God doesn't seem to have a problem with helping them. Why?

[dyresand]

Mostly atheist countries for the most part and mostly secular countries are doing better off without god and are more civilized and have less violence.
That say's a lot when you compare countries that are more theistic to secular countries.

[Lek]

Why would God help us do something which he has told us not to do?  We rely on God's help to do his will, not to go against it.  When we do evil, we are refusing God's help.

That's the question, isn't it Lek? Bad awful people who do bad awful things frequently get 'blessings'. God doesn't seem to have a problem with helping them. Why?

Depends on what you consider "blessings". Like Jesus said - What good does it do us if we gain the whole world and lose our soul? If a person gains a fortune in money by evil means, God didn't help him to obtain it. We're all born into certain situations and with different talents. Our salvation and good fortune isn't based on our material well being. Jesus never told us to pursue these things. In fact, he taught that these "blessings" were not important.

[Lek]

Atheists for the most part and mostly secular countries are doing better off without god and are better people.
That say's  a lot when you compare countries that are more theistic to secular countries.

Countries with secular governments do better whether they are mostly theist or non-theist.  The US is a mostly christian nation and it is "better off" than most countries.

[orangebox21]

Theist apologists frequently cite free will as being the answer to the problem of evil. It's important that we have the choice to do bad things, even though we're not supposed to do those bad things. So, when people cause problems, we are to blame, even if God could have prevented it.

Are you talking about compatibilist or libertarian free-will?

The problem of this bit of apologetics is it doesn't mesh with the other half of what they claim to believe. It doesn't take good into account. People are always praising God for things that people do. I'm constantly hearing praises for getting a new job, getting better after medical treatment, or doing well on a test after studying. Every single one of these things hinge on human action. When people do good things, they say it is because of God and not the person (don't want to admit to pride), but it's never God's fault when they do bad things.

You're making a category error here. You're initial claim is that people do [morally] bad things. Then you claim people do good things. You list getting a new job, healing, and doing well on a test as good things. But these are not [morally] good things. Certainly you wouldn't claim that not healing after surgery is immoral, would you? I'm not saying your entire argument is flawed, but if you are speaking of good and bad within the context of morality, your examples need to reflect the same category.

So, when everything is going great in the world, apparently God can muck around with that all day long, and anything good that happens ever is because of God. But all the bad stuff is never his fault. That's just us. Their stated belief is that God is such a powerful being that he literally sticks his hands in every facet of life, no matter how small, until it comes to us misbehaving. Then, he takes a strictly hands-off approach, because we need to be free to misbehave. Even more strange is that God gets people jobs, allows medical treatment to work, and lets people recall key facts on tests regardless of their behavior. There seems to be no correlation between a person's behavior and how often God "blesses" them.

If moral autonomy is so precious to the theist apologist, they should stop giving their god credit for the good things people do. I thought people have to be free to make those good choices. This god of special pleading is fatiguing and trite.

The conclusion needs to be rephrased in order to avoid the category mistake. "Good things" is too broad is it includes both moral and amoral actions.

Is: "If moral autonomy is so precious to the theist apologist, they should stop giving their god credit for the moral things people do" a satisfactory statement?