Not long ago WaterBrook Multnomah Books sent me a copy of If God Is Good: Faith in the Middle of Suffering and Evil for review. It is the first volume I’ve ever read from best-selling author Randy Alcorn, but after reading this book, Lord willing it will not be the last. The founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries presents an exceptionally well-written work addressing the nature of God’s absolute goodness, knowledge, and power in light of the existence of evil and suffering.
Alcorn launches the work by discussing the problems posed by evil and suffering in general, and then moves forward by providing a biblical explanation of their origins. He deals straightforwardly with the depraved fallen nature of human beings, and points masterfully to Jesus Christ as humanity’s only hope in a world filled with evil and suffering. The entire work, which is saturated with Scripture, is characterized by dealing boldly with the issues at hand and directing people constantly to Christ. This is one of the reasons I appreciate this book so much. As Alcorn continues, he poses problems for non-theists and tackles the arguments proposed by agnostics and atheists. He confronts the objections raised by the likes of Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins fearlessly. I believe this section will prove quite helpful to those who have been challenged particularly by the emotionally charged arguments of this trio.
Alcorn contends ably not only against non-theistic objections related to these issues, but also with unbiblical solutions proposed within the Church to answer these inquiries. He addresses the distortions of the “prosperity gospel,” the myth that Christians never suffer, and the “Christian” attempt to limit divine attributes to explain the issues at hand. Unlike many authors who contend against such unbiblical teachings, Alcorn never comes across as condescending. Rather, he counteracts these teachings in a manner found throughout the book – providing a foundational biblical theology with a sense of strong, compassionate pastoral care. He demonstrates how theology is interwoven; delving into important related areas such as the characteristics of God, free will, the existence of heaven and hell, and the nature of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Alcorn doesn’t flinch as he argues that God not only permits evil and suffering, but utilizes them for the good of human beings and for His own glory. The material presented isn’t ivory-tower theology presented merely for the sake of argument, but pastoral theology interlaced with real-life accounts of people who have been upheld by God’s grace during times of tremendous difficulty. Among the accounts, Alcorn includes the grave personal struggles he has faced.
The 492 pages of text may be intimidating to some, but they shouldn’t fear because this book is written in an easy-to-understand style with a general audience in mind. Anyone who picks up this volume will benefit from one of the very best works ever written on the subject. Randy Alcorn has masterfully written a piece which not only provides substantial support for believing in the existence of God, but also encourages Christians to persevere in the faith knowing that God is involved actively in the lives of His children – even as they suffer. I benefited greatly from reading If God Is Good, and trust you will as well. I give it my very highest recommendation.
* * * * *
Please consider scoring this review at Blogging for Books.
Robert
February 28, 2011 at 10:39 am
In 14th century Europe, one in three persons, or 25 million, died horribly from the Bubonic Plague. What possible “good of human beings” did this produce? Why does God require the death of 25 million, and the countless suffering of more, for “His own glory”?
In 20th century Europe, millions died due to the genocidal whims of dictators. Again, why?
Billions of years of suffering have occured on this planet to all manner of life, not just humans. What has been the purpose of all this unimaginable suffering?
Dr. James Galyon
February 28, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Robert:
First, please read the book if you’d like to see what Mr. Alcorn has to say about the subject. Second, if you honestly want my opinion to your questions, I’ll be glad to discuss the matter with you. Just let me know. Third, what do you propose as the answer to the age-old question, “Why is there suffering and evil?”
Robert
March 2, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Dr. Galyon,
I figured the book equipped you, the reader, with the means to respond to questions of theodicy. So, yes, I’m very interested in your opinion. In my view, this problem, while not disproving all gods, disproves the Christian god.
Why is there suffering and evil? Because our environment is harsh and isn’t particularly concerned with human welfare.
Dr. James Galyon
March 2, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Robert:
Why do you believe that the presence of evil and suffering disproves the God of Christianity? I’m sure you’ll not be surprised that I disagree completely. Quite simply, I believe (as does R. Alcorn) that evil and suffering exist because human beings rebelled against their Creator. Evil exists essentially because individuals fail to obey God by loving and caring for their neighbors. If I grant your supposition that our environment is harsh and isn’t particularly concerned with human welfare, this might possibly explain suffering, but how does it explain evil?
Robert
March 3, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Dr. Galyon,
I’ll be happy to answer your questions, but please don’t forget about mine
If Alcorn has really resolved the problem of evil, they should not be difficult to answer.
Because such existence, particularly gratuitious evil, is logically incompatible with the notion of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent deity (like the Christian god).
I first note that this is not exactly biblical. According to Genesis, it was Adam and Eve who “rebelled”, and, according to Paul, the consequences of their action have been passed along to their progeny ever since (Rom. 5:12). Humanity’s make-up is imbued with rebelliousness and sin, such that even if we wanted not to rebel or sin, it’s impossible (if it were possible, we could save ourselves, and thus not need Jesus).
“Humanity rebelled” is a common Christian construction that attempts to obscure the outrageously unjust biblical truth that we’re essentially paying for the single mistake of two people.
By the way, do you have any evidence that humanity descended from these two people? Evolutionary theory and DNA evidence have, as far as I know, conclusively demonstrated we did not.
But “failing to obey God” is as much a part of us as breathing (Rom. 3:10 and 23)–a condition we have no control over–and yet we still suffer the consequences.
In any case, your claim is testable. Can you provide evidence that those who “obey God by loving and caring for their neighbors” suffer less overall than those who don’t?
Finally, since the Bible says we can petition God “for anything”, and that God intervenes in the world, the question no longer is about the inevitability of suffering, but why God ameliorates some suffering and evil, but not others.
One of the definitions of evil is “that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune”. Harsh, uncaring environments inevitably give rise to evil.
Dr. James Galyon
March 3, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Robert,
First, I didn’t say Alcorn has resolved the problem of evil, per se, only that he has presented a very cogent Christian view of the issue.
Second, why is the existence of evil logically incompatible with the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent deity? Isn’t that circular reasoning? One may not understand why a good God would permit evil. If there is a God, do we know everything He does? Why can’t God have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil? Alcorn notes, “To disprove the God of the Bible exists, someone must demonstrate there can be no moral justification for an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God to allow evil. Has this been proven? No. This doesn’t mean the question isn’t valid, only that a question is not the same as a proof.” (p. 41)
Third, the Bible teaches not only that Adam and Eve rebelled against God, but that every single person ever born on this planet has done so (Romans 3:23). Scripture makes it plain that people aren’t merely “paying for the single mistake of two people,” but paying the penalty for our own ungodly choices. Is it really outrageously unjust to deal with the effects of those who have gone before us or acted on our behalf? Is it unjust when we inherit certain genetic dispositions or behavioral traits?
Fourth, evolutionary theory and DNA evidence have conclusively demonstrated we didn’t descend from Adam and Eve? Since when? What of Mitochondrial Eve? Far from disproving the biblical teaching, DNA evidence seems to support such a “theory.”
Fifth, there is no evidence that those who obey God suffer less overall than those who don’t. Suffering impacts all of us. However, our choices and actions may alleviate the suffering around us. Think of all those Baptists who helped the folks along the Gulf Coast following Katrina, for instance.
Sixth, the reason(s) God ameliorates some suffering and evil, but not others, is not a matter which I or any other Christian can answer fully. In general, God may use suffering to punish evil, initiate self-examination, and bring out the best in people.
Calling evil a problem assumes a standard of goodness. If God doesn’t exist, then by what objective basis can we measure morality? You stated that evil is “that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune.” Does this make eating an In-N-Out Burger an act of evil? Certainly cows and vegetables are harmed/destroyed in the process. Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President, declared, “Animal trainers, hunters, fishermen, cattlemen, grocers, and indeed all non-vegetarians are the moral equivalent of cannibals, slave-owners, and death-camp guards.” By your definition of evil, is she correct?
Robert
March 10, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Dr. Galyon, you wrote:
Sorry for my misunderstanding. You had stated in your review that “he poses problems for non-theists and tackles the arguments proposed by agnostics and atheists”, later characterizing his work as “masterful” and “one of the very best works ever written on the subject”. Certainly, this treatment of the subject is of a higher order than previous ones, I figured.
I had once read a formal deductive argument which purported to prove this very thing, but have not been able to find it again. Consequently, I’ll retract my claim about this logical incompatibility. Upon further research, I think there are more effective arguments, particularly from the evidential angle.
Essentially, it goes like this: if gratuitous evils probably exist, then God probably does not. Since we experience examples of apparent gratuitous evil all the time (e.g., the rape and murder of a small child; massive death and destruction from natural causes), and absent any reason for believing they’re none other than gratuitous, we’re justified in believing such evils are probably gratuitous. Consequently, we’re justified in believing God probably does not exist.
Yes, but the rub is that making “ungodly choices” is something we will always do no matter what. We cannot do otherwise, because of the actions of Adam and Eve. If it were possible to make “godly choices” all the time, we would not need Jesus.
It’s outrageously unjust for us to suffer for the choices of others, yes, since we were not a party to their choice. Do you disagree? And I don’t recall electing Adam and Eve to “act on my behalf”. Do you?
Since 2000.
Then on what basis did you claim earlier that “Evil exists essentially because individuals fail to obey God by loving and caring for their neighbors”?
This is where it really gets interesting.
If God ameliorates or fails to ameliorate the suffering of some, your claim is that he’s acting based on some morally sufficient reason. Yet, under what conceivable ethical system is it moral to, say, cure grandma of her cold, while allowing thousands of children every day to suffer and ultimately perish from hunger? God will put a band-aid on our booboos while standing idly by while some maniacal madman decimates millions of his children? What kind of god is that?
It’s wholly incoherent, which is why Christians have had to punt on conundrums like this. If there is a god, he’s not omnibenevolent, but either a cosmic prankster or wholly disinterested in human affairs.
A standard of goodness is derived from a multitude of factors, for example, from the effects our actions may have on ourselves, on others, and our environment. It’s derived from experience, too, in seeing how human potential, health, and happiness are maximized. A standard doesn’t have be perfect or completely objective to be useful. Is there an objective standard for danger? Beauty? Fluffy? An objective morality may exist (even in the absence of a god), or it may not. If it doesn’t, we can determine morality (or even moralities) through a number of means at our disposal, including reason, science, observation, etc.
I note that Christians, who allege to follow an objective morality, constantly revise what is right and wrong. Slavery, divorce, interracial marriage, gay marriage – there’s a long list of questions Christians have revised their stance on. Even now they can’t agree. And this is just within Christianity. More on this topic at my blog.
Certainly to the cow whose life was destroyed, our action is evil. On the other hand, is it evil to exploit non-humans for our own benefit? This is a difficult question we’re still sorting out. What is your answer, Mr. Objective Moralist?
Dr. James Galyon
March 10, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Robert:
Before I respond to your quotes/questions on this particular comment, please know that I appreciate your sense of humor, and your willingness to discuss this issue in a polite and calm manner (despite our differences).
I’ll accept your retraction of the logical argument. Of course, now we both have arguments from the evidential angle. While you argue that gratuitous evil probably exists, therefore God does not; I argue that the universe seems to have a common design, therefore it must have a common Designer.
We deal with the consequences of others’ actions on a constant basis, both positively and negatively. We enjoy certain freedoms because others have been willing to sacrifices their fortunes, even their own lives. Is it then fair or just for us to live freely since we didn’t lose our own fortunes or lives? Prior to turning 18, I wasn’t able to vote, but I still faced the consequences of choices made by politicians for whom I hadn’t voted. Was that unjust? I was born in the United States rather than some other nation because my ancestors chose to immigrate to this country. Is it fair that I was born in a land of abundance because of the diligent labors of others?
Evolutionary theory and DNA evidence conclusively demonstrated we didn’t descend from Adam and Eve in 2000?
I based my claim that, “Evil exists essentially because individuals fail to obey God by loving and caring for their neighbors,” because we live in a fallen world. Suffering impacts all people because we have all sinned.
What kind of God ameliorates some suffering, but not all? Not only that, but what kind of God restrains a great deal of evil which might otherwise be carried out by selfish individuals? A God who is concerned about His creation, yet who also chooses to let us live with the consequences of our very meaningful choices. I do not believe He is either a prankster or entirely disinterested in humanity.
How can an objective morality exist in God’s absence? I believe all you have, without God, is subjective morality. Nazi morality was much different than the Confessing Church in Germany. If there is no God, then who is to say that Hitler was wrong? The Nazis were concerned about reason, science, observation, etc., just think of Josef Mengele.
I disagree, Robert, Christians don’t constantly revise what is right and wrong. Rather, many who claim the name of Christian change positions on matters such as slavery, divorce, interracial marriage, homosexuality, etc. And, while many individuals have done this, the whole of Christianity has held to an objective morality. For example, while some groups are now accepting of homosexuality, the Church as a whole has always viewed homosexuality as sinful and stood against divorce. Interracial marriage, while opposed by some American Christians for an extended period, has not been a major issue at large.
I do not believe eating an In-N-Out Burger is evil. Of course, I believe God has made human beings stewards of creation. So, while I might enjoy a hamburger, that doesn’t mean I endorse animal cruelty. On the contrary, because they are God’s creatures, I believe animals should be treated with decency and respect. If I were a Darwinian, then I would think it wouldn’t matter since I’m “the fittest.”
Robert
March 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Thank you, and the appreciation is mutual.
Unfortunately, this argument is not one I think you’d be very successful at. What does “common design” mean? Also, we have an excellent explanation, well-supported by multiple strands of evidence, for apparent design that does not depend upon a Designer. Finally, I note that my argument against God’s existence, which you didn’t dispute, and your argument for a “common Designer” are not exclusive; combined, they argue for the impersonal god of Deism. Are you a deist now?
Apples and oranges. We’re not speaking of fairness, but of moral responsibility. I maintain it’s unjust to make someone morally culpable for the actions of others, which is the bizarre situation Christian theology necessitates in order for it to work. A more accurate analogy would be having your child thrown in jail because someone 10 years ago murdered their spouse. If that happened, you’d protest very loudly, though when God essentially does the same to us, he’s called “all-loving”.
In any case, you raise interesting questions which are appropriately directed to your god.
Yes, did you read the linked article?
Again, the “fallen world” is a result, allegedly, of the actions of two individuals long ago. The result is that their progeny have no choice but to act sinfully. You equivocate between blaming us for suffering and blaming the “fallen world”, when, according to Christian theology, we’ll suffer no matter what we do, no matter how righteous we are (Matt. 5:25). There’s nothing we can do about it – all because of the poor choice of two people. Pretty bizarre, once you think about it.
I asked a question earlier, I hoped you’d answer directly: “Under what conceivable ethical system is it moral to, say, cure grandma of her cold, while allowing thousands of children every day to suffer and ultimately perish from hunger?”
Questions such as these, I must say, are going unanswered…
Who is to say? The many who fought against Hitler because of his threat to life and liberty.
Please clarify, for it appears that you’re saying those who change their positions on these issues are not truly Christian.
So is interracial marriage objectively moral or immoral? If the former, why did these Christians oppose it? If the latter, then why aren’t Christians opposing it now with the same energy as gay marriage?
That’s not really what I asked. My question was, “Is it evil to exploit non-humans for our own benefit?” Surely, if there’s an objective morality as proscribed by God, as you claim there is, then there is a ready answer at hand.
Dr. James Galyon
March 22, 2011 at 7:27 pm
As far as design goes… the rational intelligibility of the universe led Einstein to comment, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” He continued, “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way…the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.” You state, “We have an excellent explanation, well-supported by multiple strands of evidence, for apparent design that does not depend upon a Designer.” I’m curious as to this explanation and the multiple strands of evidence. The anthropic principle seems, rather, to the thorn in the side of those who dispute a Designer.
No, Robert, I didn’t dispute your experiential explanation. How may one dispute an experience? Similarly, how can you dispute my experience of God? Answered prayer? Etc.? I’m certainly not a Deist, for I believe God is active in this world.
In regard to original sin – Again, one is morally culpable for his or her own actions (Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20). Doesn’t change heredity, however, or the curse of death. We still inherit genetic and behavioral inclinations. We are held responsible for what we do with those inclinations. So, God isn’t going to have my child thrown in jail because someone 10 years ago murdered his/her spouse. My child will only be thrown into jail if he/she is guilty of the murder, so to speak. In my estimation, Christian theology provides an answer to the essential human question of why suffering and evil exist in the world. And again, it’s not simply because of what the pair in Eden did, but because of what their progeny continue to do. Far from being bizarre, it provides a framework of understanding.
You dispute the claim that Adam & Eve existed, and that human beings have inherited a sinful nature. Yet, your very objections concern the evil things people do to each other: murder, rape, abuse, brutality, etc. Why do those things happen? If God did exist, what would you have Him do to rectify the situation?
“Under what conceivable ethical system is it moral to, say, cure grandma of her cold, while allowing thousands of children every day to suffer and ultimately perish from hunger?”
God commands His followers to care for the sick and the hungry. Generally speaking, who has established hospitals and soup kitchens? Christians. In other words, God commands His followers to curb the suffering in a compassionate, direct way, and they have been doing so for centuries. Do you find it ironic that where suffering has been the greatest — to places like Sudan and China and Cambodia — that faith in God grows more greatly? Bart Ehrman decries God for not doing enough to reduce suffering in his book, God’s Problem, but encourages people to spend their finances for their own comfort. He writes, “I think we should work hard to make the world–the one we live in–the most pleasing place it can be for ourselves…. We should make money and spend money. The more the better. We should enjoy good food and drink. We should eat out and order unhealthy desserts, and we should cook steaks on the grill and drink Bordeaux…. We should drive nice cars and have nice homes. We should make love, have babies, and raise families. We should do what we can to love life–it’s a gift and it will not be with us for long.” I find that ironic. Ehrman despises and blames God, yet how is he spending the wealth from his books? How does he expect others to spend their wealth? On themselves. God, while not denying food and blessing to His people, commands them to care for the poor and the sick.
You may question whether or not Hitler was wrong, but I believe his actions were truly evil.
There has long been a “Christian” position on those issues, based upon the teachings of Scripture. To abandon those positions is to cease being Christian on that position. The Early Church spoke out against abortion, homosexuality, etc. Interracial marriage, however, has never been a moral issue. The question for Christians related to marriage is not the color of one’s skin, but the content of one’s character. Namely, are both individuals followers of Christ Jesus? If so, then there is nothing barring marriage (despite ethnic differences). Why did those American Christians oppose it? Because they were more captive to the culture on the issue than to Scripture.
“Is it evil to exploit non-humans for our own benefit?” Treating animals cruelly is forbidden by Scripture. Utilizing them for food and clothing is not. Even when they are utilized in such a fashion, they should be treated with dignity.
Robert
April 6, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Well, no, quite the opposite. According to the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principal, even if there is a very high improbability of the universe existing with observers, the properties of the universe that allow us to exist are also what allow us to observe the universe with properties compatible with the existence of observers. In other words, simply because we exist in a universe which allows this existence does not imply anything special about the universe, e.g., that it was “designed” that way.
One firmly established theory that demonstrates apparent design is evolution. Biology also shows how our aspects of our physical make-up reflect “bad design”, i.e., sub-optimal features of living bodies that an omnipotent designer would have excluded. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is an example of one “bad design”.
My argument wasn’t “experiential” but evidential. Perhaps I missed it, but I’ve yet to see any objection to it.
As for your experience of God, I can quite easily claim you’re mistaken, or delusional. If this sounds impertinent, I apologize, but they’re the same grounds you use to reject the mystical experiences of non-Christan believers (and even some Christian ones), no?
Because of what Adam and Eve allegedly did, your child will murder (or commit some other sin which will automatically deny them heaven). There’s no way to get around it. That’s the bizarre part. Even if your child tried their hardest not to commit a sin, they couldn’t. Christian theology tells us that’s impossible.
Also, as you already conceded “there is no evidence that those who obey God suffer less overall than those who don’t.” A correlation between obedience to God and the degree to which we suffer is non-existent. This is a “fallen world”, as you said, which generate evil and suffering not simply because of but in spite of our efforts.
I dispute their existence because no Christian has demonstrated it, while our current scientific understanding excludes their existence. I thus have no reasonable grounds to accept their existence as Christians claim, and thus no reasonable grounds to regard being infected with something called “sin” as anything more than fantasy, just as you regard explanations for evil resulting from “karma” as fantasy.
Why do those things happen, in my view? Because, our environment is this way, and we’re creatures of our environment. Fortunately, we can alter our environment, but neither never be wholly disconnected from it, nor our past.
I’m aware of the command, but it doesn’t much answer the question, “Under what conceivable ethical system is it moral to, say, cure grandma of her cold, while allowing thousands of children every day to suffer and ultimately perish from hunger?”
God, it seems, seems perfectly fine violating our free will to alleviate the relatively minor suffering of some, but when it comes to the really awful suffering, well, he leaves it up to his followers to fix.
Not really. For ages, people have looked to mysterious agents to make sense of the senseless. This, I believe, is a product of our hyperactive agency-detecting brains.
Are you suggesting God chooses to let people suffer, particularly the poor and the weak, as a way to bring humans closer to him? Besides being coercive, it’s morally repugnant, and seemingly arbitrary. Why not dish out some suffering to people, say, in the Netherlands or Sweden too, where god-belief is on the wane? Surely they can use the stick, if not more so, than the starving Sudanese.
What?
I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that future Christians will say this of you who oppose gay marriage now. Just as Christians were in favor of slavery before they opposed it.
Dr. James Galyon
April 14, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Barrow & Tipler certainly maintain that we shouldn’t be surprised at the order and fine-tuning of the universe, since if it didn’t exist, then carbon-based life would be impossible. However, while they use the anthropic principle against the inference of design, as John Leslie has pointed out, “that sounds like arguing that if you faced a firing squad with fifty guns trained on you, you should not be surprised to find that you were alive after they had fired. After all, that is the only outcome you could possibly have observed — if one bullet had hit you, you would be dead. However, you might still feel that there is something which very much needs explanation; namely why did they all miss? Was it by deliberate design? For there is no inconsistency in not being surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, and being surprised to observe that you are still alive.”
In regard to your evidential argument, how does evil necessarily disprove the existence of God if that God has designed to utilize evil in His plan?
I’m sure you think I’m mistaken in regard to my belief in God, but I hope you don’t think me delusional. : ) No, you don’t sound impertinent. It is not Christian experience which I employ as the grounds for rejecting non-Christian belief systems. Rather, Holy Scripture is the reason for rejecting those systems.
In regard to sin, while one cannot escape the snare of corruption, that does not mean that individuals are unable to choose to do ethical things. No one is compelled to murder, etc. Rather, those acts are committed by an act of the will.
When you say you “dispute their existence,” are you speaking of evil acts (e.g., murder, rape, etc.)? Why do you believe our environment is the way it is?
Yes, I am suggesting that God chooses to let people suffer as a way to bring humans closer to Him. Rather than being morally repugnant, or arbitrary, I view it as purposeful. In years past, those in the Netherlands and Sweden have experienced suffering, and I think they will likely experience such things again.
Some are already saying that those who oppose homosexual marriage are merely captive to the culture, even though it is now (and was in the early years of the Church) a very counter-cultural position to take. The Church has not taken a stand in regard to interracial marriage since its inception, but it has taken a stand on the issue of sexual immorality (any sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman).
Robert
May 5, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Dr. Galyon, I hope you don’t think I’ve forgotten you! Sometimes it takes me a little bit to return to a discussion. On my own blog, I’m currently having a very thoughtful and challenging discussion with one of my chief Christian protaganists.
Anyway, without further ado, you wrote,
Actually, I’m no longer trying to disprove the existence of God with the problem of evil argument, but instead arguing for the likelihood of his non-existence based on the likelihood of the existence of gratuitous evil. Recall the argument I made earlier:
“If gratuitous evils probably exist, then God probably does not. Since we experience examples of apparent gratuitous evil all the time (e.g., the rape and murder of a small child; massive death and destruction from natural causes), and absent any reason for believing they’re none other than gratuitous, we’re justified in believing such evils are probably gratuitous. Consequently, we’re justified in believing God probably does not exist.”
In any case, if God utilizes evil in his plan, can we really call it evil? It seems to me we have no basis to do so. God is perfectly good, therefore, all God does is perfectly good. If evil is used by God, it becomes, by definition, perfectly good. The problem is, we never know what evil is being used by God; because God has a plan, and because he’s omniscient, we must presume all evil is being used by God, which turns all evil into perfect goodness. At the very least, the Christian no longer has a basis to call evil, evil. She must be agnostic on the question. I explore this more in my blogpost Theism renders existence unintelligable.
I agree, but that’s not my objection. Rather, my objection is that, through no fault of ours, committing sin is an inherent part of us that no act of will can overcome. It’s as if you were condemned to eternal torture for breathing and eating, or for having a crooked nose, or, in my case, nearsightedness.
No, I meant I dispute the claim that a pair of humans Adam and Eve existed and are the progenitor of the human race.
Our environment is the way it is because it has evolved that way through a series of events occurring over billions of years
For those who suffer, and die as a result, how does it bring humans closer to God? What of those who suffer in, say, India? Why should they understand it as God’s effort to bring them closer to him, rather than as the result of karma?
I remain intensely interested in an answer to the question: “Under what conceivable ethical system is it moral to, say, cure grandma of her cold, while allowing thousands of children every day to suffer and ultimately perish from hunger?”