The ‘problem of evil’ in Christian apologetics is and has been one of the top apologetic issues throughout history. Many have pointed to the attacks on 9/11 (September 11, 2001) as a turning point in our generation concerning this issue. The ‘New Atheists’ (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc.) began writing their – soon to be popular – books not long after this event. For the atheist, it was the confirmation that religion was truly dangerous. For the rest of us, it brought us face to face with evil in a way many of us had not experienced in our lives of relatively peaceful existence. One’s worldview needed to be able to deal with this kind of event. I believe that when people were actually faced with the reality of this kind of evil, many found their position wanting and began to either search for answers, or to focus the problem on someone else. As Christians, we should be prepared to provide answers.
First, a note of caution: when dealing with evil and suffering, there is a time to ponder it, and come to good philosophical and intellectual conclusions about it, but there is also a time when one is in the midst of grief and suffering. When dealing with evil in the latter sense, it might be best to consider the Biblical book of Job and just ‘be there’ and ‘walk with’ the suffering person. Having this problem worked out before hand will often help in those situations, but usually isn’t helpful to work through in the moment. The best comfort in these times is to know God is in control and that as Christians we know how the story ends!
Whose problem is it?
This seems like a strange question to ask. Certainly evil is everyone’s problem, right? Well, yes it is, but this question gets at a problem specific to non-theistic worldviews such as atheism. Under atheism, one cannot really have true evil. There can be things which one does not like or that are not beneficial, but these things ultimately just ARE. For something to be good, or conversely evil, there has to be real objective morality, which in-turn requires an objective moral law giver. For example, 2+2=4 is correct and therefore might be ‘good’ in some sense, or at least better than 2+2=5, but there is no morality involved. Making a particular chess move might be ‘good’ or better if the goal is to win the chess game, than making a move which loses the game; but again, there is no morality involved. This is about the extent of ‘good’ available to the atheist. It is simply a pragmatic good, not a moral one. To take this to an absurd level in order to make the distinction, if a rapist passed on some genes which advanced the human species, it would have to be considered, on the whole, good in the atheist worldview, no matter if it is distasteful in society.(1) But what about the morality of such an action?
When an atheist brings up the problem of evil, it is first a good idea to evaluate why the challenge is being advanced. If the atheist is (like many New Atheists are) complaining about the evil they see in the world, it is fair to challenge this assertion based on the above discussion. In THEIR worldview, evil has no real weight or place. They are borrowing from the theist in order to lodge their complaints. At best, on their worldview, they can complain that they don’t like what is going on in the world around them, but it becomes a matter of ‘tough cookies!’ or ‘deal with it’. Or, to be more diplomatic, it is fair to say, ‘I agree, I don’t like that either,’ and then do some pushing on that hole in their worldview. Maybe ask how they can have evil without God. Isn’t this just the way things are? As you read New Atheists’ writings in the area of ethics, you will soon find determinism lurking close to the surface. I don’t see any other choice for them, so I appreciate their honesty. One can only put an illusory veneer of ‘choice and behavior’ on top of this determinism of the atheist worldview.
The ‘New Atheists’ especially seem to like to do a lot of this invalid type of complaining about evil. I believe someone said of Sam Harris, that he is really sure there is no God, and he is really, really mad at Him! Their writings are loaded with objections to what sure looks like real evil to me.
However, the atheist might also be basing the challenge on the Christian worldview. In other words, she might be taking Christianity for a test-drive, so to speak, to see how evil fits. She can’t seem to make it work and is issuing this challenge to the Christian. It is basically a matter of, ‘evil isn’t a problem in my worldview, but I can’t see how evil can fit into a Christian worldview with a loving God.’ This is the kind of challenge we need to address because it is valid.
(Continued in Part 2)
Resources:
A couple of books I have read and recommend:
Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil by John G. Stackhouse Jr.
The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis
——————–
Notes:
1. It has been pointed out to me that an atheist would not have to come to this conclusion, as they have various options for generating ethics systems to choose from. A better way for me to say this is that they would have a hard time standing up against such a notion, as I don’t see how they would ground the opposition.
Image credit: WTC 9/11 by slagheap
This article was first published at TilledSoil.org. Copyright © 2013 TilledSoil.org. All rights reserved.
(Note: This article was originally posted on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, but the subject matter is always relevant. The article has been modified from the original, and broken into three parts due to length.)
“…If a rapist passed on some genes which advanced the human species, it would have to be considered, on the whole, good in the atheist worldview…”
First of all, there is no specific “atheist worldview.”
Secondly, …you’re kidding, right?!
I don’t know about *specific* worldview, but there are aspects and implications of holding an atheistic view. worldview = a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world (New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd edition) One of those is typically some form of Darwinistic evolution, or neo-Darwinism.
So, no I’m not kidding at all. The animal who most successfully gets their DNA replicated wins. When I look at the animal kingdom, it seems to me that the successful animals are the ones who are powerful enough to mate with the other animal of their choice. I doubt they ask permission.
Steve:
Yes, but the Problem of Evil is not. While we are all burdened with bad stuff in the world, the Problem of Evil (why would a good God permit evil?) only saddles the Christian.
John Lennox recently tried to unsuccessfully sidestep the Problem of Evil. I write more about that and the non-existence of objective morality here.
Bob, if objective morality doesn’t exist, then evil does not either. (which you may agree with) But, if atheists don’t have the problem, then why do they typically complain so much about it? You have your morality, I have mine, the Crusaders had theirs?
I think I covered why a good God might permit evil in the article. If you have a particular point you want to contest, please restate that and we can discuss it.
Objective evil, perhaps, but evil exists just fine. Look it up in the dictionary, and you’ll not find any objective demand.
The Problem of Evil is a problem for the apologist, not the atheist. I suppose atheists bring it up because it’s a strong argument against the Christian claim.
Ah, moral relativism. No, that’s not me. I simply reject the idea of objective morality. (Show me evidence for it, and I may change my mind!)
And I might agree with you, but that’s not an interesting conversation. I don’t care to start with the Christian presupposition and juggle the evidence to support that worldview. More interesting: look at the evidence and see where it leads. That’s what open-minded people do.
I’m not sure the dictionary would be the best place to go, but I’ll play along for the moment. I find stuff like profoundly immoral, malevolent, wicked, depravity, etc. I’m not sure you’ll have any better luck grounding those than you will evil. They all suggest not measuring up to something or opposing some standard. You’re left with this standard coming from somewhere of significance, or being based on culture. If it’s based on culture… which one? Killing Jews was legal in Germany under the Nazi regime. You say you don’t subscribe to moral relativity, but what choice are you left with? re: evidence – just conjure up something you think would always be wrong, no matter where society goes.
But, it isn’t actually a strong argument against the Christian claim. It fits in just fine. You need to start with some presupposition, as there is no neutral ground. Also, examining empirical evidence isn’t the only mode of discovering truth.
That said, I’m not sure how following the evidence is going to help your position. There seem to be somewhat universal human conceptions of right and wrong (sure, with an exception here or there at some points in history). That would point to some common source, it would seem. I only see two options: something external (such as deity), or an internal development which isn’t really rational (assuming rationality could exist in the first place). You seem left with a form of relativism, where at best, you make possibly-convincing arguments for your particular position. That’s still relativism.
For the definition of words? Well, that is its job, after all.
Grounding? You mean in some sort of objective, transcendental way? I agree!
Morality and evil and the related words are terms we’ve come up with to describe things in one domain of life. There’s no reason to imagine objectivity (as in, outside of humans) here.
Morality comes from our genetic programming (which explains the parts that are common across cultures) and society (which explains the parts that aren’t).
Didn’t I explain this last time? I see no evidence for objective morality. That’s very clearly not how many apologists define moral relativism—“You have your truth and I have mine, and I can say nothing against yours” and all that.
Sure, I think that those bad things are wrong. So? So have we concluded that I’ve accidentally tapped into God’s objective morality? What do we do when my “really bad” things don’t line up with yours?
Objective morality isn’t looking so good as an explanation.
Which claim are we talking about?
That objective morality exists? No, this is stillborn, since we have zero evidence for it and a plausible natural explanation.
That we fallible humans are in no position to judge what God should or shouldn’t do? That’s debatable, but let’s accept the claim. So what? This approach is simply trying to justify the God presupposition. No honest seeker of the truth comes into the discussion with a presupposition.
As fads go, this one is pretty irksome, but yeah, I see it a lot. “Hey, we’re all biased, so let’s just admit it. I’m going to wear my biases like a badge of honor, not try to diminish them!”
I guess I’m old school here. I’d actually like to minimize the biases we have.
The relevant bias that I have coming into this is that science is the best tool we have to understand reality. I think this axiom has shown itself to be true. Doesn’t mean that science always gets it right, of course, but what’s better?
Bad stuff happens and God is nowhere to be seen? That’s evidence against God.
Came from evolution, right? We see actions in other primates that, if done by a human, would be called moral actions. A sense of fairness, compassion and sympathy, nurturing, and so on. Evolution honed our morality, just like it did theirs.
re: “For the definition of words? Well, that is its job, after all.”
Bob, you’re a smart guy. You know as well as I do that the dictionary 1) gives words in their current usage (which might not match historical usage) and 2) often uses synonyms in definitions. Synonyms don’t really help you here, that was my point.
If it isn’t objective, it’s subjective. Sure, you could say, we as all of humanity agree on x, y, or z. But 1) That isn’t always the case. And 2) on naturalism, what bearing would that have? It might be the case, but who cares? There is no ‘ought’ that I need to color in the lines, so long as I’m willing to take the consequences. It’s not really morality then, but fear and preservation.
If it simply comes from genetics and culture, the person tossing them off and forging new ground might be the one advancing.
re: “Sure, I think that those bad things are wrong. So?”
No, you’ve just expressed that you don’t like them either. Wrong is a moral category. If exterminating the Jews advances one’s culture, why would it be *wrong*. That the rest of the world disagreed and stopped it, doesn’t say anything to rightness or wrongness. And the Nazis should have been cleared at Nuremberg, as there is no law above the law, and then they did nothing *wrong*.
re: “So have we concluded that I’ve accidentally tapped into God’s objective morality?”
Maybe, huh? But, it’s not like we just assert morality -> God… we win. It’s just one piece of evidence in the web.
re: “What do we do when my “really bad” things don’t line up with yours?”
Well, both of us are wrong, one of us is wrong, or it’s a category error and there is no right or wrong. With no external source, it’s the latter.
re: “That objective morality exists? No, this is stillborn, since we have zero evidence for it and a plausible natural explanation.”
We don’t have zero evidence for it, and I haven’t seen a natural explanation. The best I’ve seen are ‘just so stories’ which, worst case, puts us on equal footing.
re: “No honest seeker of the truth comes into the discussion with a presupposition.”
The fallacy of neutrality. No, a seeker of truth is aware of their presuppositions, and able to question and evaluate them.
re: “The relevant bias that I have coming into this is that science is the best tool we have to understand reality. I think this axiom has shown itself to be true. Doesn’t mean that science always gets it right, of course, but what’s better?”
Well, I’m a pretty huge fan of science as well… but I’m also aware it’s not the only game in town. Despite some rather recent popular consensus among some too-brights, philosophy and reason are kinda important too. And, none of these have any good reason to exclude the supernatural, whether they are good tools to evaluate it or not.
re: “Bad stuff happens and God is nowhere to be seen? That’s evidence against God.”
Well, it’s only bad IF there is a God. And, either free-will and/or a purpose for allowing it undercut the evidence pointing in that direction. I’m curious why you would expect God, if He exists, to fix all the bad stuff?
re: “Evolution honed our morality, just like it did theirs.”
The jury is still out on whether those things are really being represented, but they also kill each other, rape, eat their babies, etc. What makes us think ‘honed’ is a good term? I think you’re borrowing from theism again there. Maybe the fact that we care for our sick, don’t kill our disabled, and somewhat get along despite limited resources is not progress, but setting us up for our extinction (a fault).
Not how many conservative apologists define morality.
But let’s not get bogged down arguing about definitions. For morality, let’s make it simply and say that I reject the claim of objective morality.
No objective ought, yes.
You’re saying that the definition of “objective morality” makes this clear? I’ve not seen that definition.
Sure, the minority moral view might be the correct one. Or maybe not. I see no objective morality as a tie breaker. Do you claim that there is? If so, I’d like to see the evidence of objective morality.
Huh? I judge things, and I label them right or wrong. That’s it. I have no universal/objective platform from which to judge.
How about you? You got one? Show me.
About its absolute rightness or wrongness, yes. The other kind? That’s the kind that people decide. But don’t expect everyone to necessarily agree.
Nothing absolutely wrong, yes.
Huh? If you were indeed channeling God’s morality (and that objectivity was accessible to the rest of us), of course you’d win. That you can’t make that claim is the problem.
Correct. I see no evidence of an external source. I realize that I’m repeating myself, but I hope you will show me (1) this external source exists, and (2) we humans can reliably tap into it. Otherwise, you’re in “how many angels can dance on the end of a pin?” territory.
We’re all the same species, so it’s not surprising that we share much the same moral programming. We see in other primates what would be called “morality” if done by a person—commiseration, sense of fairness, sympathy, and so on. That our moral sense is just how we’re put together would put it in the same category as other stuff that comes from nature/evolution.
That natural explanation is our null hypothesis. We don’t need universal moral truth to explain what we see around us; universally held moral values does a fine job. If you think that, no, morality is objectively grounded, I await the evidence.
You had to make sure that reason was there because you weren’t sure that I’d agree?
As for philosophy, I’ve written quite a bit about that at my blog just recently. But that’s a detour.
Despite the fact that we have myriad natural explanations that have kicked out supernatural ones, and zero supernatural explanation of anything that are accepted by science?
Sounds like religion as a way to, y’know, explain things is on the ropes.
This is the claim of objective morality again? I don’t rely on such a claim.
Who asks for that?
So you’re completely baffled why anyone would bring up the PoE? A child is born with a hideous birth defect and dies a slow death over the next few days—why did God allow that to happen? A quarter million people die in Haiti from an earthquake—why? A deer is injured and dies of starvation—why?
The typical answers is, “God moves in mysterious ways” (or words to that effect). But, since gratuitous evil doesn’t point to God, let’s not presuppose God.
Humans are tops when it comes to hideous actions.
‘Cause that’s what evolution does.
I do hear that, but I don’t think I draw on theism. Give examples if you think this is an issue.
We’re a social species, so evolution selected certain traits—trust, honesty, faithfulness, and so on. Bears (not social) have other traits.
But to your point: sure, we’re well adapted to our environment, but when that environment changes, we may not adapt. Most species have gone extinct, so who knoes?
Awesome response to the problem from evil. I would love to know your thought though on whether the problem from evil is a problem to atheists.
Is it possible that atheists do not in fact borrow from theistic world view when they launch this attack but simply assume, for the argument sake, that if God as understood by Christian existed(this includes the idea of God as the paradigm of goodness), then we would have problem reconciling His nature with problem of bad things?
Hi Prayson,
Thanks!
If I’m understanding your question, I think I wrote to that in the section, “Is it a problem?”, with a preface in the paragraph before it, much like your question. (Now that the article is broken into parts, the last paragraph above in Part 1, and then continued in Part 2).
If not, let me know and I’ll try to answer here.