Imagine for a second that there is no God. Imagine God is dead. What would we expect our world to look like if God did not exist? Based on this idea a brilliant, young Irish economist by the name of Robert Nielsen has presented an interesting, but ultimately unpersuasive case in his article World Without God. Nielsen states that this argument is at the foundation of his atheism. I hope to test his case below.
I could say many things about Nielsen’s article, but I would like to focus exclusively on his main argument which is as follows¹:
1. a. If God existed & controlled the world, then our world would exhibit features A.
b. If God existed & controlled the world, then our world would not exhibit features B.
2. a. Our world does not exhibit features A.
b. Our world does exhibit features B
Nielsen defends premises 1 and 2 as follows: If God controls our world then we would expect our world to exhibit certain features A. These features include those of a perfect world. He argues, “its fair to assume that it would be perfect (assuming God can do anything and loves us).” A perfect world is that without hunger, without fear, without diseases or disasters. In short it would be the world without pain and suffering. This is not enough for Nielsen. God must also be self-evident, not hidden from His creatures, thus creating no possibility of religious confusion. Our world needs to be a paradise, or something close.
Our world, if it is not the case God exists and control it, according to Nielsen, exhibits features B: It is a world that he apparently believes is without an overarching plan. It is a world of pure cosmic chance. It is a world of struggle to overcome and survive natural and moral disasters. It is a world without external intervention to prevent either mass killing nor gratuitous evils. It is the world without a being above to prevent widespread poverty. Our world is not a paradise.
From (1) and (2), Nielsen’s deduced:
3. Therefore, it is not the case that God exists & controls the world.
I find Nielsen’s case unpersuasive and unsound because premise 1 (a & b) is not only taken as an assumption without any proper basis but not necessarily true. Nielsen’s core assumption, viz., “If there was a world controlled by a God, its fair to assume that it would be perfect (assuming God can do anything and loves us)”, must not only be true but necessarily true for his case to be sound. The problem is that the premise is easily disputable and must be taken as a prima facie assumption. Nielsen only assumes, and offers no justification or rationalization to substantiate his first premise that if God is omnipotent and loves humanity that God therefore would have to construct a perfect world.
This assumption is not necessarily true. It is possible to have (i) a world W created and controlled by an omnipotent and loving God where (ii) W is not a perfect world. If this is possible then Nielsen’s argument fails. Consider the following just-so Christian saga² I used in my article On Behalf of Demea: Hume’s Problem of Evil:
All things were created by benevolent and omnipotent God. In the whole creation God made higher sentient creatures to exemplify His essential morally perfect character. These beings were created to first and foremost love, adore and serve their Maker, and love and serve each other. For there to be a genuine love, these being were endowed with freedom of will which is a necessary condition for true acts of loving, adoration and service.
Some of these sentient creatures misused their freedom of will in choosing not to exemplify their Makers moral perfect character. As a consequence, pain and suffering entered into the good things that God had created.
God is both able and willing to bring an end to pain and suffering at any given moment. The fact that the pain and suffering exists is because God has morally sufficient reason(s) to allow it for a specific duration of time. The time is coming where God will put an end to past and present instance of pain and suffering.
In this just-so Christian saga we have both (i) and (ii). Thus it is not the case, contrary to Nielsen, that “[i]f there was a world controlled by a God, its fair to assume that it would be perfect”. If this is what is at Nielsen’s core reasons for being an atheist, then my best friend’s atheism is not standing on solid ground as he undoubtedly believes it is, unless he present a positive case to show that his assumption is justified.
Notes:
1. Nielsen’s argument as it is is invalid because the world exhibiting features B does not necessary means a world without God. It could be a world similar but opposite to A, namely a world which God did not control it. This is the position of deists and Epicureans. Thus features B does not necessarily lead to atheism.
2. Another just-so story could be a modified Hindus’ saga: An Omnipotent and loving God created a world in which rewards, crime and punishment unfolds itself in a spiral-like karma and reincarnation of its creatures. Evil occurs to a person P in present life as the consequence of wrong actions by P in present or past life. This saga also includes (i) and (ii). See Does Karma & Reincarnation Solve The Problem of Evil?
Thank you Travis Wakeman for editing this post.
There is another perspective you might consider. It’s not about a “perfect world” or the incessant battle between believers and non-believers. It’s about the world we have, and share, and ought to learn to live in together, don’t you think? God or no God, this is what we have. We will all never agree on beliefs, but we can agree we need to care for the only home we know and cherish.
Thank you Chris for your comment. It is well received.
You are correct that this is our home as far as we know. But I think without a transcendent perfect being, I do not see why we are to care about our well being. It does not matter whether we care or not. From a cosmological point of view, we are here just for a while and gone in a cosmic death.
If there is no life after life, and that there is no objective meaning to our existence then it does not matter whether we are concerned with it or not. Consider a chess game where there is no objective goal, capturing the opponent’s King. It does not matter which move we subjectively make.
Thus, agreeing to care for the only home we have presuppose God. Without God, I do not see how that is possible.
Let me know your thoughts Chris.
So, Prayson, are you saying that without your belief in your own particular god, you would not care at all about the rest of the world, not care whether people suffer, and not want to live a good life to help others or make a difference? Any and all ethics come straight from your faith? Hmm. If that’s true, what do you say about people like me who do not believe but who care? What about the vast majority of the world that doesn’t believe as you do? No good people worth anything at all? It seems you raise a major ethical question: Can Christians learn to work with others who disagree to make the world better and more liveable, or are they just too heaven-minded to really care? It seems to me the question is not so much is there life after death but can we live a life for the good of others now–life before death?
No. I am not without “my belief” in “my own particular god”, that I will not care at all abut the rest of the world. I am saying with God’s existence, whether I believe that he exists or not is irrelevant. I am not talking about epistemological issue, “my God”, “your God” or “their God” etc. I am taking about ontological issue. The being of God.
If there is no objective transcending standard to which we could view the world, all seems just pitiless indifference, borrowing Richard Dawkins’ terms. Whether I care or not about the suffering of others is simply indifference.
It does seem there is an “objective transcending standard.” I would call that Nature, natural laws, the Cosmos. It is, whether you or I believe in it at all. As for WHOSE God-being you speak of, that is a personal decision, but certainly not in any way objective.
Btw, referring to Dawkins has no content, since he is one voice among millions of non-theists. Personally I am rather indifferent to him.
Nature itself can be unfair. If nature is the standard, then there is no benefit of the doubt when bad things happen. Natural laws do not have a mind, they do not act out of infinite wisdom. Such an idea of ones destiny ultimately relying on the Cosmos is surely depressing.
My pleasure Prayson. To be honest I was surprised to see my name at the bottom and it took me a while to remember that I looked over this for you a while back. All the best to you and yours.