Elaborating on Evil: The Evidential Version

The Evidential Version (It's improbable):

  Here we get into a version of the argument that requires far less proof from the atheist.  Their claim in this version is that it's highly improbable that God could have good reasons for allowing suffering and evil in the world, therefore God does not exist.  Their line of thinking is that if there were a God, then surely He could have created a good world that doesn't require suffering on our part.  Here you have a much more modest claim from the atheist, and that puts less of the burden of proof on their shoulders.  There are basically three claims that you are logically able to use to refute this statement.

Human Limitations:

  Given that our scope is finite since we are creations and not the creator, then we certainly aren't in any position to say that God lacks good reasons for permitting suffering in the world.  We might be able to agree with them that on the surface that most suffering looks unjustified.  We sometimes see neither it's point nor it's necessity.  So the key to the atheist's argument depends on whether we consider ourselves qualified to infer that just because suffering looks unjustified that it actually is unjustified.  As believers we recognize God's sovereignty and His ability to order the past, present and future providentially.  In order to achieve His purposes God may have to allow a great deal of suffering and evil to exist along the way.  Our ability to recognize how it's beneficial is governed by our limited ability to see only what we can see. 

  Even confined to our own small vantage point, we have all certainly seen where suffering has gone on to produce good.  Just one small and very recent example would be texting and driving.  In 2008 Heather Hurd was killed by a truck driver that was texting and driving.  Her father went on to aggressively promote laws for states to ban texting while driving.  It is now illegal in 6 countries and the number of lives saved is unable to be calculated.  Her suffering produced visible good in just a few short years.  I won't even waste time going back in history to detail the horrific events that have resulted in advancement for the entire human race.  Only an all knowing God could begin to grasp the complexities we're trying to explain.  If anything this would be an argument in favor of God and His sovereignty, and a poor argument against it. 

Full Scope of the Evidence:

  When given the full scope of the evidence, God's existence is probable.  All probabilities are relative to some background information.  Let's use Joe College Student as an example here.  If someone told you that 90% of all college students drank beer, and that Joe was a college student, then relative to only that information it's highly probable that Joe drinks beer.  Now what if I told you that Joe was a student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and that 95% of their students don't drink beer.  Relative to the new information, it now becomes highly probable that Joe does not drink beer.  So again, probabilities are all relative to background information.

  So here we have an atheist saying that God's existence is improbable.  Immediately you should ask, "Improbable relative to what?  What kind of background information are you using to support this claim?  Are you basing it off of the suffering in the world?"  Because if that's all of the background information they have, then it's no wonder God's existence looks improbable relative to that.  On a superficial level suffering can call God's existence into question, on a deeper level it can also be used to prove His existence.  This really goes back into my posts on relativism, but in short, suffering cannot be considered bad from a moral standpoint since morals are all relative.  If we are all byproducts of evolutionary chance, then good and bad, suffering and evil, are all relative to your own personal opinion.  The very fact that the atheist will concede that there is such a thing as universal suffering, that is to say something that's universally considered evil or bad, just goes on to validate that we are given moral standards from an intelligent designer. 

Christian Doctrine Explains Suffering:

  Stepping out of the basic concept of a creator and into the God explained in Christianity increases the possibility that God and suffering can coexist.  Certain Christian doctrines increase the probability of suffering, but I'll just mention a few.

1.  The chief purpose of life is not our happiness, but rather the knowledge of God.  People naturally assume that if God does exist, then His purpose for humans life is happiness in this world.  They believe that if God does exist then His role is to provide a soft, comfortable environment for His human pets.  If you're a Christian then you know that this is false.  We are not God's pets and the goal of our existence is not happiness.  It's the knowledge of God that leads to our fulfillment.  So much of the suffering we experience would be completely pointless if happiness were our goal, but it would not be pointless in producing a deeper knowledge of God.

  It's here that the "prosperity," the "health and wealth," or the Gospel sometimes referred to as the "Gospel of positive thinking " have created problems for believers and created a false belief system for even the atheist.  With "pastors" like Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar occupying television networks that reach millions of people per week, various denominations have gone on to teach a milder form of this in the name of church growth.  Scripture has been reduced to a milky self help book so it's not too intimidating to non-believers.  These churches teach it and believers read it in an effort to fix problems in their lives, but rarely to gain knowledge of God.  In this process we have set the atheist up to think that suffering cannot coexist with the God of the Bible, when in fact we are promised to suffer in this life. 

2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God.  This is sometimes taught as The Doctrine of Total Depravity, which states that man is born into sin and a state of depravity.  Rather than being born into a state of goodness, humans are born to sin.  As a result, innocent people suffer from our sinfulness in varying degrees.  Not all of our sinfulness or rebellion could directly be classified as evil on a universal level, but for some people their sinful behavior causes suffering for others.  It isn't until we are saved by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can begin to love God.  This is why Christians aren't surprised by the evil in the world, we expect it. 

3. God's purpose isn't limited to this life, it spills over into eternity.  Christian's understand that this life is just a small door that opens up into a glorious eternity.  We see a great example of this in the life of the Apostle Paul.  Paul lived a life that was filled with hardship, beatings, imprisonment and yet he lived it all with an eternal purpose.  Paul called the sufferings in this life "a slight momentary affliction." 

  The simple use of these three basic Christian doctrines greatly decreases the probability that God and suffering cannot coexist.  Of course the atheist would naturally respond by saying that there's no proof that these doctrines are true.  Then he's trying to shift the burden of proof back to you, but that's a cheap shot in a debate that centers around logic.  He might need to take his debate to a prosperity believer at this point, for we have already shown that the Christian God is completely compatible with suffering and evil by virtue of our own doctrine.  He might make the statement that he would never worship the Christian God since suffering is at the very heart of our salvation and spills over into our beliefs, but then he's decided to get out of the intellectual argument and back into the emotional argument.  At that point all you've done is proved that it's not impossible for God and suffering to coexist, the rest of the real work has to be done by the Holy Spirit. 

Going Forward:

  It looks like I will be studying the problem of pop culture and Christianity.  I plan on spending a lot of time here.  Some of it will focus on how Christians are portrayed in our culture, but a lot of it will focus on why.  In my preliminary scanning of the material, it appears that some of it is focused on where the church went wrong.  There was a time when Christians dominated the intellectual landscape through the teaching of sound doctrine and apologetics in the church.  It appears that the church culture in the last century has taken a turn for the worse as solid Biblical teaching has given way to watered down Sunday morning messages.  Church growth now means going wide and seldom going deep.  Christianity can use popular culture to it's advantage, but it might mean making church culture less popular. 

Elaborating on Evil: The Logical Version

Quick Recap:

  Just to backtrack for a moment, we are trying to defend the common atheists' argument that a loving God and suffering cannot coexist.  We have determined that you will not be able to build a rational defense if their position is based on their feelings.  This is why my poorly constructed diagram goes no further on the on the emotional problem of suffering, you simply cannot, nor should you really attempt to dive any further when their problem is based on feelings.  This person has likely experienced real suffering and they need to be shown compassion.  It's the intellectual problem of suffering that we're going to dive into. 
 
  The two different versions of the argument are important to grasp as you will structure your defense differently.  As I mentioned before, you can determine which route to use by simply asking a simple question like this one; "So are you saying that it's impossible for God and the suffering in the world to coexist, or are you merely saying that it's improbable?"  Their response to that question will let you know how to proceed. 

The Logical Version: (It's impossible)

  In their head the argument goes something like this.  If God exists then suffering cannot.  Since we all know that suffering exists, then it follows that God does not exist.  The atheist is claiming that the following two statements are logically inconsistent:

1. An all-loving, all powerful God exists.
2. Suffering exists.

Now the obvious question becomes, why think that these two statements are logically inconsistent?  Remember, we're not dealing with feelings or emotions anymore, we're strictly adhering to the rules of logic.  There's no explicit contradiction between those two statements, meaning one is not the logical opposite of the other.  So if logic doesn't make these two statements an obvious contradiction, then the atheist must be making some hidden assumptions that serve to bring out the contradiction and make it explicit. The two obvious hidden assumptions are:

3. If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants.
4. If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.

So then their statement becomes that God can and wants to create a world without suffering, and as they have pointed out in premise 2 suffering exists, so therefore God must not exist.  In order for this argument to show a logical inconsistency between statements 1 and 2, both of the hidden assumptions in 3 and 4 have to be necessarily true.  But are they?

Premise 3: (If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants.)

 Is this necessarily true?  It's only a true statement if it's impossible for people to have free will. God's being all powerful doesn't mean that He can bring about the logically impossible, to be clear there's no such thing as the logically impossible.  It's a completely inconsistent combination of words.  However, if the atheist is insistent that an all-powerful God CAN do the logically impossible, then the conversation is over.  At this point they've committed themselves to the stance that God and suffering can both coexist, since He can do the logically impossible, negating your need to go any further.

Since it turns out it's possible for people to have free will, then it follows that premise 3 is not necessarily true.  If people can have free will then they have the ability to refuse to do what a loving God desires, which still makes Him a loving God as described in the Bible, but illustrates the evil that does exist in a fallen world.  This eliminates one of the assumptions that the atheist needs to be true for their logical argument to succeed.  Remember, they need both to be true.

A Moment on Free Will:

  This argument is based on the use of Libertarian Free Will. In my post it is strictly used as a possibility, though not a Biblically sound view for a believer.  I don't hold a libertarian view of free will, nor do the professors that are teaching the subject. It paints a picture of a reactionary God that's unsure of our choices and then must react accordingly once we chose to do something.  I am strictly using this as a method to dismiss the possibility for the atheist and nothing more.  As believers we all share one common belief, that our scope is limited. The atheist, unfortunately, believes that they have a better grasp on reality and therefore an unlimited vantage point. With no creator, there is no one that sees things from a divine perspective, therefore putting them at the apex of reasoning.  We aren't trying to fully explain God in this argument, we are simply trying to remove the idea that it's impossible for God and suffering to coexist.  So plugging in possibilities is an acceptable method of reasoning here, even if it's not in line with sound theology.

Premise 4: (If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.)

  Is this necessarily true?  We all know instances where we permit suffering for the greater good.  Think about taking your child to the dentist.  You allow your child to suffer a little bit (at least this is suffering in their eyes), but it's all for their own good.  The atheist might insist that an all-powerful being wouldn't be so limited.  That God could bring about greater good directly, without any suffering involved.  Again this is where the possibility of free will is involved.  Some goods can only be achieved through suffering.  Some people consider things like exercise to be a form of suffering to produce a better result.  If we induce small amounts of suffering upon ourselves for the greater good, then simply increasing the scale on which you suffer fails to invalidate that good can come from it.  If you can point out ways in which they use suffering on a small scale to create a better result, then you can dismiss premise 4.  If there is any possibility that suffering on any level can be used for good, then it alone cannot be used to explain away God.

Since the atheist has taken on the burden of proof in this argument, it's clear that it's too heavy for them to carry.  Their only way out is to somehow prove that free will doesn't exist in any capacity.  Then to fully finish it off, they must explain how it's impossible that a world without suffering is better than a world with suffering. 

Suffering is in the Eyes of the Beholder:

  At this point you should be done with your argument when using the logical version, but here's a little something extra in case the conversation ventures off into the obscure.  Suffering cannot be a valid argument against God simply because suffering is relative.  The very things that cause me to suffer might be enjoyable to others. Many of the things that we do in America are considered evil in other parts of the world. Worshiping Christ is one of them.  In the US, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of criminals.  In China you are executed for embezzlement.  Suffering and evil are not standard units of measurement, they are personal opinion.  Yes, there are things that are almost universally considered evil.  The Holocaust is one of them and a very common example. It's certainly not something I wish to marginalize to make a point.  However, I must point out that it wasn't considered evil in the eyes of Hitler or his followers.  While this doesn't mean that their actions weren't evil, it just serves to point out that evil is still a relative term. 

Going Forward:

  After centuries of debate, you should know that the logical version of the problem of suffering has been put to bed.  Not here in this blog, but rather by Christian philosophers and atheistic scholarship in general.  Chances are that you're not going to be having this discussion with a philosopher, so it's still useful in an everyday conversation.  Like I've mentioned in previous posts, you are dealing with entry level atheists, so it's still a useful method of debate. 

  Next we will look at the Evidential Version of the argument.  That is to say that it's improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting suffering.

Elaborating on Evil: Play Calling

Prove It:

  When laying this series out I seem to have forgotten to begin with this section, but better late than never.  I should have started this post by making it clear that evil and suffering are not something we use to prove God's existence, but rather what the atheist will try to use to dismiss it.  Unlike proving the resurrection we don't have the burden of proof here.  It's up to the atheist to use evil and suffering to prove God doesn't exist, and believe me they will try.  Too often believers allow non-believers to pass that burden, but not this time.

  The conversation often unfolds in a statement like "tell me why your God permits suffering if he's loving."  Then they sit back and play the role of skeptic while you explain something they have no intention of trying to absorb.  While this is a great strategy on the part of the atheist, it's a philosophically illegitimate and intellectually dishonest way to debate.  Don't allow them to dodge their mental responsibility here.  They are saying that an omnipotent, loving God and the concept of suffering can't coexist so make them prove it.  Demand premises and support for their argument.  Then it's your turn to sit back and play the skeptic.  Chances are they don't have any support, just an emotionally driven "feeling" that God wouldn't allow suffering.  This is why the chart I've listed below (and in the previous post) doesn't go any further on the emotional problem of suffering.  If you're engaged in an argument based on emotions then asking someone to really prove their point doesn't proceed beyond their feelings.  Feelings won't have premises or support.

Play Calling:

  Before you get too deep into the argument you need to find out which version of it you're about to participate in so you're in the right formation.  I'd go with a question like "are you saying that it's impossible for God and the suffering in the world to coexist, or are you suggesting that it's merely improbable?"  For starters, most atheist aren't expecting you to be prepared for an actual debate.  This person has probably used their little attack several times in the past with no one around to properly call them out on it.  They're expecting to ruffle your feathers a bit, and at best, they expect you to give them a Bible verse.  If they're like most atheists then they've never really thought about what they blurted out.  Be gracious and help them clarify what they believe if necessary.  Their explanation of what they believe will determine which version of the argument you're about to be in.  While you want to show them the fallacy in their argument, you still want to do so with care.  There's a good chance they're using suffering and evil as an assault on God because they've suffered themselves.  Make sure you don't just see them as an opponent, but rather an opponent with a soul. 

Going Forward:

  

  Again, I'm sorry for the confusion.  This really should have been my first post in the series, but I needed to get it in so it's right in the middle instead.  I hope you can see how important it is to get this right.  There isn't a day that goes by where evil and suffering aren't on full display in a fallen world.  On a daily basis we see death, natural disasters and heinous evil everywhere.  It presents an unlimited number of opportunities for an atheist to evangelize.  For the rest of the series I will go deeper into the two different versions of the intellectual problem of suffering.  Once you make someone realize that an emotional argument won't hold water then they have to get off the field or call an audible and get into the intellectual argument.  From there your questions will help you determine if you need to go with the logical version or the evidential version.  

  The one thing that all of the topics I've covered to this point have in common is that none of them have the ability to save people.  God and God alone saves people, but that doesn't negate our responsibility as believers to defend our faith. If we're going to defend it, I see no problem in doing it well and having a game plan. Not only is evil and suffering a point of debate between atheists and believers, but if you're a parent then it's something you'll have to explain to your children.  While I wouldn't suggest that you demand a set of premises from your kids when the topic comes up, I still feel like this will help you explain why suffering happens so it doesn't become a stumbling block.

  

Elaborating on Evil: The Problem

Evil, Suffering and a Loving God:

  I've had a tough time studying this material and I probably won't spend too much time on it.  For starters it's not a tangible subject, like proving the resurrection historically. My biggest problem is trying to put all of it into words when it really soaked in more like a flow chart in my mind.  In addition to the difficulty of relaying the information, it's been challenging for me spiritually.  Evil is real.  People do suffer.  God is loving.  I separated those on purpose because that's what the atheist does.  They struggle to reconcile a loving God back to the evil they see when you turn on the TV and watch two men plant bombs at the feet of children during a marathon.  They want answers and believers often struggle to respond.  Most people think that science drives people away from God, but most of the atheists I've studied are unable to see evil and suffering compatible with a loving God and therefore see holes in theology.

  To be clear, I'm not going to attempt to explain away evil or try to tell you why God allows people to suffer.  This is really more focused on how we as believers respond when challenged with the problem of evil by a non-believer.  I hope it can be of some use because this really might be one of the most challenging areas of apologetics.  I've heard non-believers say things like "either your God is too weak to stop suffering or he lets bad things happen to good people."  It's this line of thinking that I hope to address.  I also want to say that I'm sure there are people reading this that have experienced evil and suffering on a very deep level. So I want to be clear that I'm not trying to marginalize your life experiences into something that can make them sound pretty.  Suffering isn't pretty, it hurts, but rest in the knowledge that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance character, and character hope. (Romans 5:3-5) When thinking about evil and God you must do so from a philosophical standpoint.  Philosophers don't feel a certain way on a topic, philosophers are called to think a certain way.  Let's proceed as philosophers.

Versions of the Problem of Suffering:

  We need to start by separating the problem so that we can think clearly.  Suffering produces two different problems, the intellectual problem and the emotional problem.  To briefly summarize, the intellectual problem concerns whether it's logical to think that God and suffering can coexist.  The emotional problem deals with a person's dislike of a God who would permit suffering to happen.  This is where the chart above can help you keep the two problems separate.  The importance of separating these is vital.  The answer to the intellectual problem will come off as cold and uncaring if you're talking to someone that's struggling with the emotional problem.  The answer to the emotional problem will seem weak and a bit fake if you're engaged in an intellectual discussion with someone that's using suffering and evil as an abstract issue.  I think if you're having this discussion on the ground level then you're likely dealing with someone that's struggling emotionally with suffering.  It's these people that want nothing to do with a God that would allow people to suffer.  However, if you're going to address the emotional aspect then you have to go in depth with the intellectual problem to prove that evil and suffering fail as proof of atheism.

Going Forward:

    My next post will dive deeper into the logical and evidential versions of the intellectual problem of suffering.  I hope I don't lose you here because evil and suffering are so common in our society that this conversation can literally come up on any day.  You need to be prepared to defend your worldview in the face of this monumental problem.  I also want to apologize for the terrible flow chart.  I claim to be an apologist, not an artist.  It was the best I could do with Microsoft Paint and three minutes.