THE ARGUMENT: The problem of evil is how a God of morality can stand by while there is so much terrible suffering that it would seem immoral to tolerate. Atheists reject the existence of God for that reason. But religion says that you need God to make morality morality so now there is a worse problem: "You may do good but you have no reason to."

The problem of evil is less harmful and less of a difficulty for a Christian than it is for the atheist. If it sinks Christianity, hypothetically speaking, it does a better job of sinking atheism. For example, the atheist cannot say that it is terrible when wild animals take babies and dismember them alive for food. The atheist should just say, "It is not right and it is not wrong. It is just the way things are! It is okay then if we do nothing about it. If nature does not care and cannot care then why should you care?"

REPLY: The argument is a stupid one.
An atheist who does good constantly without even trying to ground why they should do it is just getting on with it and thinking of the people. Even moral people don't ask themselves all the time, "Is this for the best morally?" The argument is about making a thought crime. It is trying to discredit atheism instead of being truly concerned for good. It can only come from people who worship but who have no real experience of doing good. Surely they would prefer Scenario A? Scenario A, "Most people do remarkable good in this world without knowing why." Scenario B, "Most people are more interested in why they should be good instead of getting out and helping." 

Morality says that you are not obligated to do the impossible so if you have to make do with a sense that it is somehow valid that is all you can do. That is morality. It is not clear morality but it is morality. It is insulting then to argue that we must overlook evil and suffering being permitted by God in order to conserve morality. And especially when morality causes suffering itself for it is so vague and hard to implement. 

And there is something else. A few words have been changed. Believers have to admit that God could be in their heads and be just their construct. Faith and belief have to admit they could be wrong. It is insulting then to argue that we must overlook evil and suffering being permitted in my perception of God in order to conserve morality. And especially when morality causes suffering itself for it is so vague and hard to implement. 

Can the problem of evil refute or sink both belief and atheism as decent things? Suppose it did.  Fact remains life can be okay if nothing gets away from the problem.  Even demons have to get along.  We would have a pragmatic but immoral existence.   Agnosticism would be useless morally when both items on the menu are useless anyway.

If it did sink both, it does not follow that it will sink both equally.  Aim two identical missiles at two identical battleships and one will be worse off than the other and sink faster.  It sinks Christianity best. We have to assume there is or is not a God. If you do not feel that God backs morality then belief will do you no good.  If morality is real it needs no God to say it is right.  If God's opinion or what he is makes morality valid then how do we know that his opinion and his nature are really morally right?  If atheists have no ground for morality religion is worse off.  It has to lie to engineer God as a solution.  The atheist is better for she does not need to lie.

If it sinks both the same, the fact remains that we have to choose one or the other.   We choose atheism as the better option.

The Christian claims that each of us is a little bit atheist. There is a part of us that thinks there is no God. When you are not totally certain God exists, that means you mostly believe but do not fully believe.  I like the idea that there is an atheist seed or atheist part in everybody.  It shows that the atheist and the Christian differ only in the degree of their atheism.  It forges a good common ground.  There is something to build on.  A Christian who digs their heels in and who seems fortified against atheist truth may agree with us and not want to admit it to themselves.  Obstinacy in believing lies is necessary if you know they are lies somewhere deep down.
If there is a bigger problem of evil with atheism than with faith then Christians are not immune from it. The problem touches them.
Anyway, atheism is alleged to have a bigger problem of evil than believers in God have.
Believers usually say that an atheist who thinks there is no God has no right to call anything evil. They say the atheist has no standard for judging that it is evil when a little bird is being torn to pieces by a cat. They say that the atheist assumes that creatures ought to be healthy and happy. They ask where the ought comes from and say it can only come from God so the atheist is guilty of having God at the back of his mind and not admitting it or realising it. They even go as far as to say that the atheist is loath to say what evil and suffering are.
But the atheist merely judges it as evil without God. The cat is not evil for it is only doing what nature has programmed it to do but the killing is still evil. Evil exists whether we are programmed biological computers or not.

The believer judges what is evil without God too. The believer tries to say that his morals and wisdom all come from God but he is lying because he asserts that he trusts in God because God has shown himself to be reliable and trustworthy. The believer is judge over God not the other way around. If faith in God needs a big lie like that then atheism even if it has problems is less bad.  Believers need to admit that for them it is what they feel they want to think about God that matters not God as such. Assuming there is a God as a prop to inspire yourself is not real respect for God and thus you should assume atheism for you might as well.

In contrast to Christian doctrine which says evil is nothing in the sense that it is the absence of a good that is not there, Jesus said that a person who is evil is in fact a slave to evil. This treats evil like it was some kind of controlling power that knows what it is doing. Unless evil is some kind of person made that way by God or unless Jesus and he are programming it to know what to do, this makes no sense. The slave type of thinking leads you to not seeing that anybody is evil but as a sort of puppet. You are lying to yourself for if evil acts like a person possessing you then maybe it is a person and there are evil people after all! So Jesus and co, why are you trying to make out that evil is like some puppeteer ghost? Why are you trying to get the bad man or woman off the hook? Why are you saying that evil is not real but just good in the wrong place and time when you turn it into some kind of real god?  Are you trying to put people on a path to destruction?  If I think evil captures me and I don't have much or any responsibility I will soon get out of control and hate anybody who tries to stop me or reform me.  If that was what Jesus was trying to do to you while pretending to cure and heal you of sin it was very successful.  Christianity drinks more innocent blood than it does the communion wine it says is the blood of Jesus.
Case closed: the one thing that the believers need to say to try and solve the problem of evil fails and is evil and ignorant and daft itself. The problem of evil is fatal to faith in God.   Far from signifying a standard opposed to evil, faith has loads of well-disguised back doors to let it in.


No Copyright