The Problem of Evil

Grace Community Church 5 July 2015

Part 1

Part 1: The Problem of Evil: 

How to Answer an Unbeliever

Part 2: The Problem of Evil:

How to Answer a Christian

Part 3: James 1:1-12:

Four Essential Elements to How You are to Respond to Trials

“Undoubtedly the greatest intellectual obstacle to belief in God is the so-called problem of evil” (William Lane

Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 536).

“Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is

malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil” (David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural

Religion, 88)?

Premise 1: If God were all-powerful, he would be able to prevent evil.

Premise 2: If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil.

Conclusion: So, if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no evil.

Premise 3: But there is evil.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God

“Eventually . . . I felt compelled to leave Christianity altogether. I did not go easily. On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood and had

come to know intimately from my teenaged years onward. But I came to a point where I could no longer believe . . . . I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world,

given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and

suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it” (Bart Ehrman, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important

Question — Why We Suffer, 3).

Tabash: “Isn’t it fundamentally unfair for instance, for as many Christians [claim], if [say], my mother, an Auschwitz survivor, [after a] miserable life, dies, and winds up in Hell?”

“If the God of the Bible actually exists, I want to sue Him for negligence for being asleep at the wheel of the universe while my grandfather and uncle were gassed to death at Auschwitz.”

Greg Bahnsen Edward Tabash

Θεός + δίκη

Theodicy

Worldview

Worldview

Atheism Christianity

Romans 1

Every intent of the thoughts of his heart is evil continually (Gen 6:5) The heart is deceitful more than anything else (Jer 17:9) The heart is desperately sick The heart cannot be understood The Gospel is veiled to them (2 Cor 4:3-4) Satan blinds their minds Dead in their sins (Eph 2:1-3 Walk according to the course of this world Walk according to Satanic principles Sons of disobedience Live in the lusts of their flesh Indulge in the desires of their flesh and mind By nature children of wrath Minds are futile Understanding is darkened Excluded from the life of God Ignorance is in them

They have hard hearts They are callous Mind and conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15) They are fools They despise wisdom and instruction They hate knowledge His ways are right in his own eyes Revels in his own mind Trusts in his own heart The foundation for life is like building a house on sand The cross if foolishness and a stumbling block to them They are perishing To God, their “wisdom” is foolishness Their reasoning is useless They reason with a falsely called knowledge They are unable to come to God apart from His drawing None understand

None seek God They do not fear God Mind is set on the flesh (Rom 8:7) Mind is hostile towards God Mind is unable to subject itself to the Word of God They cannot please God Enemies of God He cannot understand the things of God because of spiritual deficiency Hate the light and love darkness Suppress the truth in unrighteousness Futile in their speculations Foolish hearts are darkened Profess to be wise Exchange the truth of God for a lie Depraved mind Filled with unrighteousness Alienated from the life of God

Thomas Nagel: “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and

well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m

right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like

that” (The Last Word, 130–31).

Worldview

Atheism Christianity

“Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is

malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil” (David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural

Religion, 88)?

What is “evil” in an atheistic worldview?

Are there universal laws of right and wrong?

“Morals are a convention of culture”

“Morals are conventional”

In other words, morals evolved through time and culture as societies learned what helped with the evolution of humanity. As a result, “good” is “maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures” (Sam Harris, “The Moral Landscape,” 11–12).

Atheist Objection: “But I do have morals and I am a good person!”

Christian Answer: “The issue is not whether or not you have morals. You do have morals. The problem is that you cannot account for the morals you have. You hold a worldview that destroys the possibility of objective morals, but yet you live as if they exist.”

Atheist Objection: “That’s crazy. No atheist believes that!”

Francis Crick (geneticist): “‘You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal

identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.

Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons’” (quoted in Andrew Ferguson, “The Heretic: Who is Thomas

Nagel and Why are So Many of His Fellow Academics Condemning Him?” [The Weekly Standard, 25 March 2013,

Vol. 18, No. 27], 2).

Daniel Dennett

“Powered by Darwin, modern science proceeds, in Dennett’s phrase, as a ‘universal corrosive,’ destroying illusions all the

way up and all the way down, dismantling our feelings of freedom and separate selfhood, our morals and beliefs, a mother’s love and a patient’s prayer: All in reality are just ‘molecules in motion’” (quoted in Andrew Ferguson, “The

Heretic: Who is Thomas Nagel and Why are So Many of His Fellow Academics Condemning Him?” [The Weekly Standard,

25 March 2013, Vol. 18, No. 27], 2).

“While it is true that materialism tells us a human being is nothing more than a ‘moist robot’—a phrase Dennett took

from a Dilbert comic—we run a risk when we let this cat, or robot, out of the bag. If we repeatedly tell folks that their

sense of free will or belief in objective morality is essentially an illusion, such knowledge has the potential to undermine civilization itself, Dennett believes. Civil order requires the

general acceptance of personal responsibility, which is closely linked to the notion of free will. Better, said Dennett, if the public were told that ‘for general purposes’ the self and free will and objective morality do indeed exist—that colors and

sounds exist, too—‘just not in the way they think.’ They ‘exist in a special way,’ which is to say, ultimately, not at all.

(quoted in Andrew Ferguson, “The Heretic: Who is Thomas Nagel and Why are So Many of His Fellow Academics

Condemning Him?” [The Weekly Standard, 25 March 2013, Vol. 18, No. 27], 2).

“If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself . . . . If a person

doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within

acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the

slime” (Jeffrey Dahmer, interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29 November 1994).

Sam Harris

“Where do our notions of right and wrong come from? Clearly they have been drummed into us by evolution, the product of

these apish urges and social emotions. Then they get modulated by culture” (Sam Harris, debate with William Lane

Craig, 29:45)

Richard Dawkins

“There is at bottom no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA, it is every living objects sole reason for being” (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 132-133)” 

“Evil and suffering don’t count for anything, one way or the other, in the calculus of gene survival” (Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, 392). 

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” (Dawkins, “God's Utility Function,” in Scientific American [November, 1995], 85).

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it;

a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic,

racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent

bully” (Dawkins, The God Delusion, 51).

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of ‘just’ and

‘unjust’? . . . What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my

own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies . . . . Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 31).

“Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness [if there were no God]? I don’t see how. There can be such a

thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live . . . . A [secular] way of looking at the

world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort . . . and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and

appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (. . . and not just an

illusion of some sort), then you have a powerful . . . argument [for the existence of God]” (Alvin Plantinga, “A Christian Life

Partly Lived,” in Philosophers Who Believe,, 72–73).

The Transcendental Argument

Examination of the preconditions necessary for anything to be what it claims to be.

Mike: “I could be religious, but I believe religion has too great a capacity for evil. I'd rather love . . . . I’m a good

person and for this I am punished.”

Mike: “I could be religious, but I believe religion has too great a capacity for evil. I'd rather love . . . . I’m a good person and for this I am punished.”

Me: “What is ‘evil’ in an atheistic worldview? Are you saying that you believe in universal laws of right and wrong? Just curious.”

Mike: “I have a personal sense of morality that may or may not be similar to any conception of the universal view.”

Me: “Ok, so would you say that there are universal laws of right and wrong, good and evil, etc.? I'm interested in how atheists think about these things, so thanks for answering!”

Mike: “Just like not every Christian is the same, not every Atheist is the same. There is no fundamental non-believer belief system. We're all just people, you and I and everyone. Personally I see good and evil as the contrast that must exist for life to be appreciated and good to be meaningful, but I don't draw that contrast from anything other than the people I see and the lives we lead.”

Me: “[Mike], I’m sorry if I have misread you, but based on your answers, I’m still not sure if you believe in universal laws of right and wrong. Do you? For example, is it a universal law in all times and cultures that murder is wrong? If so, how do you justify an immaterial, universal moral law while being an atheist? That would seem to contradict your worldview. However, if you believe that morals evolved, and are based on preference (as you seem to indicate), then how can you judge others based on your personal, cultural standards? That too seems to contradict your concern for love and tolerance. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that you don’t have morals, but the question concerns how you account for the morals you do have. Thanks for the friendly dialogue!”

Mike: “Other places, times, and especially cultures evolve based on their morality, which, to them, could be considered universal, but if you travel 100 miles you will likely experience a different conception of what morality is, especially if you were raised believing in your peoples', whether it be town, race, or religion, evolved, or even conservative, idea of a universal truth. Not only do I refuse to believe that the morals come from a single book in time and space, I also am not a primate in dire need of learning how to read it. Perhaps I don't judge anyone who does not share my personal views which are evolved from my good conscience, but rather recognize that they were raised differently, taught differently, and lived differently than I.”

Me: “Mike, thanks for answering our questions. Hopefully you now see the dilemma: you are making ethical judgments on what is ‘evil,’ ‘disgusting,’ etc., and yet, your worldview makes universal ethical judgments impossible. By denying universal morality, you make your own judgement relative. Based on your worldview, you have difficulty explaining to us why Hitler’s actions against the Jews were inherently wrong. After all, he was in a different time and culture, and he believed that his actions would be to the benefit of the evolution of humanity. On what basis is that ‘evil’ in an atheistic worldview?

In Christianity there is an explanation of why even atheists are offended by injustice, hurt by the hurtful, and outraged by evil. The reason is that God has placed his law in your mind: ‘the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . .’ (Romans 2:15). That is why you inherently know right from wrong and good from evil. It is a constant, powerful testimony of God’s existence as your creator, and of your accountability to Him. Not only that, but Romans 1 describes how God’s existence is plain to you, and that God has shown it to you so that it is clearly perceived by you. According to Paul, even though many people ‘suppress the truth’ about God’s existence, the evidence of this is so clear that God says all ‘are without excuse’ (Rom 1:18, 20). Perhaps Paul’s following words are a fitting conclusion: ‘do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance’ (Rom 2:4)?”

Mike: “Your logic is flawless-- if I believe that the Christian Bible, or any for that matter, is flawless. I simply don’t."

Me: “[Mike], first, you are right to say that this is a matter of belief. We both have presuppositions and final authorities that drive what we believe. Mine is the Bible and yours is your mind and experience. The problem with your comments is that they betray consistent atheism. A consistent atheist would not speak in terms of immaterial, universal morality as you have. In fact, I would say that you are borrowing the Christian worldview in order to deny Christianity. On the other hand, the moment you say that morality is conventional (based on culture), then you’ve just made your own judgments relative, and thus irrelevant. That is why on the one hand you want to condemn ‘evil,’ but yet you can’t tell us why Hitler’s actions were inherently wrong.

Second, whether you believe the Bible or not, you need to understand that it states that there are no genuine atheists. Your conscience is inundated with revelation that screams God’s existence from the law written on your heart, and from what you see in creation so that you are ‘without excuse’ before God. Yet, according to Scripture, you are ‘suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.’ . . . .”

“Third, despite suppressing the truth, the good news is that God the Father sent the Son while we were His enemies. Just as in the story of Exodus when the angel of death passed over (Passover) all doors that had the blood of the lamb on them, and did not judge them, so Christ is the perfect Passover Lamb that removes the sin of all who believe. Born of the virgin Mary by the Spirit of God, being fully God and fully man, Jesus lived the perfect life that we could not live so that He could be the perfect Lamb to take upon himself the eternal punishment deserved by all who believe. What is even better news is that we do not have to fear that we have not done enough good works to go to heaven (which would lead to boasting), but God has chosen to glorify Himself by saving us through faith alone in Jesus’ death and resurrection. The implications are now clear - as Paul said in Athens - ‘now [God] commands all people everywhere to repent.’ Why? It is by repentance and belief that you find why you were created - to glorify God. And by glorifying God through this, you will find genuine love, joy and an abundant life!

[Mike], thanks again for the thought provoking discussion. Hopefully we can talk about these things again in the future.”

Mike: “I didn't find this particularly thought-provoking. Peace, [Mike]

1. Atheists have a worldview, whether they admit it or not.

2. Atheists are dead in sin and actively suppress known truth that God makes evident to them. Consequently, they are not objective with facts (all facts are interpreted facts).

4. Since atheism cannot account for immaterial, universal laws of right and wrong, the worldview destroys the reality of inherent evil, making it a convention of society.

5. The “problem of evil” ends up being a bigger problem for atheists than theists. It allows for an easy segue to the Gospel. Embrace the encounter with humble boldness!

3. When challenged about evil, ask for a definition of “evil” and if there are universal laws of right and wrong.

Part 1: The Problem of Evil: 

How to Answer an Unbeliever

Part 2: The Problem of Evil:

How to Answer a Christian

Part 3: James 1:1-12:

Four Essential Elements to How You are to Respond to Trials

The Problem of Evil

Grace Community Church 5 July 2015

Part 1

“As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their

money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A

materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a

psychopath. Say what you will about Leiter and Weisberg and the workshoppers in the Berkshires. From what I can tell, none of them is a psychopath. Not even close” (quoted in

Andrew Ferguson, “The Heretic: Who is Thomas Nagel and Why are So Many of His Fellow Academics Condemning

Him?” [The Weekly Standard, 25 March 2013, Vol. 18, No. 27], 2).