Atheists and the Problem of Evil

If God exists then why is there evil in the world? If God exists why do people suffer? If God exists why do bad things happen? Many atheists use this kind of argument as a basis for rejecting belief in God, the point being that if there is an all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-good (benevolent) Deity, then why do bad things happen?

In Christian theology this is known as The Problem of Evil. The classic statement of this "problem" was set out by Epicurus circa. 300BCE, and later rehashed by David Hume in "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" (1779):

Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then [God] is impotent. Is [God] able, but not willing? then [God] is malevolent. Is [God] both able and willing? then where does evil come from?

Murder in the House by Jakub Schikaneder (1890)
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jakub_Schikaneder_-_Murder_in_the_House.JPG)

The argument assumes that if God exists then God could, would and should do something about the presence of evil in the world. That there is evil and suffering in the world must mean God does not exist. The argument seems decisive, and believers have largely bought into the paradox, leading to all manner of theological gymnastics being performed across the years in the attempt to resolve this so-called "problem".

Yet for any atheist who uses this as a basis for arguing against God's existence I think the question begs: What exactly do you expect God to do about evil and suffering? Let me phrase this another way. If the claim is being made that were God to exist then God should, could and would do something about the presence of evil in the world, then what does God acting in the world essentially boil down to? In the end we are essentially talking about miracles.

Christ Appearing to His Disciples After the Resurrection by William Blake (1795)
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christ_Appearing_to_His_Apostles_Blake.jpg)

In suggesting that God should, could and would address the problem of evil and suffering, what an atheist is basically asking God to do is nothing short of a miracle! Yet atheists do not believe God does miracles... or do they? If atheists want to ground belief in God's non-existence on the assumption that if God exists then God would do something about evil, then they are essentially making the case that God does miracles. Yet if we are suggesting that God can do a miracle to end evil and suffering, why not go all the way and say that God could also raise Jesus from the dead, this being the miracle par excellence for Christians as it not only proves God's existence but justifies the profession of Jesus Christ as our Saviour:

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:16-17)

I doubt any atheist would go this far. In fact somewhat paradoxically in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (1748) David Hume actually rejects the logical probability of miracles and the resurrection occurring, which seems to undermine his suggestion thirty years later in the "Dialogues" that were God to exist, then God should be doing something about evil and suffering. In the end, Hume cannot have his theological cake (why doesn't God do a miracle to stop evil and suffering) and eat it (miracles don't happen).

All this appears to leave the atheist having to restate the "problem" of evil in the following manner: Either God exists and can do a miracle to stop evil and suffering, which leaves the question begging as to why someone would then logically reject Jesus' resurrection, or God does not do miracles, which means the existence of evil and suffering in the world is not God's problem to solve, but ours!

Foundations of Knowledge: Part 2 - Rationalism and Belief in God

Rationalism is an epistemological method which attempts to ground knowledge in reason. 

Rationalism is often contrasted with Empiricism, which is the attempt to ground knowledge in sense-based experience. Rationalists argue that the variable nature of sense-based experience, that experiences of the same thing can change according to the perspective of the knower, makes it an unreliable foundation for knowledge and truth (For more on this see the video, “An Introduction to Logic and Reasoning Skills - Part 2).

In contrast reason is said to provide a more objective and reliable basis for knowledge, because no matter where you are in the world or who you are, what is logically and rationally true is always going to be true.

For instance, consider the following syllogism, which is a logical method of deducing a conclusion from what appear to be unrelated premises:

• A - All men are mortal 
• B - I am a man 
• C - Therefore, I am mortal

The basic structure of a syllogism is as follows: A + B = C. Thus we deduce: If the first statement (All humans are mortal) is true, and if I am a man, then logically it follows that C is true (I am human, male and therefore mortal).

Rationalism is also associated with the scientific method. Science largely operates according to the principle that true knowledge about ourselves and the nature of the world can be found by utilising human reason and logical enquiry. Unsurprisingly, with its emphasis on faith, belief, and supernatural revelation, religious knowledge is often considered incompatible with the scientific method and Rationalism.

An example of a so-called incompatibility would be religious beliefs about the origins of life, versus scientific theories of cosmic evolution. For instance, in the Bible in the Book of Genesis, we read how God appears to create the world in the course of a week, whereas cosmic evolution suggests that the emergence of the universe and life took billions of years.

It has been suggested that religious accounts of the creation of life were the product of pre-scientific knowledge: that stories were told to help people find a meaning and purpose in life. Thus, the more humans came to understand the world they live in, the less they needed the religious worldview to explain things and fill in the gaps. All this has added to the view that religious belief and reason cannot co-exist with each other.

But for all that atheists and scientists might want to reject religious belief and the existence of God as the by-product of an unenlightened mind, it is a mistake think that Rationalism has no place for God, or that Rationalists are naturally inclined towards unbelief and atheism.

For example, the Greek philosopher Plato who was very much a Rationalist sets out an argument in “Timaeus” for the existence of a benevolent (or Good) demiurge (god/Creator), who brought the world into existence. Although Plato’s demiurge is not the same God as the one argued for in the various modern Cosmological Arguments, there are clear parallels with these, the most notable being that a Divine presence is the First Cause of everything.

One of the most famous examples of a rationalist methodology being employed to support belief in God is Anselm’s Ontological Argument. In “Proslogion”, Bishop Anselm argues that something which exists is better (or greater) than something which does not, and so concludes that God’s existence is logically preferable to God’s non-existence. This means that God actually existing is the greatest thing we can conceive of God. He also argues that the claim “God does not exist” is logically nonsensical, for to suggest that God does not exist presumes we know what it means to say God does exist (which according to him, means God exists).

One of the more striking examples of where Rationalism and belief in God meet is in the philosophy of Rene Descartes. In his “Meditations” he explores a logical and rational method for establishing true knowledge. He suggests that whilst sense-based experience and certain thoughts about his existence can be doubted, the fact that he is having doubting thoughts cannot. Thus, he concludes that whatever cannot be doubted is true (“Cogito ergo sum”).

However, whilst Descartes was certain that his “method” set out a logical and rational basis for knowledge, he still felt the need to ground it in something other than this; something absolutely guaranteed to be a constant and reliable source of truth. And so with this in mind, the Fifth Meditation concludes: “Thus I recognise very clearly that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends on… God.’’

Finally, Reformed Epistemology sets out a rational defense of belief in God’s existence by suggesting this belief does not require proof, as many non-believers argue it does. In rejecting the call to provide evidence for God’s existence (Evidentialism), they argue instead that belief in God should be treated as a basic and justified belief. For example, just as the existence of other minds is something we consider to be a rational and logical thing to believe, yet one we cannot actually provide evidence for to conclusively prove is true, then why not regard belief in God’s existence in the same manner? If we’re not insisting on evidence to prove the existence of other minds, then why insist that we need evidence to prove (or justify) God’s existence?