Why does God allow evil?

Here's a thing. The Problem of Evil is a terrible terrible argument philosophically. It's terrible. Rubbish. Just awful. It's an emotional knee jerk reaction to stuff people don't like. It hasn't got any actual weight as an intellectual problem. 

But people are hung up on it. And we shouldn't be surprised about that. People in general do favour their emotions over rationality.

It's human nature to put our feelings first, even when reason points in a different direction. When you do philosophy, you have to get in the practice of switching off emotion for a while, otherwise you can cloud your judgement. It's not always easy, and in tricky subjects like the worldwide suffering of humanity, it can seem cold and heartless. But them's the breaks.

Quite often, the Problem of Evil won't even be presented as any kind of logical philosophical argument or syllogism. It'll usually just be the question "Why does God let bad things happen?"
You don't have to have studied philosophy for long to know that a question is not the same as an argument!
A question is looking for an answer. You don't know how to explain something, so you ask someone else if they can. An argument is an attempt to make an explanation that you already have stick.

So given that there's this big question casting a large dark shadow of doubt over people, we should wonder if there's an answer.

And this is a thing that plagued me before I began my journey into Christianity. There were so many questions like this that were in common knowledge, yet nobody seemed to even have the beginning of an answer. We'd say "If God exists, why do bad things happen to good people?" and then shrug our shoulders and move on thinking "I guess we'll never know".

There was a time where I thought it was perfectly reasonable when I heard people saying stuff like "I think it's likely that there was a man in history called Jesus who was a good teacher, but I don't know for sure."

But then I discovered these things called 'reading' and 'research' and 'critical thinking'. It was amazing the results that I got. Answers are out there. Just go have a look.

So, after that lengthy sidetrack, let's get on with the question of the day. "If God exists, why does he let bad things happen to good people?"

Atheism Is Not The Null Hypothesis

I briefly covered my dismay at the phrase 'atheism is the null hypothesis' before, but I've decided to give it a brief revisit.

The null hypothesis is a term used in science to help weed out parts of theories that can be shaved by Ockam's Razor. When performing a scientific test, the null hypothesis refers to a specific variable that you can assume is not necessary to the success of the test. If it was removed, the test would work as well as it does when it is present. So when it comes to describing the test and its method, you needn't even mention the variable, because it has no effect whatsoever.

This is how atheists feel about the universe and God. They see atheism as the null hypothesis, with God as the useless variable, because they see that the universe runs just fine without him.

But isn't that quite clearly concluding atheism based on the presupposition of atheism? Yes. Yes it is.

Abortion Again?

Last time I mentioned abortion, I said it wasn't something I put too much effort into studying. But it seems to be a big deal and I have been thinking about it more and more.

I still don't see why I need to.
Abortion is the act of killing unborn babies. Does it need to get more complicated than that?

Apparently. The pro-choice apologetics I've heard though are really really terrible.
Maybe I'm coming in from a hard angle, I mean, I am looking to be convinced that murdering babies is OK. That's a tough sell, but for some reason a lot of people feel that way.
I even offer an alternative: show me why a foetus is somehow not human and therefore all right to dispose of.

The short of it: my position is that abortion is the murder of unborn babies. You either have to convince me that it's not murder, or it's not a baby.
So far, I'm unmoved. And if it's wrong to hold the view that murdering babies is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

I don't want to suggest that all women who have had abortions are evil. I imagine many have felt that it was the right thing to do in a certain situation. Of course there are also the numerous medical reasons for abortions to be necessary. The particular attitude I'm very much opposed to is "A baby/pregnancy would be an inconvenience to me, so I'll just abort it".
I'm aware pregnancy is no walk in the park, and childbirth even less so, but once the baby is born, if it's still unwanted, there are plenty of couples who aren't able to conceive their own who would love to adopt.

So what have I been offered in defence of baby killing?

Does Ockham's Razor Disprove The Existence Of God?

Here's another fairly common argument put forward by some atheists. On the face of it, it usually looks like one of the smarter ones too. Of course it's just another mess of nonsense. Let's take a look!

There are various ways they might put it, but it boils down to something like: For any model of the universe that includes God, a simpler one can be made for a naturalistic universe.

The way they defend it is by suggesting that there is no reason to have God somewhere in the theory of everything. Everything they study and discover in science uses natural processes, so there's no reason to assume that there is a god at any level of reality. More often than not, the atheist who is making this claim isn't actually a scientist themselves, so any discoveries they have personally found will be minimal and probably previously well documented by actual professionals.

The main defence? Ockham's Razor.

The Apologist's Guidebook

What we do:

But in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ may be put to shame. -- 1 Peter 3:15-16 

Misunderstanding the Moral Argument

I'm not sure what it is about fundie atheists, but many of them just don't seem to be able to grasp the Moral Argument. In a recent conversation one hit just about every mine in the field even though I was doing everything I could to steer them through safely. It's like I was saying 'two steps right' and they heard 'spin on the spot'.


I stepped in to a conversation to help clear up a few things. The atheist was speaking to a Christian who was attempting to defend the moral argument, but to me I thought the believer hadn't really got the best grasp of it himself. I think he understood it, but wasn't so great at explaining it. Whatever the case with the Christian, the atheist had no chance to get to grips with it, so I figured I'd push things in the right direction to get them both on track. It was meant to be a quick in and out, but the atheist seemed unable to grasp my clarity.

I should have taken the hints from his comments like these before getting involved...

Is this real misunderstanding or intentional dishonesty?
Anyway, here's where I came in. Take a look at this.

Think About Abortion!

This isn't a subject I think about that much. It seems pretty obvious to me that abortion is wrong.
That's nothing to do with any Biblical perspective or laws. It's the plain fact that killing a defenceless baby can not be defended.

Anyway, I had this short exchange recently with someone who clearly hasn't stopped to think for a moment about their pro-choice position.

They gave up replying, and my guess is that they couldn't think of a response to my last question.

Where is the line drawn? When does a foetus become a human being?
When the umbilical cord is cut? Ridiculous.
When the baby leaves the womb and comes out into the world? Just a matter of location? Ridiculous.
At some point during growth in the womb? Now here's the real problem!

As a Christian I can ask this question. I can say that perhaps in early weeks the baby might not be developed enough to have received a soul and truly be a human being. I have no way of knowing when that happens though, so to be on the safe side, I'd have to rule out abortion completely.
Atheists don't have that in their worldview. They can't draw a line between a soulless foetus and a soulful human baby. In which case, all atheists should be anti-abortion, because a foetus has everything it needs to potentially become a full human being at conception. As soon as mum's egg and dad's sperm join together, that's the full set of ingredients that make a person.
An atheist trying to draw the line anywhere else is getting into dangerous water where they can also be damning the disabled, the elderly, or anyone who needs any kind of assistance to live.