New
Atheism and the Problem of Evil
Introduction
Within
the last two decades, an elevated vocal opposition to the Christian worldview
has emerged. While those holding naturalistic
presuppositions have long fought any semblance of theism in the realm of
science and philosophy, this "new" antagonism has found increased
support through publishing. Numerous
books have been written vehemently decrying the absurdity of theism and, in
particular, Christianity.
Men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris spearhead
what is now dubbed the "new atheism", having amassed a formidable
audience in their quest for the destruction of Christianity using a vitriol
heretofore unseen. As Dawkins infamously
wrote,
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.[1]
To
suggest that God, were He even to exist, is "good" or the
"source of goodness" is at best ludicrous, or at worst, deranged.
For
these men and those like them, arguably the most effective and, some would agree,
most difficult to resolve objection to God's existence is the presence and
persistence of evil. Often coined the
"Problem of Evil", it is argued that an all-loving God would desire
to free His creation from evil; an all-powerful God would have the ability to
do so; and an all-knowing God would recognize how to do so. Yet evil exists, therefore such a God must
not exist.
Anyone who has sat at the bedside of a
dying child, seen the ravage of drought in the third world, or watched the
horrific acts of despotism and terrorism worldwide, can recognize the struggle
in believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. That isn't to say that this
"problem" is unanswerable, only formidable. It is my contention that the "Problem of
Evil" is only a "problem" for the very atheists that trumpet its
use as the demise of theism. In what
follows, the problem of evil will be analyzed and countered with respect to the
moral argument for God, resulting in the conclusion that the crucifixion of
Jesus Christ constitutes the only possible solution.
What is New Atheism?
Before addressing the central purpose
of these articles, it is necessary to identify the opposition. The “new atheism” is a strident movement
within the scientific and academic realms of atheism that has taken to
aggressive tactics in confronting theistic belief, presenting it as irrational
and unfit for existence in the modern age.
This movement has been prompted by four men, Daniel Dennet, Christopher
Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
They seek to devalue religious belief in the areas of science and
philosophy, and do so with measurable success.
Appealing to many in the college
circuit, men like Christopher Hitchens have called for a “new enlightenment”
writing that, “Religion has run out of justifications. . . .Above all, we are
in need of a renewed Enlightenment. . . .We have first to transcend our
prehistory, and escape the gnarled hands which reach out to drag us back to the
catacombs.”[2] Seeking the end to religion and the growth of
“reason” these men wish to demean faith and belief in God. To quote Harris,
As
a biological phenomenon, religion is the product of cognitive processes that have deep roots in our evolutionary past.
. . religion itself may have played an important role in getting large groups.
. .to socially cohere. . . .That religion may have served some necessary function
for us in the past does not preclude the possibility that it is now the greatest
impediment to our building a global civilization.[3]
As
such, any and all arguments that can be meted out against the existence of God
are analyzed, established, and promoted, and those which play upon the emotions
are easily the most powerful; bringing us to the accusation at hand, the
infamous “Problem of Evil.”
The Problem of Evil
Before listing the problem of evil in
its often sighted modus tollens form, it would be beneficial to define
what is meant by “evil”. A standard
dictionary definition of evil is that which brings misfortune or causes harm. For observant members of society, those things
that might be classified as evil fall within two major categories, moral evil
and natural evil. Moral evil is brought
about by human choice, i.e. a young man entering a school and indiscriminately
shooting students and faculty. Natural
evil is classified as things such as earthquakes, tornadoes and disease not
resulting from human choices. These two
categories require two separate answers.[4]
Speaking for the new atheists, Daniel Dennet
has espoused that the existence of evil, natural and moral, is an impossible
enigma for theism.
The idea that God is a worthy
recipient of our gratitude for the blessings of
life but should not be held accountable for the disasters is a transparently disingenuous innovation of the
theologians. . . . The Problem of
Evil, capital letters and all, is the central enigma confronting theists. . . . All the holy texts and
interpretations that contrive ways of getting
around the problem read like the fine print in a fraudulent contract–and for the same reason: they are desperate
attempts to conceal the implications
of the double standard they have
invented.[5]
It
would be more intellectually honest, in his mind, for theists to be willing to
blame God for calamity as well as blessing and be done with it.
Such an accusation is effective even
when it sounds contrived to the average Christian for its point resonates within
the hearts of many. Evil in either form
has personally affected the lives of every human being on the planet, and as
such, the angry jeering of men like Dennet, reverberates within them, finding a
deep-seeded home. While Dennet prefers
the term “enigma” for theistic belief in light of evil, others have taken to
speak of it as a contradiction. In these
terms, a contradiction is far more damaging to the Christian worldview; for if
a contradiction exists then the worldview which espouses it is necessarily
false. . .
Next
week we'll continue the discussion, covering the Problem of Evil in its proper
form.
[1] Richard
Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31.
[2] Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great: How
Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007), 282-83.
[3] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 90-1.
[4] Ronald H. Nash, “The Problem of
Evil” in Beckwith, Francis J., William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland,
To
Everyone and Answer (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 208.
[5] Daniel Dennet, "Problem of
evil and religion's double standard," OnFaith,
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/01/19/problem-of-evil-and-religions-double-standard/2100
(accessed October 12, 2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment