New Atheism and the Problem of Evil Pt. 4

New Atheism and the Problem of Evil Pt. 4: Euthyphro and the Inductive Argument

Posted by Clark Bates
March 3, 2016

        Having established the claims of new atheism against the Christian view of God in light of suffering and evil here, a careful response to the deductive problem of this argument has been presented here, as well as a rebuttal to the claim of logical inconsistency within the Christian worldview of a loving God and the existence of evil here.  This final article tackles what's known as Euthyphro's dilemma to objective morality and the Christian response to the inductive argument against theism.

    

Euthyphro's Dilemma
         

         

A brief digression must be made at this point, to remove a reoccurring objection leveled towards theists in relation to God and the proclamation of what is "good".  As was already acknowledged, atheistic moral realists like Sam Harris believe that objective moral values exist as brute facts that cannot be reduced to contingent evaluations of individuals or societies.  Those in this particular group, and many other atheists object to what they believe to be an arbitrary distinction between good and evil made on the part of God.

          Plato, in his Dialogues, asks the question, "Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right?"  The dilemma, it seems, is that if an action is good apart from divine fiat, then even God himself is subservient to a "higher law".  On the other hand, if the difference between good and evil is subject to divine proclamation then, for God, there is no ultimate difference between the two, rendering any significant foundation of goodness in God moot.

          This is important to note, for if the theist is grounding their defense in the goodness of God as a response to the problem of evil it can run aground on this beach head.  The "dilemma" caused by Plato, forwarded by Bertrand Russell and championed by many of the new atheists, only exists because one is forced to choose between two options, both of which are hostile to Christian theism.[1]  Apologist Greg Koukl addresses the proper response,

          The general strategy used to defeat a dilemma is to show that it's a false one. . . .The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God's power.  And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. . . .The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.[2]

          The goodness of God is not a matter of proclamation or anterior law, but is rooted in His character.  The biblical God could not decree "evil" to be "good", or rape and murder to be equal with charity and chastity because it defies His nature.  Having established this defense, the nature of good can be known and understood to exist from without humanity, but intrinsic to humanity, being made in the image of God.  The amount of evil, particularly moral evil, however, can create a greater challenge to such belief; especially if even one instance of purposeless evil can be ascertained.  This is the foundation of the inductive problem of evil. 

Christian Response to the Inductive Argument

          To make a defense against the existence of gratuitous or purposeless evil is not to diminish the profound effects seemingly senseless tragedy has on those who experience it.  It is merely a means to clarify the distorted worldview that is produced through suffering.  When reduced to its lowest common denominator, the two propositions with which one must contend are that, 1. God exists or, 2.  There are gratuitous evils.  Neither can exist simultaneously without the falsification of the opposing worldview.

          It cannot be argued that much of the evil experienced in this world appears to have no benevolent outcome.  Children die of starvation, Women are abused and murdered, families die in house fires and no discernible change takes place in the aftermath.  In many cases, it would seem that such tragedy goes unnoticed or is forgotten within a week.  But if there are strong arguments supporting the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, then this problem should not be viewed from an intellectual vacuum.[3]

          Human beings are finite, and limited in their understanding.  For this reason, the fallen nature of the world and mankind within it can create a misperception of the actual nature of things.  This is not the pantheistic claim that evil is an illusion, but that men and women living a fallen and finite existence cannot claim absolute knowledge as to the purpose or purposelessness of evil. 

          There can be no greater example of seemingly gratuitous evil than the torture and murder of Jesus of Nazareth.  Conversely, there is no greater example of morally sufficient reason for such an act.  The single greatest example of good triumphing over evil is the death of Jesus Christ on a cross outside of ancient Jerusalem.[4]  As a man, he was innocent and sinless, undeserving of such cruelty, yet as God, his sacrifice was the greatest act of love ever demonstrated in the history of all existence.  Through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, reconciliation was offered to all of mankind, yet such unparalleled reconciliation could not have occurred without human rebellion against God.

Conclusion

          Dawkins and his new atheist brethren impugn the Christian God and His allowance of evil, claiming that were such a Being to exist, He would be so far removed from earthly distress as to be a moral monster unparalleled in all existence.  Even in the nicest terms, such a Being would constitute the "least interesting thing in the universe."[5]  Yet the god they decry is not the God of Christian theism.  Jesus Christ knows our pain from the inside out, because he has suffered more intensely than anyone.[6]

          Intellectually there is no worldview other than Christianity that can both acknowledge the existence of evil and offer reasons for it.  However, the persistence of evil will always wound those in its grip and scar those who observe it.  Because of this, logical reasoning and intellectual assent will never be the salve for the suffering.  The answer of new atheism is to recognize there is no hope.  Evil exists and will persist until the universe comes to a close and will render all things meaningless.  Until that day, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and the new atheists have no resolution other than to live as if there is meaning and to pursue the greatest happiness for all mankind. 

          Christian theism gives the hope that cannot be attained through naturalism.  As Geisler wrote,  "while this present world is not the best of all possible worlds, nonetheless, it must be the best means to the best world.  Thus, a world in which evil is permitted is the best kind of world to permit as a means to produce the best kind of world - one that has no evil in it.  That world is our promised destiny."[7]

---

[1]              Greg Koukl, "Euthyphro's Dilemma," Stand to Reason,  http://www.str.org/articles/euthyphro-s-dilemma#.VCJVnhZgF8E (accessed September 23, 2014).

[2]               Ibid.

[3]               No singular argument for the existence of the Christian God can stand alone, but acts as a piece of a larger puzzle.  Other pieces are the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the argument from experience, and the Design argument.

[4]               Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith  (Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 644.

[5]               Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), 32.

[6]               Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 644.

[7]           Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology Volume Three (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004), 160.