Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 4.1
What you will learn
- State four major atheistic arguments in a form an atheist would accept.
- Describe the main Christian replies to each and the points on which Christians differ.
- Identify what each argument assumes and where the decisive disagreement lies.
- Recognize the limits of each side’s case and the honesty this requires.
The big idea
Four arguments carry most of the weight in serious atheistic criticism: the problem of evil, the argument from divine hiddenness, the claim that science has made God unnecessary or implausible, and the claim that belief in God carries the burden of proof. Each can be stated with real force, and each has received careful Christian replies. None is a trivial objection, and none is a settled victory for either side. A good response begins by stating the argument in its strongest form, as the earlier lesson on steelmanning teaches.
Key terms
- Atheism
- The view that there is no God. Some use the word more broadly for lack of belief in God. Agnosticism holds that the question cannot be settled.
- Problem of evil
- The argument that the existence of evil and suffering is difficult or impossible to square with a perfectly good, all-powerful God.
- Theodicy
- An attempt to explain why a good God permits evil. The word was coined from Greek words for God and justice.
- Free will defense
- A reply holding that God may permit evil because free creatures are a great good and can misuse their freedom.
- Divine hiddenness
- The argument that a loving God would make his existence more evident than it is, and that sincere nonbelief counts against God’s existence.
- Naturalism
- The view that nature is all there is, and that all explanations are in terms of natural causes.
- Methodological naturalism
- The practice, in science, of seeking natural explanations. It differs from the metaphysical claim that nothing else exists.
Background
Philosophers distinguish a logical and an evidential version of the problem of evil. The logical version says that God and evil cannot both exist. Most philosophers of religion, including many atheists, now regard it as answered by Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense. The evidential version says that the amount and kind of evil makes God improbable. It remains widely discussed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a careful survey of both.
The argument from divine hiddenness was developed in recent philosophy, notably by J. L. Schellenberg. It argues that if God is perfectly loving, he would be open to relationship with all who are capable of it, and so nonresistant nonbelief should not exist. The Bible itself voices the experience of divine absence (Psalm 10:1; Isaiah 45:15), and Christian writers such as Pascal reflected on a God who is at once hidden and revealed.
The claim that science disproves or crowds out God takes several forms. Some are scientific, such as claims about evolution or cosmology. Others are philosophical, such as the claim that only what science can measure exists. Many scientists are Christians, and many are not. The question of the burden of proof, treated earlier in this course, is also disputed. This lesson aims to describe the debates, not to settle them.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The problem of evil
Steelman: the world contains enormous suffering, including suffering of animals and children that serves no visible purpose. A perfectly good God would wish to prevent it, and an all-powerful God could. Therefore, either God is not good, not powerful or not there. The argument has moved many people.
Christian replies include the free will defense (God permits evil because free beings are a great good), soul-making views associated with Irenaeus and developed by John Hick (suffering can serve moral growth), and the view that evil is a privation or lack of good, a position associated with Augustine and Aquinas. Others, including many Orthodox writers, stress that evil is a mystery that Christ enters and overcomes, not a puzzle to be fully explained. Many Christian philosophers also argue that humans may not be in a position to know what reasons God has, a position called skeptical theism, which critics find unsatisfying. Christian responses differ, and none removes the pain.
Step 2: Divine hiddenness
Steelman: if God desires a relationship with each person, he would not leave sincere seekers in doubt. Yet many seek honestly and find nothing. This is better explained if God does not exist.
Replies include: that evidence of God is widespread, and some resist it (Romans 1:19 and 1:20); that God may value freedom, since overwhelming proof might compel a response and not invite one; that relationship with God may require preparation of the heart; and that God is known in ways other than inference, through prayer, community and the sacraments. Many Christians respond that hiddenness is a real puzzle in their own lives. Critics reply that some of these answers blame the nonbeliever.
Step 3: Science and faith
Steelman: science explains more and more of the world without God. The explanatory gaps that once seemed to need God have shrunk. Science rests on evidence, whereas faith appeals to authority. A sensible person should prefer the former.
Replies include: that the major Christian traditions never held that science and faith are enemies, and that many early scientists were believers; that science describes how natural processes work, not whether nature has a ground or purpose; that appeals to God as a gap filler are weak and were criticized by Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer; and that the claim that only science yields knowledge cannot itself be proved by science. Accepting the findings of science, such as the age of the universe or evolution, is common among Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant Christians. Some conservative Protestants hold different views of creation, and this disagreement should be described fairly.
Step 4: The burden of proof
Steelman: a claim as large as ‘God exists’ needs strong support. In the absence of such support, a person is justified in not believing. Many atheists add that they claim only a lack of belief and so carry no burden.
Replies include: that many Christians offer positive arguments (cosmological, moral, historical, experiential) and so accept a burden; that the state of mind of nonbelief is not the same as the claim that God does not exist, which does carry a burden; and that belief in God might be rational without argument, as Plantinga proposes. Philosophers continue to debate these points.
Step 5: Locate the disagreement and respond
For each argument, ask what it assumes. The problem of evil assumes that God would have no good reason to permit evil. Hiddenness assumes God would act in particular ways toward seekers. The science argument assumes that explanation by natural causes excludes God as ground or purpose. The burden argument assumes a certain view of default positions. Place your reply on the assumption that bears the weight.
Then answer honestly, giving the best Christian responses and saying where they are contested. Avoid claiming more than the replies can bear.
- Have I stated the argument in a form an atheist would accept?
- What assumption does the argument rely on most heavily?
- Which Christian reply do I find strongest, and where does it fall short?
- Do Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant answers differ here, and how?
- Am I answering the intellectual argument or the personal pain behind it?
- What would I say to someone who finds all my answers unsatisfying?
Examples
A fair statement of the evidential argument from evil
‘The suffering in the world, including the long suffering of animals before humans existed, seems far greater than any good that could justify it. It is more likely under atheism than under theism. Therefore it is evidence against God.’ A Christian can reply to this, rather than to the claim that atheists simply hate God. (Constructed example in the manner of published arguments.)
A misplaced answer
A person who has lost a child asks why God allowed it. A believer replies with a summary of the free will defense. The answer is not false, but it may miss the question being asked. Many Christians say that presence and shared grief come first. (Constructed example.)
A fair answer on science
A student says that evolution disproves God. A reply: ‘Evolution is a scientific theory about how species change. Many Christians, including Catholic and Orthodox teachers and many Protestants, accept it. Others do not. The question of whether God exists is a separate question from the mechanisms of nature.’ (Constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic thought
The Catholic Church holds that reason can know God’s existence and that faith and science cannot truly conflict. On evil, Catholic teaching draws on Augustine and Aquinas, stressing that God permits evil only in order to draw greater good, while confessing mystery. Catholic teaching accepts evolution as a scientific account, with the human soul understood to be created directly by God.
Orthodox thought
Orthodox writers often stress that evil is not a thing God made, that death and suffering are overcome through Christ and that no human explanation is adequate. David Bentley Hart’s The Doors of the Sea is a modern Orthodox response to the problem of evil that rejects glib explanations. Orthodox views of science vary and are often cautious about both scientism and literalism.
Protestant thought
Protestant replies are diverse. Many evangelical philosophers, such as Plantinga and William Lane Craig, defend theism with formal arguments. Some Reformed theologians prefer to begin from Scripture. Protestants differ on creation, with some holding a young earth, others old-earth or evolutionary views.
Atheist and agnostic view
Atheist philosophers hold that the combination of evil, hiddenness and the explanatory success of natural science makes theism unlikely. Many state that they would change their view with better evidence. They also vary: some are respectful of religion, while others are strongly opposed.
Jewish perspective
Jewish thought has long wrestled with suffering, in Job, the Psalms and, in the twentieth century, in reflection on the Holocaust. Many Jewish thinkers insist on the legitimacy of protest toward God and are wary of neat explanations.
Why it matters
These arguments are not minor. They are why many thoughtful people have left or never joined the church. Believers who cannot state them fairly will fail to meet the questions of friends and family and may never have faced the questions themselves. A well-informed, honest reply can also strengthen faith, since faith that has been tested is more stable than faith that has been protected.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Atheists reject God because they want to live as they please.
Correction: Some may, as some believers may believe for convenience. But many atheists have serious intellectual and moral reasons. Attributing bad motives is a form of ad hominem.
Misunderstanding: The problem of evil has been solved by the free will defense.
Correction: The free will defense answers the logical version of the problem. The evidential version, and the problem of suffering that does not seem to come from free choices, such as natural disasters, is still debated.
Misunderstanding: Science and Christianity are at war.
Correction: Historians of science regard the simple conflict story as misleading, though there have been real conflicts. Many Christians accept mainstream science, and traditions differ on creation.
Misunderstanding: God’s existence can be proved beyond doubt.
Correction: Christian philosophers differ about what arguments can show. Many claim good arguments or cumulative cases, and others deny that proof is possible or needed. Claiming certainty is not honest where thoughtful people disagree.
Knowledge check
What is the difference between the logical and evidential problems of evil?
The logical problem claims that God and evil cannot both exist. Most philosophers now consider it answered by the free will defense. The evidential problem claims that the amount and kind of evil makes God improbable. It remains an active debate, with Christian replies including soul-making views, privation views and skeptical theism.
What is the argument from divine hiddenness?
It holds that a perfectly loving God would make himself available to everyone willing to have a relationship, so the existence of honest nonbelievers counts against God. Christian replies appeal to human freedom, preparation of the heart, resistance and other forms of knowing God. Critics find some replies unfair to nonbelievers.
How do Christians commonly reply to the claim that science excludes God?
They note that science describes natural processes and does not by its method address whether nature has a ground or purpose, that many early scientists were believers, and that the claim that only science gives knowledge cannot itself be proved by science. They also avoid filling gaps with God.
Why is the burden of proof disputed?
Atheists often say the one who asserts God carries the burden. Christians reply that denial is also a claim and that belief in God may be rational without argument. Philosophers have not agreed on a default position. A sound practice is to be ready to give reasons for any claim.
Why should a believer say where Christians disagree on these topics?
Because Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians give different answers on evil, creation and the role of arguments. Presenting one view as the only Christian one is inaccurate, and critics will notice. Accuracy about internal differences is part of honest apologetics.
Think it through
- Which of the four arguments do you find most difficult? Why?
- Is there a reply in this lesson that you find unsatisfying? What would be a better one?
- How should a believer speak with a person who has suffered and who raises the problem of evil?
- Can a person hold faith while admitting that arguments are not decisive?
Independent assignment
Steelman and reply
In your own notebook, write 700 to 900 words. Choose one of the four arguments. First write a steelman of 250 to 300 words that an atheist would accept, using a primary or reference source such as the Stanford Encyclopedia entry. Then write a reply of 300 to 400 words that draws on at least two Christian replies, says where they are contested, and names the decisive assumption. Add a short note on what a pastoral reply to a suffering person would add. Keep this private.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil A full and fair survey of the problem of evil and the replies. Read the sections on the evidential argument.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hiddenness of God The argument from hiddenness and the main replies.
- Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil The free will defense in its careful philosophical form. Read selectively.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Religion and Science On the relation of religion and science.
- C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain A popular Christian reflection on suffering.
- David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss An Orthodox-influenced philosophical defense of theism. Read selectively.
- Job 38:1 God answers Job from the whirlwind.
- Psalm 22:1 My God, why hast thou forsaken me?