The most common argument raised against the existence of God is the so-called problem of evil. How can an all-good, all-powerful God allow evil to exist? However, neither the atheist nor the relativist can raise the problem of evil since when you admit the existence of evil you are admitting the existence of objective moral values. The atheist cannot adequately ground objective morality and the relativist assumes that morality is relative.
In other words, the problem of evil cannot even be raised without assuming an objective standard of moral goodness. By “objective” I mean independent of what people think or perceive.[1] Complaining about evil assumes that evil is a real thing that it is objectively wrong, otherwise we could simply dismiss the atheist or relativist by saying “that’s just evil for you.”
So where does this objective standard of morality come from? The only suitable grounding for objective morality is an objective moral law-giver: God. Ironically then, the existence of evil can be turned into an argument for the existence of God:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist.
4. Therefore, God exists.[2]
This argument is logically valid. The skeptic concedes premise two by raising the problem of evil in the first place. Therefore, the argument hinges on premise one. However, in reflecting on premise one it seems clear that if there is no God then there is no objective grounding for moral principles which apply to all people, in all places, at all times. Morality would be relegated to cultural conventions or individual ethical subjectivism. William Lane Craig sums it up this way:
Although at a superficial level suffering calls into question God’s existence, at a deeper level suffering actually proves God’s existence. For apart from God, suffering is not really bad. If the atheist believes that suffering is bad or ought not to be, then he’s making moral judgments that are possible only if God exists.[3]
In short, when the atheist or relativist objects to the problem of evil he implicitly admits to an objective standard of morality which his own worldview cannot account for, but which makes perfect sense within the Christian worldview. In other words, in order to complain about evil and raise the objection in the first place, atheists, skeptics, and relativists must borrow from Christian moral capital and the Christian worldview.
[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 173.
[2] William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 107.
[3] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Persuasion (Colorado Springs: David Cook, 2010), 162.
Posts
2 comments:
Sigh. I've heard this argument many times before, and I don't get it. Isn't it obvious why morality would evolve and also be chosen? Morality works to build societies, and societies benefit people in ways that are obvious. You don't need to appeal to an "objective" reason not to kill: most people don't want to be killed, and are willing to not kill.
@zilch In regards to the idea of morality evolving, believing that would suggest the need for a starting point anyway. A Lawgiver is not removed because of one's attempt to redefine morality. I do agree with the idea of it being chosen, as a moral law is written on our hearts. Regardless if we side with God or not, it is still there. It is hard to deny that when horrible crimes are committed against children and women. Now as far as the killing comment, I am quite curious on how you can use the word 'most' in such a way. Let us assume that you are correct, it troubles me that recently as I was driving to a job a young boy around 5-6 years of age was pointing his finger in a way resembling that of a gun. Now this was no cops and robbers type of incident. There was nothing innocent about this at all. When I tell you that the look on this child's face was one of intent, it became very sobering for myself. The saddest part was the fact that there was a grown man next to him, perhaps his father, that could not have cared less. You see, to take that position only validates the exchange which occurred in the Garden of Eden. The opportunity was presented to Eve that we would be like God. So the deception is as follows, I get to have the final say, I pick and choose what is right and wrong based on my wisdom and understanding, I decide who is forgivable and who is not. When these are applied by a fleshly mind and heart it is no wonder mankind behaves in such a way without compassion. Only a holy God could exercise perfect precision. The beauty of the God of the Bible is that no other belief provides a Creator who reaches out to mankind the way He did and still does. It is very evident that we as a society and citizens of this planet cannot agree on much, let alone morality. Just get on a highway or turn on a presidential debate. May God bless you. My family will be praying for you.
Post a Comment