DOES EVIL AND INJUSTICE PROVE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST?

Instead, the philosopher and former atheist, C. S. Lewis, found that evil and injustice, if anything, argue in favor of God's existence:

• "Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust ? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense."

We cannot argue against God's existence without making use of the resources and objective truths that require God's existence. Consequently, we are helpless in mounting any argument against His existence. It is therefore easier to wave the white flag and admit our rebellion to a forgiving God.

Atheism’s Attempt to Place the Burden of Proof on You

Some challenges are not worth trying to address. Some demand a level of proof that is unattainable. For instance, one atheist taunted me with this challenge:

• God, being omnibenevolent, can't have a use for evil, as that would go against his very nature. Your turn to show that indeed God could have a use for the exactly the amount of suffering and evil we see, and could not achieve those same purposes with less suffering/evil.

No one can “show” this. Such an answer would require omniscience. It would be like challenging a scientist:

• I will not believe in science until you can explain the origin and precise workings of gravity and quantum physics.

Wisdom might advise, “Walk away from this militant. He is not looking for answers or even a real give-and-take, but rather, one-upmanship.” However, if you do decide to hang in there with him, you will need to redraw the battle lines. Here are several possibilities:

1. Ask him for his definition and rationale for evil. If he is a consistent atheist, he is also a moral relativist and therefore lacks any objective basis for good and evil. 

2. Ask, “What makes you suggest suffering is bad?” Actually, in many respects, suffering produces good! 

3. You might ask him to explain quantum physics, if he believes in it.

4. You might even talk about how God has used suffering in your life. However, this is the wrong person with which to share your life. 

But be prepared. He will try to turn the tables on you to put you on the defensive. He might say something like, “The burden of proof is on you.”

God should have been Able to Do Better: Discussion with an Atheist

I certainly can respect your thinking that if God is omnipotent and all-loving, He should have been able to do a better job. However, please bear with me as I try to point out the weaknesses of this position:

• Your conclusion requires that you understand enough about the cosmos so you can claim that such a God should have been able to do a better job. However, we might be overstepping the limits of our wisdom in such an assessment. It reminds me of evolutionists who claim that the eye and other organs were poorly designed if designed by this God. Such a claim depends upon thinking that we know better, but do we?

• There is actually a multitude of evidence in favor of God’s beneficence. We hunger, and God has provided food. We thirst, and He has provided water. We tire, and He has provided sleep. We are lonely, and He has provided friends and family….  In fact, if we observe this alleged problem of God’s failures from a broader perspective, we find that the vast majority of people vote with their legs (relatively few commit suicide) that this life is worth living.

• The charge that such a God “should have been able to do a better job” is logically incoherent. Without an absolute system of values or moral laws, we have no basis to talk objectively about better or worse, good or bad, just and unjust. Perhaps “better” is a matter of dying earlier or of sacrificing ourselves to wild beasts? Without God, we are left in a morally relativistic world, where values and laws are arbitrary and humanly created, where objective judgments are not possible since objective laws/truths are non-existent. Only if God exists can we begin to talk coherently about values.

I also want to answer you on a more personal level. You wrote:

·       I don't believe in God. If I believed that some God made me the way I am and the world the way it is, then, yes, I would blame Him for not making me sufficiently knowledgeable of His existence and of the "wages of sin" and sufficiently able to love and obey Him that I did, in fact, love and obey Him.

I don’t know how to make my response inoffensive. Sometimes the truth is highly offensive, especially if we live in darkness and denial, as the Bible claims. Jesus stated that He was so hated because He shed the light about humanity into our darkness and self-righteousness:

• The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. (John 7:7)

For years I had self-righteously regarded myself as a “truth seeker,” but I wasn’t. I was merely seeking for those beliefs that would enable me to feel better about myself. Of course, these were always self-promoting beliefs and very contrary to the revelations of the Bible. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, I was suppressing the very truths I had claimed to be seeking:

• The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,  since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom. 1:18-21)

Our problem is that we already know God but have effectively suppressed that knowledge of God. Consequently, God is not at fault for our lack of knowledge, but we!

Certainty of the non-Existence of God

Louise Antony, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, stated in a NYT interview:

• I claim to know that God doesn’t exist… the question has been settled to my satisfaction. I say “there is no God” with the same confidence I say “there are no ghosts” or “there is no magic.” The main issue is supernaturalism — I deny that there are beings or phenomena outside the scope of natural law.

Antony makes an unusually strong claim about a realm that she admits transcends her direct experiences and perceptions. Upon what then does she base such dogmatism? She claims that the very evident presence of evil in this world has dealt a knock-out blow to the idea of an “omnipotent and benevolent” God:

• I find the “argument from evil” overwhelming — that is, I think the probability that the world we experience was designed by an omnipotent and benevolent being is a zillion times lower than that it is the product of mindless natural laws acting on mindless matter. 

Antony didn’t attempt to explain how the presence of evil argues so definitively against such a God. Nevertheless, there are several problems inherent in this statement alone.

For one thing, an atheist has no logical right to resort to an absolute moral concept like evil. By denying God, the necessary basis for all unchanging, authoritative moral truth, she also denies the existence of evil. Hence, Antony uses what can only come from God (the concept of objective evil) to disprove God. However, by denying God, she can only make a subjective statement:

• “This feels like evil to me, and I don’t feel that a benevolent and omniscient God would conduct himself that way.”

While this modest statement would be permissible, Antony lacks the grounds to use her sentiment as an objective argument against God’s existence. There is also an unwarranted assumption - “Such a God could not possibly have a good reason to allow evil and suffering” - buried within Antony’s claim.

However, can we rule out such a God because He fails to conform to the way we would do/create things? Such a judgment would be both arrogant-to-the-max and absurd. It would be like saying:

• “God, I tripped and fell and broke my leg. This wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t created gravity. I know better than you how things should have been created,” or “We age and die, and that stinks. If you knew what you were doing, you could have made us so that we wouldn’t die.”

Such statements suggest that we possess a greater knowledge than we do. Actually, we live in a world of profound mysteries.

Perhaps instead, as many have asserted, we need hardships, and that an easy life brings out the worst in us. Besides, despite the evil and suffering, most of us cling to life. I think that says something in favor of its Designer and the goodness of His creation.

How Can “Eternal Hell” Be Consistent with God’s Character?

Renowned atheist, Robert Ingersoll (1833-99), was no friend to the biblical faith. He had attacked it in perhaps its most vulnerable place – the doctrine of eternal damnation:

• Eternal punishment must be eternal cruelty…and I do not see how any man, unless he has the brain of an idiot, or the heart of a wild beast, can believe in eternal punishment.

Ingersoll had charged that hell was “eternal cruelty,” not eternal justice as we Christians believe. However, it is difficult to launch a defense. Although the doctrine of eternal damnation is scripturally well-established, much about the nature of hell is left uncertain, and perhaps purposely so. Scripture warns us that we are not going to understand everything:

• The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29)

To illustrate our uncertainty about the nature of hell, let’s take a look at one common revelation about it. According to Jesus, it will be a place of “wailing and gnashing of teeth”:

• “And will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:42)

• “Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'” (Matthew 22:13)

• "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.” (Luke 13:28)

These verses reveal one consistent problem in our attempt to understand the nature of hell. Much of the language seems to be figurative (poetic). The first verse associates the “wailing” with a “furnace of fire,” while the second with “outer darkness.” Both descriptions – fire and darkness - cannot be literal. Meanwhile, the last verse associates the “weeping” with the regret of missing out eternally on the benefits of the kingdom. While they wanted the benefits, they continued to reject the Benefactor as they had in their first life.

Reject? The consistent absence of any attempt to confess sins and repent makes their rejection of God rather obvious. It was absent from Judas’ thinking. Instead of confession and repentance, he elected to pay for his betrayal of Jesus himself by his suicide. It was absent from Jesus’ parable about Lazarus and the rich man, who, upon death, found himself in a place of torment. Instead of confessing his sins asking pleading for forgiveness, he merely requested that his torment be slightly eased (Luke 16).

This leads us to another question about hell – one that opens the window to a possible understanding of divine justice in this matter. What if hell is self-chosen? Jesus gives us a hint of what this might look like:

• For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict [“condemnation,” NKJV]: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. (John 3:17-19)

According to Jesus, He need not condemn us. We are self-“condemned already,” because we have rejected the Son, the only way of finding forgiveness. And it seems that the condemnation in the next life will be little different. Because we have chosen the darkness of sin instead of the light of Christ, it is we who have made the choice for our eternal destiny! If we loved darkness here, we will continue to love darkness there and will flee from the now blinding and terrifying Light of the Presence of the Savior.

This is not to deny that there will be a great judgment in the end. However, it does suggest that God might simply approve the very judgment we have chosen for ourselves. Heaven and hell, therefore, might simply be a matter of God giving us what we have chosen for ourselves.

Another illustration of this principle is found in the Garden account. After Adam and Eve had sinned, their orientation towards the Light was radically transformed. While prior to their sin, they enjoyed unbroken fellowship with God in the Garden. They were so comfortable with this arrangement that their nakedness caused no discomfort whatsoever. However, once they sinned, they hid in the darkness from the Light, which had now become distasteful to them, and determined to deal with their guilt and shame in their own way, much as Judas had done. While the first couple attempted to cover their sin with fig leaves, Judas resorted to a hangman’s noose.

Even after God had given them room to confess their sin, they lied and refused to take responsibility for their betrayal. Indeed, God cast them out of the Garden and out of His Presence. However, they never once pleaded for His mercy. Even after they were informed that they would be sent to a place of pain, death and hard work, they never once expressed any objection to this terrible judgment. Instead, it seems that they were more than willing to endure the pain in order to avoid the Light.

Perhaps this is a dim picture of the supreme and terrifying justice of hell? I don’t know. However, I am confident that our God is just and merciful despite our perplexities. He promises as much:

·         “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (Luke 12:47-48)

Atheism and the Problem of Pain

One angry atheist responded to me:

• So he [God] makes people suffer so we will ask for his help. Seems demented. Like an abusive relationship, so he disciplines people with disease, poverty, hunger, murder, rape, genocide, and natural disasters? Why follow such a sadistic?

The atheist – I’ll call him “Rob” – is making a charge that many atheists make:

• If God is entirely good and all-powerful, we shouldn’t experience any pain or at least pain that seems to be unreasonable.

When I sense that there is no openness to discussion – no give and take – I might graciously extricate myself from the discussion. However, if this charge is made in a public forum, walking away might suggest that Christianity has no answer – an impression I would not want to give.

Therefore, if the atheist is militant, I will put the burden of proof back on him:

• What evidence do you have that if God allows suffering, it is “unreasonable?”

There is no evidence! Therefore, the atheist will usually resort to an emotional appeal:

• Well, everyone knows that genocide is evil, and that it can serve no possible good.

Here again, the atheist is unable to bring a rational charge against God. He may appeal to what is “evil” or “good,” and then claim that the God of the Bible has violated these standards. However, he has no basis for his charge. The atheist is a moral relativist and a materialist. He believes that there is nothing out there apart from matter and energy. Therefore, there is no moral “truth” apart from what we personally decide upon or create for ourselves; it’s all personal (subjective), changing (evolving), and culture-specific (non-universal).

Consequently, without moral absolutes, there is no means to judge another culture, let alone another Being – the Creator of all things. Therefore, when the atheist judges God (and the Biblical conception of God), he is acting hypocritically. He knows that he has no objective measure or standard, but he’s judging as if he has one.

It’s like a math teacher grading a math exam, while she knows that there are no right or wrong answers.

At this point, don’t be surprised if your atheist becomes frustrated and starts to attack you. If instead, he is somewhat receptive to your response, you can then begin to share lessons from your own life.

For example, I’ve learned that I need hardships and humbling circumstances to teach me God’s Word and to trust only in Him. The Bible affirms this truth in many ways. Paul confessed that he had despaired of himself, but this happened for an all-surpassing reason:

• We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. (2 Cor. 1:8-9)

This principle even works itself out interpersonally. I am sad to confess that when I am broken and hurting, I tend to value my wife far more than I would without my humbling circumstances. I have also learned how to be more compassionate and patient with others through my own failures.

However, I must add that if my life had been about failures alone, I suspect that instead of compassion, I would have learned bitterness and jealousy. However, in seeing the compassion that God has for me through the ever-greater awareness of my own unworthiness, I am encouraged to extend this compassion to others.

Consequently, even though I have suffered tremendously, I can now look back and say along with David, King of Israel:

• It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees. (Psalm 119:71)

I would even take this analysis a step further and argue that we even need death! How jaded we become to our relationships. Often it is prospect of death that revives us from our slumber – our distorted priorities.

We’ve all seen footage of victims pulled alive out of the wreckage amidst tears of gratefulness. Their love and thankfulness were palpable. How hardened are we that we don’t respond to our loved ones in this manner without impending disasters!

I think that we are quick to denigrate God because we fail to see that depth of our spiritual illness. If we know that we have a life-threatening cancer, we willingly submit to the surgeon’s knife to remove the threat. We even financially reward the surgeon for cutting us in pieces.

Our Savior is our spiritual surgeon. However, only those who know Him will perceive this:

• The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. Those who know your name will trust in you, for you, Lord, have never forsaken those who seek you. (Psalm 9:9-10)

Those on the outside will see only the blood and gore. It is like an uneducated Eskimo beholding a cancer surgery for the first time. He will be repelled by the pain and invasiveness of the surgery. He might even think that the patient who had submitted to such treatment had to be crazy or masochistic.

He is like a color-blind person who insists that there is no difference between red, green and blue. However, this analysis is far too gracious regarding the depth of human sin and hatred. The color blind man didn’t choose to be color-blind. However, those of us who have rejected God have made this choice:

• They are darkened in their understanding [and this is the way we all were] and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. (Ephes. 4:18-19)

Can we truthfully say that this isn’t a good description of how we had all been? And if this is our true state, then perhaps we might begin to recognize our need for radical surgery?