Issue: The Problem of Evil (Part 2/5)

When I am involved in discussions with skeptics of the Christian worldview or with those who are hostile to the God of Scripture, I ask a lot of questions to understand where the other people are coming from. It’s crucial to have clearly defined terms. Here are some samples of conversations I have had countless times. Below the doubter is “D” and I’m the Chaplain (CH):

D: I don’t believe in God, Chaplain. I cannot. Just look around! Are you kidding me? A good God? You guys all just wish there was a God up there to clean up all this mess, but there’s no one there.

CH: Can you tell me the reasons you describe this world as a mess?

D: Can you not see, Chaplain? It’s evil to the core.

CH: Why should this world be any other way than it is? Who says? What reasons do you have for your view? I want to be sure I understand you.

D: I don’t know why I even bother with you types. Y’all are all the same. Just the old man in the sky routine. Good grief. Give me reason, not myth and wish fulfillment.

CH: I can tell you are frustrated. However, again I ask you: Can you tell me the reasons you describe the world as a mess? Should it be another way? If so, how do you know that? Who says? Just you? What if someone else has a different view? By what standard are you correct and one who disagrees with you incorrect? What reasons do you have for your position?

D: I believe in reason, Chaplain, not in invisible things. Science is my religion.

CH: Okay, so you believe in science. It is, as you say, your religion. But did I miss your reasons for denying the existence of God? Remind me of what they are so that I can follow your argument. I did hear you say you believe in reason but not in invisible things, so that helps clarify things a bit for me.

D: What are you talking about?

CH: How much does reason weigh?

D: What?

CH: How about logic? Can you tell me the color and dimensions of logic?

D: What are you talking about? I never said anything about logic or reason having weight or dimension.

CH: But you did. You said you believe in reason, that science was your religion. But you said you didn’t believe in invisible things, right?

D: Exactly. Give me evidence—something I can see or actually evaluate.

CH: Again, this is very helpful. Can you please show me the dimensions of logic? Can you show me, since you believe in the visible only, the height, depth, and width of math—in order that we all might believe in it?

D: Everybody knows that math just is, Chaplain. Don’t be ridiculous.

CH: So, what I hear you saying is that you believe in something that you cannot see, taste, measure, weigh, or show me? But you believe in it, right? You have confidence that 2+2=4 always, whether people wish to accept it or not, but that math is admittedly non-empirical?

D: Chaplain, I hate these discussions. I just can’t reason with people like you.

A Question for Reflection & Encouragement:  

• By what standard? That is a key question to ask skeptics. They will posit a standard, but in an atheistic framework, standards are reduced to preferences.
• Recognize ad hominem attacks for what they are. When skeptics attack you as a person, lovingly call their attention back to the need for reasons: Can you provide me reasons for your belief system? Name-calling is not an adequate substitute for reasoned debate.
• Truth with grace. I think this cannot be overestimated. May we seek to win the person, not just the argument.  

In the opening chapter of Ecclesiastes Solomon writes, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun” (1:9). The questions and complaints are not new to us, and they are certainly not new to God.

Evil is real. Math and logic are real. But so often skeptics and deniers create an idol and fail to realize the inherent reductionism of their position. In the above example, the Doubter believed, he said, in visible things, in things of science. But science itself rests upon articles of faith. Logic and math and coherence are all invisible realities, but they are invisible realities that we recognize because they are what’s known as “properly basic” or “foundational” realities. But when we are dealing with skeptics, we need to lovingly but firmly show them their lack on internal coherence and their faith commitment. Above all, let us aim for the person, not the trophy of just winning the argument.