 |
| (Battling evil in Monroe) |
But on what basis? Here is where God-believers have an advantage over atheists. An atheist can find no warrant for her belief that some things are objectively evil, such as racism.
The intellectual atheist believes in objective evil. This belief forms a premise in the atheist's evidential argument against the existence of God.
What, in the philosophical discussion, is meant by "evil?" Evil is "pointless suffering," or "gratuitous suffering." Gratuitous suffering is suffering that is not needed to either bring about a greater good, or prevent an equal or greater evil from happening. If there was a God, the atheist reasons, there could be no pointless suffering.
Here is the argument.
1. Evil exists. (Pointless suffering exists.)
2. If evil exists, then an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God does not exist.
2. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God does not exist.
Why not? Because such a God would not allow gratuitous suffering; i.e., suffering that has no point to it. Such as racism. Such as looting, too.
To make this argument work, a moral statement must be objectively true. That is, Racism is wrong must be true for all people, independently of what people feel or think.
But atheism can provide no warrant for such a claim.
Theism can, and does.
It is epistemically incoherent to raise signs saying Racism is wrong (anywhere, any time) if moral truths are only subjective preferences, for me perhaps, but not for you.
***
Encounters with the Holy Spirit (a book I co-edited with Janice Trigg)
I''m now giving attention to Transformation: How God Changes the Human Heart
Followed by... Technology and Spiritual Formation
Then, Linda and I will co-write our book on Relationships.
