Avoiding theodicy with the moral law

May 10th, 2010 | 10 Comments

It seems every time I hear Ravi Zacharias he’s either (or both) quoting Malcom Muggeridge or telling the story of going to a college campus and stumping a questioner by giving the following exchange (approximately):

Atheist: “If the Christian God exists, why is there evil in the universe?”

Christian: “The very fact that you believe there is evil shows that you are acknowledging a moral law, which itself requires a Lawgiver. So what’s your question again?”

Atheist: “. . .”

Every time he tells this story, which probably is just recounting the same incident that gave the best result, the questioner is said to be dumbfounded, essentially conceding the point, while Ravi’s current audience laughs and applauds as though it’s the first time they’ve seen the woman apparently sawed in half emerge from the box in one piece.

This silly gotcha game bothers me every time I hear it. It’s clear what the questioner is asking: “If, as Christians claim, evil is defined and despised by the Christian God who made the universe, then why would that Christian God allow evil as Christians define it?” What is being pointed out is a perceived lack of consistency in the Christian conception of good/evil and God’s nature. The questioner can be thought of as saying something like, “The idea of God offends my moral sense, which is evolutionary and emergent rather than absolute so long as He does not exist but is hopelessly self-contradictory if He does.”

It is a legitimate but entirely separate issue to ask someone who intuits and whose beliefs and attitudes presuppose an absolute moral law if they will acknowledge that there is no absolute basis for any of his/her ethical/moral preferences. There is some potential value in making them lie in the bed they make. But this is not what is being done in the shell game above. Instead, they’re asking Christians to lie in a bed we’ve made. What’s good for the goose, etc.

The tack above that Ravi and many other apologists have taken amounts to changing the subject and hoping they won’t notice. This does not mean that we as Christians are the only ones with hard questions to answer, but when answering this good question this way we should be aware that we are avoiding rather than doing theodicy. The problem of evil is the biggest hangup unbelievers and believers alike have; just try not to be so coy when you ignore it, please.

Related posts:

  1. Mondays with MacDonald (on God’s role in our moral development) God does not, by the instant gift of his Spirit, make us always feel right, desire good, love purity, aspire after him and his will…The...

May 10th, 2010

Tags: , , ,

  • http://pleion.blogspot.com Bjørn Østman

    Why is evil a problem for unbelievers, again?

  • http://www.facebook.com/arnizach Arni Zachariassen

    Totally agree, Steve. It can be fun to be rhetorically “clever”, but not when people seriously inquire about such serious matters as the problem of evil. Dismissing questions in such a glib way is completely counter-productive.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    I'm not really saying it is, per se — I'm saying it's a hangup unbelievers have with the Christian conception of God.

    I really don't want to get involved in this debate here in the comments, but concerning my remark about a “potential value” in the good/evil argument: the practical implications of there being no absolute good/evil are not a logical problem for unbelievers, but they do raise a question that makes most people uncomfortable and conflicts with general human intuition. In my experience, the consideration that it is distinctly possible, given the absence of absolute morality, that there would be nothing wrong with raping young girls or torturing homosexuals in another culture in some other place, gives most people, atheists included, pause. Again, this is not a logical problem for atheism, but I think it's a point that there is more “potential value” in raising for discussion than the tack critiqued in the OP.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Thanks, Arni. The PoE may be hard to deal with, and perhaps ultimately irresolvable, but it is not something to be dismissed so lightly. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is done by many who latch on to this clever trick of rhetoric.

  • Arcamaede

    You are really saying that the Christian argument is “begging the question.”

  • http://pleion.blogspot.com Bjørn Østman

    As far as I can see, the only “problem of evil” that atheists have to explain is how humans have a sense of good/evil and right/wrong at all. But I realize that isn't at all the kind of problem you are talking about.

  • http://pleion.blogspot.com Bjørn Østman

    As far as I can see, the only “problem of evil” that atheists have to explain is how humans have a sense of good/evil and right/wrong at all. But I realize that isn't at all the kind of problem you are talking about.

  • Jesus4Ever

    People do have problems with evil that affect their belief or disbelief in God . I think Ravi is just forcing people to be real and also knocking away intellectual objections to the Gospel. A person can still hold on to thier emotiional response to evil an still not believe in God, but Ravi does satisy the intellectual objection to disbelief in God because of evil… So what is left is the will and the emotions.To use Evil's Existance is as a reason to disbelive in God is irrational.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Hey Jim,

    To use Evil's Existance is as a reason to disbelive in God is irrational.

    With all due respect, Jim, your comment confirms the impression that Ravi gives, that people struggle with the problem of evil just because they are given over to an emotional repugnance that itself points to God. I've never heard a half-way serious apologist make the claim that the problem of evil is simply emotional and not rational; I doubt even Ravi would say it's wholly irrational.

    Even an emotionless computer would say “Christian claim of good god and Christian claim of existence of evil by good god (especially if created by said good god) are incompatible. One or both of the claims must be incorrect.” If that's truly irrational, it's not at all addressed in the example Ravi gives, and that was my main problem to begin with.

  • Jesus4Ever

    Hey Steve,

    It's not irrational until the false assumptions within the questions are revealed.. and then it become self evident that is it an irrational argument to say that God does not exists because of all the evil in the world. I'm not saying that there are not other reasons that people have for not believing in God, there certainly are. I'm not saying evil is not a problem emotionally; It is, but what Ravi does is help clear the way so that a person can see the real reason(s) that they won't believe..It's not that I can't believe, It's that I won't believe. It's a matter of the will. People ( Christian and Non Christians ) do need encouragement..because some times it's harder to believe or keep believing than other times.
    Ravi Zacharias has shared this story below

    Some time ago I was speaking at a university in England, when a rather exasperated person in the audience made his attack upon God.

    “There cannot possibly be a God,” he said, “with all the evil and suffering that exists in the world!”

    I asked, “When you say there is such a thing as evil, are you not assuming that there is such a thing as good?”

    “Of course,” he retorted.

    “But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil?”

    “I suppose so,” came the hesitant and much softer reply.

    “If, then, there is a moral law,” I said, “you must also posit a moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no transcendent moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. If there is no moral law, there really is no good. If there is no good there is no evil. I am not sure what your question is!”

    There was silence and then he said, “What, then, am I asking you?”

    He was visibly jolted that at the heart of his question lay an assumption that contradicted his own conclusion.

    You see friends, the skeptic not only has to give an answer to his or her own question, but also has to justify the question itself. And even as the laughter subsided I reminded him that his question was indeed reasonable, but that his question justified my assumption that this was a moral universe. For if God is not the author of life, neither good nor bad are meaningful terms.

    This seems to constantly elude the critic who thinks that by raising the question of evil, a trap has been sprung to destroy theism. When in fact, the very raising of the question ensnares the skeptic who raised the question. A hidden assumption comes into the open. Moreover, as C. S. Lewis reminds us, the moment we acknowledge something as being “better”, we are committing ourselves to an objective point of reference.

    The disorienting reality to those who raise the problem of evil is that the Christian can be consistent when he or she talks about the problem of evil, while the skeptic is hard-pressed to respond to the question of good in an amoral universe. In short, the problem of evil is not solved by doing away with the existence of God; the problem of evil and suffering must be resolved while keeping God in the picture.

    From A Slice of Infinity: The Polemic Shot in the Foot