12. Suffering, morality & evil: more problems for atheism.

 

Earthquakes, famine and tsunamis are terrible events. Why can we call them 'terrible' and not just say "Stuff happens!"? Atheism provides us more problems as we think about suffering and 'natural evil' than the Christian world view. Christianity provides the only solid foundation for seeing some natural events as 'bad', and even 'evil'. Christianity also provides genuine hope and comfort in the midst of suffering.

 

1. Atheism's basis for 'bad' and 'evil' is missing.

In an atheistic worldview there is no ultimate evil or good – only movement and changes in matter and energy. There is no concrete basis for saying that something is not how it ought to be. There just "is". There is no "ought". Evil is only evil when there is a norm or standard from which things have departed from. Only the theistic world view provides the logical basis for evil and good.

Many atheists live kind, generous and overall moral lives and many Christians fall short of Christian ideals. We are not saying that atheists are worse members of society or any such stupid notion. I have learnt much from atheists, as well as Christians, about how to live a kind, warm and generous life. The issue is about the logical basis for being able to declare something as 'good' and something as 'evil'.

The non-Christian philosopher David Hume was one who articulated this clearly and mainstream philosophy has followed his logic ever since. You can't move from 'is' statements to 'ought' statements. Just because something 'is' a certain way, that tells us nothing about how it 'ought' to be. The world just 'is'. There is no atheistic basis for 'ought' statements.

Without God in the picture, there is no philosophical basis for categorising events and actions as 'bad' or 'evil'. There just is what happens in the world. Honey kills bacteria. Humans kill bacteria with penicillin. Earthquakes kill people. We kill ants. Ants kills ants. People kill people. All this just happens to happen in the world. The chemistry in our species' brains produces neurons that give us an illusion of meaning and preferences. We may move our body (vocal chords or hands) to "convince" others of our species about our preferences. However, more powerful members of our species may convince others to do the things that go against our opinions. It is just one opinion of one animal against another. One homo sapien says it was good when he killed another of his species. Another says it was bad. One human says killing a cow for dinner is good. Another says killing a cow for dinner is evil. Opinions are just opinions. Things just happen. ... Unless of course there is a standard above these opinions which stands outside of our world. We need to look to God.

Neuroscientist Sam Harris has recently tried to argue for objective morals based on science. However, he seems unaware of his philosophical blunder of smuggling in moral statements into his argument for morals statements.

Yes, Science can tell us about the means to some human 'flourishing'. Yes, starving your children will lead to a lack of human flourishing, just as certain types of psychological oppression will also. That's all true. But the prior philosophical question is 'Why is human flourishing ultimately good?' Humans harm the planet, so our destruction will lead to more flourishing for other species. We are not the pinnacle of evolution, we are just one path of survival amongst many. Bacteria are more numerous than us and are much more hearty at survival and flourishing.

The other important issue is whose human flourishing is "good". Surely the majority in society would be better off if we executed those who slow our society down – the lazy, the less intelligent, the blind, the sickly etc. Actually why worry about the majority – an intelligent minority could flourish from killing the majority of humans.

So without an external assessment of what we do, which comes from God, there is nothing to say Hitler's eugenics program was actually wrong. He was making the rest of the German people flourish by getting rid of those who lowered the overall standard of living. This kind of action would still fit well with Sam Harris's attempt at philosophy and ethics. For a fuller discussion of the issues of Sam Harris's ethics without God have a listen to a talk called 'New Atheism, Science and Morality' by Glenn Peoples here.

Might versus right: Without God in the picture, we have to say that Hitler's program just happened to be squashed by a stronger 'might' – the mighty allied forces. We can't say it was squashed by people who were 'right'. In fact ,at the Nuremberg Trials, the Nazis were disgusted at the idea that another culture could judge their culture. What right did others have to judge the German actions since morals are just social conventions. How could other countries condemn them for killing people with problems who cost the German society extra money? How could Germans be judged by others for killing Jews?

 

2. Christianity makes better sense of 'bad' events and offers hope.

The Christian view says there is something, or rather someone, outside of our universe who set up the system (see above "7. There are good reason for acknowledging God"). He has standards and norms which we 'ought' to follow. Departing from these 'oughts' is wrong and in the worst cases evil. It is not just a social convention as to what is good and what is evil. God is the basis for good and evil.

Disasters in the natural order are not God's preferred way of doing things. The Bible calls these kinds of things "God's alien task." Something is not as it should be when God is doing things differently to his first choice for action. In one sense, the world has deviated from a norm. Things are not as they should be. It is important to note that there actually is a "should be", unlike the logical conclusion of the atheistic view. Atheism ultimately provides no solid basis for how things 'ought' to be. Things just 'are', in non-theistic views.

The existence of suffering in the Christian world view is still difficult. However it is not a surprise or shock to the Bible. In fact, amongst other things, the Bible is one long explanation of the origins of suffering and how it will be finally done away with. You may not agree with the cause or the solution but you can't say it isn't something the Bible addresses head-on. The Bible focusses on Jesus' life, suffering, death and bodily resurrection from the dead as the solution to suffering, amongst other problems. It is the means by which the humanity and the world will ultimately be reconciled to God and brought into harmony.

What is more, the Bible tells us that God himself is affected by suffering. He suffered the loss of his own Son in order to put an end to our suffering. Clearly God is not a detached cruel observer of our problems. He get involved and gets his hand dirty. I have found this a great comfort and it has made me trust God more in the midst of the difficulties that I have faced.

Suffering is a very personal experience, not just a philosophical challenge or play thing. When a Christian undergoes suffering, it's still hard, like it is for anyone else. The pain is still just as real. However, the Christian has the assurance that God does have an ultimate reason for it, even if we can't know the reason or appreciate preciely what God's reason is. We are called to trust God because we know his good character from other contexts. When we look, we can at times even see hints of goodness and mercy in the very midst of that suffering itself.

The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. It is his right as God and he does it as part of his ultimately good purposes. Rather than concluding, there cannot be a God, the Christian wrestles with why the good God that he knows is doing what he is doing.

When a young child is hurt by his loving father who plunges a sharp object into his son's leg, the son may be angry and confused. It would be unusual for the child to say "I don't want you as a Father anymore." or "You don't exist." He will probably scream with passion "Why Father?" Before long he will come to understand that it was necessary for him to get the life saving medicine he needed through the injection. Ultimately God has his own reasons for allowing suffering in the world but we have many reasons to trust that he knows what he is doing. That is far less of a problem than trying to live with all suffering being completely and utterly senseless, meaningless and purposeless. Atheism is hopeless ... in the sense that it can't offer hope in the midst of suffering.

English Translation: "60000 RM - this is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime. Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too"  Source

 

Further Information:

Apologetics315 Blog Spot has numerous resources, here. Sam Harris is often classified as one of the 'New athiests' (though he actually doesn't like to be called an atheist because he believes in transcendence). A specific talk by Glenn Peoples on the problems of Sam Harris's basis for moraility without God can be found here.