HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

Believers in God referring to evil as a problem is insensitive
 
How can a God with unlimited power who cannot look upon evil be good while there is so much suffering and evil in the universe? The Christians claim that we create evil not God and that God is never a passive bystander and is involved and providentially guides all things to produce the best outcome and to fix the harm.

 

Many feel that calling evil a problem for belief in God is just trying to make out it is not bad enough to contradict a loving all-powerful God.  They feel it is like calling a catastrophe that cannot be fixed a problem.  That would be flippant.  It is not a problem but a disaster.

 

The argument that your sin does not serve a divine purpose but your terrible suffering and illness does is bizarre.  People want to make sin out to be worse than suffering or death!  But surely sin is only possible if harm is possible!  Harm is therefore the most important thing.  It is the sea sin swims in.  No truly good person would rather a person suffered terribly forever if it were nobody's doing than that person commit a sin instead.  No sane believer could expect a suffering person to be impressed by such faith or their prayers to such a horrible God who cares too much about sin.

 

THE CHRISTIANS SAY

 

"Those who say the problem of evil disproves God have a background belief which is that evil and suffering are so terrible that even if there were a God they would make life a waste. So a background belief is involved and it is not a strictly rational belief for the fact that we don’t know a reason why God lets suffering happen does not mean he cannot allow it. Suffering may fit a loving God and thus fail to disprove him."

 

Nobody is saying that evil and suffering have to make life a waste to be bad and intolerable.  That assertion is just a Christian way of trying to goad you into faith.  They reason they are bad is because life is a great thing.

 

Atheists may assume evil and suffering do not fit God.  Believers assume that they might or even worse than they can!  A might is not good enough for why does the serial killer not get told he might be doing the right thing and have reasons of his own that only he can understand?  The might is a sign of not really caring.  A might is too weak in the spectre of such horrors.  And those who evil and God can fit are ignorant or lying.

 

When both atheists and believers are assuming does one side really have the right to think its assuming is better than the other?  If the atheists are doing it for they don't want to take the risk of even unwittingly condoning how evil happens and because they want to be god to others and do what God should be doing it is impossible to fault them and they are the ones who are being decent.  Their assumption is the best.

 

And it is not an assumption.  The believers are assuming that evil is really a good thing because they need it to fit the doctrine of God's love.

 

And the Christians are putting evil and suffering on the same level.  In fact it is better for a person who cannot murder to want to murder than for them to suffer.  Period.   In fact as man does every little evil in comparison to what nature does and it is nature building on man's mistakes and crimes that is so horrific the Christians are being heartless.

 

They are not admitting that reason shows that evil by definition is that which cannot fit love.  No good comes from evil but in spite of it so there is no purpose for it.
 
IS IT RIGHT TO LOOK FOR RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL ANSWERS FOR THE PROBLEM?
 
Evil for the Christians is a problem not because the person suffers but because they wish to believe in God.
 
It is not about working out if evil can be a blessing for us in time but about salvaging God's reputation.
 
The atheist can stand helpless in the face of evil but help people to get something good out of the wreckage. He does not see a problem of evil for he sees it as part of life and something that has to happen for there is nothing out there that has the magic power to halt it. His problem is how to bring about the best after disaster. That is all you need to do. You don't need to be thinking of a reason why evil should be allowed to happen.
 
The believer won't settle for that. Thus there is no need to say there is a problem of evil and to try and get answers. If you are doing enough about evil, you won't feel the need for answers. You shouldn't.
 
CALLING EVIL A PROBLEM IS INSENSITIVE


The Christian looks at evil and claims that it is a problem how it can be reconciled with an all good and all perfect God of almighty power. The Christian assumes it is a problem and not a refutation of God. The matter is so serious that it is a terrible thing to assume that it is merely a problem. You would need to see sufficient evidence that God is good in order to justify calling evil a problem. You would need to see God's plan to overcome evil and to use evil to bring about good. And that would be a lot of evidence and good quality evidence too. It would take time and effort to be able to perceive that God must be good. It would be almost a lifetime for some. It depends. But to just assume evil is a problem is not good enough.

 

I think sensible believers and atheists both would agree that it is in some way callous and insensitive to simply dismiss evil as a problem. The problem of evil indicates that God hates evil but tolerates it. It is not it he wants but the good that can emerge in spite of it or because of it. If you are to be like God you must only call evil a problem as a last resort meaning it would be more evil to categorise it as anything else. It would only be more evil if it meant that you were unable to see that the creator is good and to appreciate his works.

 

Evil is not a problem for those who think that the maker or makers of all things is not all good. Many religions have been formed out of devotion to beings that are good enough and are not morally perfect. This point of view respects the religious person's need to be enraged when the divine lets their baby die and yet still hold on to hope. It toughens a person to see that the relationship with the gods will have its ups and downs.
 
DOGMATIC?
 
Religion accuses atheists of being dogmatic. They argue that no state of affairs would really satisfy atheists with regard to suffering being reconcilable or even demanded by the perfect all-powerful God of love. That is an assumption. It is not fair to accuse people of being that intransigent. Belief in God demands that we accuse and that makes it a bad belief.
 
The believers say that nothing will please atheists who argue that evil refutes God. But that accusation makes no sense considering religion itself says that evil is a mystery. Religion says that no evidence from evil will make it doubt God's reality. The religious fans of the mystery of evil are clearly admitting that nothing will make them question or challenge the reality of God. If an atheist is dogmatic then a believer is a bigger dogmatist. Better to be a 99% dogmatist than one who is 100%. And it is better to be a dogmatist who says that suffering is so terrible that it disproves God than one who says God exists no matter how much suffering there is and that we must stand up for him because he deserves it - so it is about God not people. So better to be a humanitarian dogmatist than a religious one.
 
Finally
 
Believers do not really believe evil is a problem and some openly boast that evil is an argument for the existence of a loving God! There is something inhuman in a stance that would suggest that if there was nothing in creation but people who suffered to the hilt all the time that this proves the love of God!