Introduction

Today I would like to put some meat on the bone regarding the point of contact we discussed last week. I ended with some principles that should guide us in communicating with unbelievers. Even though the unbelieving mind is dead set against the things of God, there is a place where we have a meeting of the minds. They know God and we know God. Of course, the problem and dynamic here is that they know in a peculiar way; they know in denial (Rom. 1:18f). They know God over the shoulder fleeing Him fearing His wrath (cf. Jn. 3:19-20). Ultimately in making contact with unbelievers we want to uncover this fact that they know but will not admit and we want to apply the healing balm of the gospel (we give what is called "the overture of grace").

What I propose to do this morning is apply the ABC's of the point of contact to the problem of evil argument used to support atheism. No doubt you have heard this argument before in one form or another even if you have never heard how it is presented formally in the history of philosophy. In a way I will only be clarifying things you already know and hopefully this will confirm your faith and help you help others. In the end, the problem of evil and suffering points us back to our risen Savior, the Lord Jesus.

To complete this introduction, I will review the ABC's of the point of contact. For a brief review regarding the point of contact applied, note the following four basics: answer according to their questions, argue, expose autonomy, and cultivate a balance of graces. 1) Thus be ready to give an answer to all that ask you about your hope. Answer them along the lines of their questions. 2) It will become necessary to argue with careful analysis and pointed refutation. 3) Expose the taproot of autonomy to uncover the conscience by bringing them face to face with what they know. 4) And cultivate the true spirit and intent of all the Christian graces such as humility, meekness, patience, and self-control. This last principle is not the least. It is not less important than the development of skill in arguing. It is probably more important in that it underlies all argumentation (and for that matter, it underlies the entire Christian life).

As to my outline, I will cover the problem of evil argument answered and counter-argued. This might be called question and counter-question. We not only seek to answer the question but we also counter it; we counter-question the question (in demolishing arguments we not only tare down the building but we dig out its very foundations to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10:4-5).

1A. Let's begin with the problem of evil argument answered

To do this we need to put the question on the table to see how it is answered. Stated generally the question is: "How can you, a Christian, believe in God in light of the reality of evil in the world, especially with some evil that seems utterly pointless?"

In a rough and ready way, we can over view the argument in two phases in the history of modern philosophy. This is an ancient argument but it has two modern forms. They can be called the deductive argument from evil and the inductive argument from evil. The distinction in logic between deduction and induction is slightly different from the use of these notions in the natural sciences. To separate deductive arguments from inductive arguments all you need to do is look for clues that indicate the goal of each argument. The goal of deductive arguments is certainty and is indicated by word clues such as must and impossible. The goal of inductive arguments is probability and is indicated by word clues such as likely and probably. Note the deductive quality if you say, "All fire-fighters are brave, Joe is a fire-fighter, so Joe must be brave." The goal is to conclude with absolute certainty. But in the following argument, notice how the goal is likelihood rather than certainty: "Most apples from the Dearborn Market are Grade-A. This apple is from the Dearborn Market. So this apple is Grade-A (probably)."

Modern deductive arguments date from the famous anti-Christian philosopher, Hume, who died when our country was founded in 1776. They continue to the 1960's when the famous Christian philosopher, Plantinga, sent philosophers around the world back to their drawing boards. Plantinga was instrumental in bringing about a change in the way atheists formulate the problem of evil argument. The 1960's marked a shift from deductive to inductive arguments for atheism from the reality of evil. From that time to the present atheists have been scrambling around trying to rehabilitate the argument that has been their "ace in the sleeve" since Hume.

1B. The deductive argument

Once we outline Hume's argument and show how it is answered we may wonder why it took philosophers so long to give up aiming for certainty in their attempted defeat of Christianity by this means.

By the way, it is worthy of note to emphasize the fact that the leading atheistic scholars in philosophy are really only interested in defeating Christian belief in God. No other view concerns them either intellectually or morally (in any truly significant way).

Hume's argument has a form known graphically as putting your opponent on the horns of a dilemma. This means that we are left with only two alternatives, both are bad (both are lemons), and we have to choose one or the other. So either way we go we get jabbed and in this context jabbed to death, spiritually. Laying out the horns of the dilemma Hume asks the following questions regarding God, "Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, X).

To make the either/or elements of the dilemma plain, Hume is saying that either God is not omnipotent if evil exists (He cannot prevent it) or God is not benevolent if evil exists (He wills not to prevent it). Evil does exist so God is either not powerful or not good and either way (caught on either horn), it must be concluded that God does not exist. Hume has the God of Scripture in mind in this argument. Remove any perfection and the God of Scripture cannot be believed. If this were a game of chess, it would not simply be the case that either a rook or a bishop will be taken, either way, no matter what you do. Here it is checkmate if you go this way and checkmate if you go that way. This argument in one form or another has been continually used as the decisive argument to confidently/allegedly defeat Christian belief in God (thus Hume sounds a note of triumphalism, "nothing can shake the solidity of this reasoning, so short, so clear, so decisive…. I find myself at ease in my argument. Here I triumph," Ibid).

Many years later and many restatements of Hume's argument later, an Oxford philosopher, John Mackie, in his prime in the 50's and 60's, could add no more to the argument than what I summarize in the following paraphrase. If God is good he will eliminate evil as far as he can, there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. So we must conclude that the existence of God (the God of Scripture) is logically incompatible with the existence of evil ("Evil and Omnipotence" in Mind, 1955, reprinted in Reason and Religious Belief, cf. p. 76).

Plantinga answered this argument when he was a professor of philosophy at Wayne State University here in Detroit. In a work called God and Other Minds (1967), he shook the foundations of the philosophical world by depriving them of their wild card argument. Disappointingly, his argument is based on the notion of free will and is called "the free will defense." He reasoned that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of evil because God is perfectly logical and cannot be faulted for allowing evil for the greater good of creating free agents. The way I see it, Plantinga appealed to a most beloved doctrine held by all philosophers, belief in man's free will. Their devotion to this doctrine is so strong that it causes them to give up the deductive argument from evil against belief in God in order to preserve this cherished belief (but note the catering to the presupposition of human autonomy).

Without appealing to the myth of free will, here is a simple and decisive reply to the deductive argument: If God is perfectly good and powerful (perfect in strength, truth, consistency, and love), then He must have a good reason for the existence of evil. He is perfectly good and powerful. So He must have a good reason for the existence of evil. Contrary to Mackie, there are limits to what the omnipotent God can do for He cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself, and He cannot be illogical in any way, shape or form since He is truth embodied (Heb. 6:18; Jn. 14:6; 2 Tim. 2:13). Logically, it must be the case that God has a good reason for the evils of human history (Saying that these evils are not by chance but by divine intent, Hume, Ibid, ironically expresses the truth of Genesis 50:19-20. The evil of the brothers was God's intent for a good reason, cf. Rom. 8:28).

2B. The inductive argument

The inductive argument is essentially this: given the apparently pointless character of so much evil in the world, then the God of Scripture probably does not exist. An example proponent of this argument is the well-known aggressive and articulate contemporary atheist, Michael Martin (a Harvard graduate and professor of philosophy at Boston University). I will refer to a major work by him titled Atheism, A Philosophical Justification (1990). He is an avid defender of atheistic belief and practice.

To see how we find a point of contact with Michael Martin and Martin-like thinkers, let's consider one of his arguments. In this argument he discusses theodicies, which are attempts to explain the existence of evil in the world trying to give some good reason for it. Martin states that they have failed repeatedly. He is appealing to something we can identify with for it is the case that we are all perplexed and cannot give reasons for some particular evils we experience. Beginning there, he formulates this argument. 1) "If every attempt to specify a needed explanation fails over a long period of time, this gives us good grounds for supposing that an explanation is impossible" (342). He then concludes, 2) "In the present case this means, if theodicies have failed, we would have good reason to suppose that evil that seems pointless is in fact pointless" (342, italics mine). This is used to finish the argument that evil excludes God unless there is an explanation for apparently pointless evil. There isn't one (we cannot explain this particular evil or that particular evil), so belief in God must be an impossible belief.

Here are some steps of interaction that show how to apply the point of contact in Christian apologetics.

1) That reason can judge the probabilities and supposedly make this move to impossibility shows that reason is the authority that decides the truth as the ultimate standard. For Martin, if man by human reason cannot find an explanation, then not even God could possibly have one and reason must determine His non-existence.

2) But the assumption of reason as the ultimate standard is an unwarranted, unfounded, and narrowly (viciously) circular assumption. Being unwarranted, the assertion is simply, "reason must be the final authority because it must be."

3) That it is a move to impossibility in such a shallow way shows a great arrogance asserted of reason as final standard. Human reason can determine possibility itself! Human reason is virtually omniscient (you must know all to exclude God from every fact; you must know all places in the universe and know that God is not to be found in any one of them to conclude that God is impossible).

4) That the back burner issue is preserving his reason with the fact of evil while denying God shows that what is being ultimately denied here with passion is the implication of God and evil for his own guilt. The claim on the back burner is simply, "I don't want God" and this is defended by a façade on the front burner (a façade of logical reasoning of red herrings, straw men, small circle circularity, etc.).

This analysis that he is threatened by holding to evil and disbelief in God is supported by his ultimate retreat to question begging. He merely assumes that reason is the ultimate arbitrator as to whether or not God can be allowed into the universe along with evil. We know why he does this by keeping in mind that he is fleeing God fearing His wrath (cf. Jn. 3:20).

5) Therefore, Martin's emphasis on rationality reduces to rationalization and excuse making that is performed with veiled circularity. Reason judges a thousand disputes crushing all question begging with a vengeance in front of the veil. But when the veil is removed it is evident that reason is by question begging elevated to the ultimate status as judge. It is mere rationalization.

6) We are saying to Martin, et al, "Here is what you are doing and here is why we say so." For this we need knowledge, boldness, clarity, and a multitude of Christian graces so that we do this analysis and call for repentance gently without being caustic. Thus we say, "you should not do this, turn away from doing this, turn to Christ with the acknowledgement of your dependence and unworthiness because in this way Christ promises forgiveness to you for your sin of attempted autonomy."

Summary

My point is that lying beneath this example (and many more like it) is the simple disparate claim, "I must be rational in acknowledging evil while denying God because my rationality is the ultimate standard in determining the truth (so I claim). And this means of course from the start but hidden from view that God cannot be the ultimate standard of truth and in turn that He cannot be. I must conclude to His impossibility in relation to evil to protect myself from the threat of acknowledging that disbelief in God along with belief in evil shows me to be foolish and irrational. I cannot allow that possibility. I cannot allow even the possibility that belief in God (with evil) is rational because that would mean that I am not, my rationality is not, the standard. And then I must acknowledge evil, my evil, along with God. But at all costs I must not do that. So, the way I can protect my claim to rationality is by elevating it to the place of an ultimate standard. Even though this is without warrant or justification, I can use it as the perfect hiding place for protection of my claim to rationality."

This refrain: "God is impossible, it must be so because it must be so" is a chant being sung at an altar to the god of reason. But this god is a myth as is evident to anyone who looks within at his rational endowments and who uses them to look without at the world. He denies what He knows. As Van Til often put it, the greatness of man's sin lies precisely in the fact that "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God."

2A Counter argument

By accenting the glory of the gospel in the face of Christ, a "how much more" (a fortiori) argument can be stated that powerfully defeats all inductive arguments for atheism from inexplicable or apparently pointless evil (whether direct indirect, moral or natural). The argument must be defined in terms of the Christian worldview for its power to be evident. But that only helps direct our thinking into the content of Scripture in defending the gospel in this way. Here is my formulation of this argument. I hope you will not miss its power due to its brevity. The death of Christ on the cross with all its apparent pointlessness is the greatest conceivable evil, yet this greatest evil was not pointless; therefore, how much more must there be a point in the purpose of God for all lesser evils however inexplicable or apparently pointless they may be to us.

a) The death of Christ on the cross is the greatest conceivable evil. It cannot be compared with any other sufferings or evils. They are not worthy of such comparison. It is an unspeakable gift (2 Cor. 9:15). Consider that God the Son, the Creator and sustainer of the universe, was put to death by mere creatures and for no good reason: "they hated Him without a cause" (Jn. 15:25; Lk. 15:22). This wickedness is as irrational as it is cruel. It is apparently pointless in a manifest way. This is utterly profound and words fail us to describe it.

b) Yet this greatest evil was not pointless. It served the purpose of God in the display of His wisdom, power, honor, righteousness, and love. This greatest conceivable evil manifests the glory of God's perfection in the saving of undeserving sinners by the death and resurrection of Christ.

c) Therefore, how much more must there be a point in the purpose of God for all lesser evils. This argument refutes all attempts to conclude to pointless evil from some probability.

In conclusion: note three considerations

1) Consider how this counter argument should be presented

This argument includes the entire Christian worldview in a nutshell. It needs to be cracked open. To make this argument clear and thus with boldness, the trinity, the Creator-creature distinction, the fall, and redemption in Christ must be explained. This is where gospel proclamation and apologetics converge.

Thus we say, "listener, if you are going to give a fair and open hearing, if you are going to hear the answer to your challenge, then I must put evil in the light of the death and resurrection of Christ as these bear on death due to sin." More and more things keep coming into the picture. It is important that the problem of evil be set in the context of the resurrection by which God calls for repentance (Acts 17:31). Thus a major problem is death (not a natural good, not a natural evil but an unnatural evil due to sin). Here we explain how the sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law but death is swallowed up in victory with Christ as the first fruits and a harvest of saved sinners to follow (1 Cor. 15:20-23, 56-57). Salvation is not the saving of the soul. It is the saving of the whole man body and soul.

2) Consider how our hearers might respond

Many who hear it will shake their heads in disbelief as they did when Paul preached on Mars Hill (Acts 17). Some mocked and others said we will hear you again and some joined him and believed (17:32-34). Some will mock with low level ridicule or with high brow claims of philosophical absurdity and irrationality. But the argument is in words from Calvin, "a manifest sign of God speaking in Scripture that refutes and shatters the boasts of the most crafty despisers of God" (Institutes, I, viii, 4).

3) Consider Jesus as you face evil and suffering

a) Remember that He did what you have not had to do: He fought against apparently pointless evil to the point of death. He suffered on your behalf. Fix your eyes on Him so that you may not grow weary and lose heart (Heb. 12:3-4).

b) Fix your eyes on the Lord of the covenant. He is faithful. He cannot deny Himself. He has promised His glory and your good along the way and at the end of history. God causes all things to work together for good to them that love Him and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28). Do not worry about the future and its threats of evil because your heavenly Father knows what you need and He will see to the safety of your entire existence, body and soul before Him through the judgment and forever in the glories of heaven. Therefore, the sufferings and evils of the present are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us (Rom. 8:18).