This specific topic is quite deep, and I’ve decided to split the post into two. This is part 1. The topics in each part aren’t exactly the same but are very closely related and this one segues perfectly into the next. You’re gonna have to keep reading to find out what they’re about though 🙂

Quite often, we hear the Atheists saying that Theism cannot be proved. Some Atheists consistently try to place the burden of proof on the Theists, and one snide way that they have attempted to do this, is through redefining what it means to be an Atheist.

The traditional definition, as defined by Graham Oppy in a video hosted by Capturing Christianity a couple years back, goes something like: “people who believe that there are no Gods”. The rationale for defining it as such makes perfect sense – if “Atheist” is given its current popular definition (“someone who lacks a belief in God”), then it has very little defining ability, which is effectively what names/definitions are aimed at doing. My laptop, a pen, and your toenail are therefore Atheists. It groups a lot of pointless objects and people under the definition of “atheist”.

You might think of it as sorting a box of fruits into two fruit bags.
These fruits represent both objects and people. All things placed in bag ‘a’ are ‘x’ and all things in bag ‘b’ are ‘not x’. ‘Lack-theism’, as some have called it, does very little to split the data that we care about (i.e., humans who know of the concept of God) coming from the box, and lumps in a bunch of useless data (i.e., anything incapable of holding a belief) – it would make as much sense to call myself a ‘Lack-lack-theist’!

Here’s the kicker though, it’s not possible for a person to hold a position that is none of: a positive affirmation, a negative affirmation, or an agnostic position (a withholding of judgement) with regard to a concept or idea, provided that they know what that ‘something’ is.

‘a-something’ classically means ‘negation of something’. Therefore, logically speaking, a-theism, is the negation of theism, or more simply put, the positive affirmation that God does not exist – for example, if I believed that Tom drove a car and I was called a CarBeliever, then an aCarBeliever would be someone who believes Tom didn’t drive the car, not someone who lacked a belief that Tom drove the car.

A reason for which many atheists have taken to this definition, is that, like I said earlier, it attempts to get rid of their work for them, as they are trying to put themselves in the category of people/objects that don’t need to justify their position, because it wouldn’t exist.
To those that hold to this definition, couldn’t I just ask you in turn, “Why do you lack a belief in God?”.

Some Atheists may fear that if they say ‘no one can prove a universal negative’ then the statement would be self-refuting, given that Atheism does involve a universal negative. These atheists would therefore be making the admission that Atheism is unprovable.

Ultimately, the question of whether something is certainly provable or not is dependent on that something, and has a lot to do with Epistemology, and that’s a very long conversation that I may or may not cover another time.
Instead, some atheists claim that the standard definition of Atheism, effectively, can be proven, and one such route they decide to take to do that is through the centuries-old, Problem of Evil.

I briefly covered this topic in my response to Alex O’Connor’s video – Christianity’s Biggest Problem, but let’s look at this argument, and see if it really is the cross on which Christianity has been crucified.

The Problem of Evil: the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.

An Atheist (or Agnostic), generally takes one of two routes here:

1. It is logically impossible for God and Suffering to coexist.
2. It is evidentially improbable for God and Suffering to coexist.

Let’s assess both.

1. It is logically impossible for God and Suffering to coexist.

Pretty big claim, eh?
The theist position does not argue that God can bring about the logically impossible. Why? Because a logical impossibility is not a thing. It cannot be conceptualized and it cannot exist under the laws of our universe – for example, a married bachelor cannot exist, because it is defined by terms that are restricted to laws of language in our universe but attempts to conceive of something that is logically contradictory by those same laws.

Where am I going with this? I’m glad you asked.

You’ve probably realised that a person that asserts this statement likely has some sort of preconceived notion of God that goes something like this.

1. God is all-powerful and can create any world he wants.
2. God is all-loving and prefers a world without suffering.
3. God cannot create a world with suffering! C’est fini!

First, I’ll give some definitions. They’re not perfect, but they’ll do the job for the point I’m trying to make. Naturally, these are going to include some of my presuppositions but, hey, it’s either mine or yours!

A world: a temporal space consisting of matter and, at some point in time, one or more agents capable of free will.

Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

Suffering: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship – the source of which may be poor decisions made by an agent or ‘natural’ sources, such as natural disasters.

As you can see, in any given world, it is at least possible that a given agent (in our case, a human) may be able to act in a way that may bring about suffering – for example, through breaking the law.
From this, it should be clear that statement 1 is false, as long as suffering is at least possible, given that God cannot bring about the impossible and breach our free will – lest it no longer be free.

Another point can be made that a given world without suffering could actually be worse that a world with suffering.
How?
Well, you might put yourself through cardio in the gym to reap the long-term health benefits. In a given parallel world where you didn’t, ceteris paribus, and presuming bodily health is objectively good, there would be less suffering, but less good.

Following this, we can propose that it is at least possible that, among all possible worlds, God could not have created another world with as much good as, but less suffering than, this world – and God has good reasons for permitting the suffering that exists – i.e., the net amount of good in this world is maximal and the total amount of good is maximum.

2. It is evidentially improbable for God and Suffering to coexist.

Right off the bat, this assumes or requires more knowledge than any limited being is capable of wielding, to prove – i.e., you would have to have near-infinite knowledge to know for certain if it were true.

It’s humbler, and at the surface, might look correct, but an appeal to the soul-building theodicy (a theodicy is basically an attempt to vindicate the problem of evil ) makes this objection quite vulnerable – it states that there are some virtues that can arise out of suffering, such as bravery, fortitude, and maturity.
Leslie Allan in “The Problem of Evil” objects, arguing that:

“A willingness to sacrifice oneself in order to save others from persecution, for example, is virtuous because persecution exists. Likewise, the willingness to donate one’s meal to those who are starving is valuable because starvation exists. If persecution and starvation did not occur, there would be no reason to consider these acts virtuous. If the virtues developed through soul-making are only valuable where suffering exists, then it is not clear what would be lost if suffering did not exist.”

To respond to this, it might helpful if we clear up some doctrines about God and suffering:

1. The purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.
3. God’s purpose is not restricted to this life, but spills over into the next.
4. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.

Leslie proposes a fair critique; however, I think that there would still be a distinction in a soul formed through suffering and that same soul formed without suffering.

One reason a Christian can say that we exist on Earth, is to be tested in light of temptation (see Matthew 18:7 and point ‘c’). So, in light of fairness and presuming free will, a human that had undergone suffering and objectively “passed the test” would be able to say to God that they had “passed”. A human that had not undergone suffering? Well, only God would know.

As Leslie states, it is ‘not clear’ what would be lost if suffering did not exist, but many a time God brings us to our lowest points so that we may realise that he is the foundation upon which we stand. Therefore, it can also be argued that some forms of humility can be also gained through suffering. It is a way a relationship can be deepened and built, which corresponds to the nature of the Christian God, who is a relational being and likes to cooperate with man to achieve his objectives (see point ‘a’ and point ‘d’), rather than to force his will upon another.

I would argue that knowing God in the depths of struggle is very valuable. Many married couples fight all the time, but many that remain together through it all argue that the spats had made their relationship stronger.

Furthermore, I should also be clear that my point here is not that soul-building is the only reason why God permits suffering. Another reason might be justice (as Genesis 3, and ultimately, the whole Bible attests to, see point ‘b’).

Ultimately, in our finite, small, minds, who are we to say that God lacks good reasons for permitting suffering?

3. The Emotional Objection

**This is where I turn off the fancy philosophy language and talk like a normal human, so you can come back from daydream land now.**

Today, (writing this section on Sunday, December 10^th, 2023), I went with my mother to see some old family friends that I, myself, hadn’t seen for about fourteen years, but I still remember fondly as we used to play as children together back when I was a kid living in North London.
The reason we went to visit was because, sadly, in November they lost their daughter – let’s call her Ava for anonymity purposes.

Ava had been suffering from a condition since she was born, that severely affected her mobility. I don’t know the exact name of the condition, but I’ll try to describe it:

• She couldn’t walk or vocalise well, if at all (as memory serves)
• She didn’t have hands or limbs like we do, as her limbs were severely affected by her condition and, if she had been in pain, I probably wouldn’t have known it.
• She could eat, but as far as I know, she always needed help to do it. Ava’s mother was even advised to abort her by her doctors before she was born, but she kept her, and both parents committed to raising her daughter that they loved, and they poured time and effort into being the parents they knew they should be.

I’m not that well-informed as to what the exact cause of death was, but it was definitely related to her condition. Some people I know suspect that Ava might not have received the attentiveness that she deserved whilst in the hospital, and that some form of negligence might have contributed to her passing.

It’s strange, because I hadn’t even planned to write this part of this post at this specific time (I started writing this on Thursday 7^th), and I didn’t even know of her passing until this morning, since my mum thought I’d forgotten about them (again, I haven’t seen these guys for about fourteen years) and she was planning to head out to see them alone since my dad was feeling ill, but once she told me about it I decided to go with her to offer whatever condolences I could and keep her company, or at least try to cheer up the brothers I used to know so well.

I got there, and I saw that the family seemed to be doing quite well. The guys had grown up and their dad was still the cheerful guy I barely remembered him to be. Their mum was also extremely positive. I didn’t ask about their deceased sister since I had no idea how to do it tactfully, so I just spoke with them about life and school and other things. All in all, it was a very pleasant trip.

On the way back home, I was thinking about how the recent events were so related to what I’d already written here – how it so clearly looked so incredibly unfair for the girl to have to grow up like that, how much burden it put on the family, how much apparently meaningless suffering they, and their daughter all must have been going through, and how I felt so shallow just throwing impassive arguments at such an emotionally complex problem.
As we drove home and I was sat wondering whether it would be appropriate to add this section, my mother told me that she had been gifted a little photobook of Ava whilst we were at their house. I took it out of her bag and flipped through it, and one thing stuck out to me – Ava was still able to control her facial expression, and in a lot of the photos, she seemed to be smiling.

Smiling whilst she was playing in the park.

Smiling whilst she was reading a book.

Smiling whilst she was held by her father.

I realised that just because I couldn’t see the value in something didn’t mean it didn’t exist. I don’t know how much joy she gave to those around her, what effects she had on people or who she inspired. She’d, at the very least, left a lasting impression on both her and my family, and who knows how many more.

I won’t say for certain, but I think she was able to find some sort of happiness in her twenty-year stay here on Earth. With her family, with playing activities, and with loads of other things.

To the reader,

Ultimately, I know it’s very easy for me to sit behind this computer and use logic and fancy arguments to whittle away the Problem of Evil, but I know that there are some things that some people have gone through that I can’t even begin to empathise with. There’s no amount of logic that can overrule an emotional objection. Parents have had their children ripped away from them, women have been raped, people have been afflicted with diseases so severe that death may seem like a reward – I could go on and on.

I don’t know what you’ve been through, and I’m not going to act like it was/is easy to get through it. I’m not going to say that you deserved it. I’m not going to brush it off and tell you to just get on with it, and if you ask me why things were allowed to happen that way, I’m not going to lie to you and say that I know, because I don’t.

The point of this has mainly just been for me to show that, good can come from evil, and unlike Atheism, Christianity provides a framework within which not only is there an objective, good end for which you’ve undergone what you have, but you aren’t alone to deal with the cruelty of an indiscriminate, impersonal, cold universe, and where life is objectively meaningful.
As a parent loves their child, God would rather you scream your frustrations and struggles at him, than for you to turn away from him completely.

In Isaiah 43, God is talking about his people, Israel, but this chapter most definitely applies to us individually. Verses 1-5 read:

“Now, this is what the Lord says, the one who created [you]: “Don’t be afraid, for I will protect you. I call you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I am with you; when you pass through the streams, they will not overwhelm you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not harm you. For I am the Lord your God… Since you are precious and special in my sight, and I love you…don’t be afraid, for I am with you.”

For those with a little more time,

I guess I might have sounded a little preachy here, and sorry for that – considering that my objective with this blog isn’t necessarily to say what I feel about a subject, but rather what I think. However, this is necessarily an emotional topic, so I kind of had to.

If you have some time, I implore you to watch this 20-minute video about the story of a young girl that lived a century ago. It shows what can be brought out of some of the darkest situations. Clearly, there are some religious overtones to it, but anyone can watch it. It contains one of the most immense displays of grace I have probably ever seen.

Thank you for reading, and God bless.

Rookie

---

---