Monday, November 13, 2006

The Problem of Answering the Problem of Evil


In Norman Geisler's work, Unshakable Foundations, he addresses the topic of evil. He notes that Pantheism denies the existence of evil and calls it an illusion but it affirms the real existence of God. Atheism takes the opposite approach and denies the real existence of God, but affirms the real existence of evil. Theism, however, affirms both God and evil so it is the only belief system of the three that must answer the question, "Why is there evil in the world?" He says:


"Atheists (and naturalists) must also explain why evil exists and why they consider it a problem that needs to be addressed. The very fact that evil is troubling to atheists or naturalists logically leads to a standard of good or justice beyond the world."


Geisler then quotes C.S. Lewis, the former atheist-turned-believer:


"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"


Geisler adds:


"Imagine once more a universe with no light (no ultimate standard of what is good or evil) and creatures without eyes (no inherent concept of what is good or evil); in this theoretical atheistic reality, the concept of darkness (evil or injustice) is ultimately meaningless. If, as atheists suggest, evil is ultimately meaningless, then what is the problem? If we are merely part of a blind molecular process, how is it that atheists can rise above that process and say that some aspects of it are evil and some are good? Atoms are simpy atoms; there are no evil atoms in the universe. Therefore, atheism cannot logically offer a definition of evil without appealing to an ultimate standard of good. If atheists try to do so, they end up affirming the very existence of that which they claim does not exist - the ultimate good (God)."

No comments: