Skeptical Theism: The Bogus Response To The Problem Of Evil

Most Christian apologists to whom I have been exposed state that the best argument against Christianity is the Problem of Evil: "The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God." The counter to this rebuttal to Christianity is usually Skeptical Theism: "Skeptical theism is a strategy for bringing human cognitive limitations to bear in reply to arguments from evil against the existence of God." (i.e. "How do you know that God doesn't have a greater purpose for the evil?")

Click on the link below for a podcast rejecting this apologetic:

CA81: Skeptical Theism

Do Atheists Make Claims That Need Support?

A common religious apologetic against us atheists is that we also make claims on our reality that need support. Is this true? Most atheists I know are agnostic on the question of a God because there is no evidence for such: "We don't know." This is consistent with science-based thinking, as such is uncertain and deals with plausibility and probability only. However, many times atheists do make positive statements to apologists such as, "There IS NO God." Does this mean that such a statement opens up the obligation to produce supporting evidence that there is no God? Ah, not really. Why? There is such a thing as "Practical Certainty": 

• "Philosophers sometimes also speak of “moral” or “practical” certainty. Descartes 1985 takes a belief to be morally certain has when it is rational or justified enough to be relied upon in moral or practical deliberation, or in deciding what to do. Similarly, Locke 2015 takes a proposition to be practically certain if it is close enough to absolute epistemic certainty for practical purposes." (link)

Consider that you have a friend who tells you repeatedly that he won a lottery and will be sending you $2,000. But, after a year passes, with you frequently asking about it, he never does. Isn't it reasonable to feel certain that he never will comply with his promise? Now, ponder all of the claims by religious apologists that are not accepted by science and you will see what I am talking about.

Oh, and another thing, you can prove that the Christian God doesn't exist.

Catholic Apologist Rebutted

Bishop Robert Barron is a noted Catholic Evangelical, with a particular focus on atheism. He recently sponsored an Ad on Facebook offering a free download of his 22-page ebook entitled "Answering the Atheists." I downloaded it, edited it with some comments, and sent it back to him via email. Below is a synopsis of the content and essentially my responses (in red):

• The Introduction included this sentence: "Today's atheists, in their condescending and often snarky dismissal of all transcendent truths, seem to be playing at atheism rather than seeing to the bottom of it."
• My response: What ARE "transcendent truths?" There is objective truth only. 
• He presented four "claims" that he thinks atheists make and then attempted to refute them.
• Atheist Claim #1: There is no evidence for God.
• His answer to Claim #1: There are plenty of "rational warrants" for belief in God.
• My response: There is no objective evidence for any God. Reason/intuition/philosophy ("transcendence?") will never trump objective evidence (science) as the brain alone has flaws and only science can justify its assessments. All syllogisms used by Christian apologists have at least one false premise. The theist is making the claim, thus, is obligated to provide the objective evidence. Christianity makes claims on our objective reality, thus, science can evaluate the claims. Science has rejected them all. Why should religion get an exemption from this process?
• Atheist Claim #2: What caused God? This is special pleading.
• His answer to Claim #2: Nothing, as God is not contingent on anything else. It is the "First Cause."
• My response: To say that God caused our reality is an argument from ignorance (God of the Gaps). Physics shows that an uncaused, eternal multiverse is at least as plausible as a God.
• Atheist Claim #3: Science has disproved God.
• His answer to Claim #3: This is Scientism (science is the only way of knowing). Other rational methods like philosophy transcend science.
• My response: What you label pejoratively as "Scientism" is only talking about objective evidence. Of course, there are other ways of knowing. I have already addressed transcendence. No atheists I know make the positive claim that there is no God. We only say that we can't accept the claim because of the lack of objective evidence.
• Atheist Claim #4: The Problem of Evil is a barrier to belief.
• His answer to Claim #4: A finite mind cannot take in the workings of an infinite mind.
• My response: You first have to show the evidence for an infinite mind. The Christian God supposedly is All-Good and we do not see evidence of such a reality, thus, it is falsified.

My assessment of this apologetic is that it is just another failed Christian apologetic. Only gullible, magical thinking atheists would fall for these arguments. Science-based thinkers, who are the atheists I know for the most part, would not be impressed, to say the least.

Suffering And Evil

Even the most dogmatic (deluded) Christian apologists will concede the atheist claim that the Problem of Evil is the greatest evidence against an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. The 20-minute video below is an excellent presentation and counter-apologetic on the issue.

Click on link below:

Suffering and Evil 2: Probability

Where Is God?

"If God loves us and desires that none should perish then why is there unbelief? Why can't God make his existence known to all so all can know the truth and decide to be saved or not? This has been called the problem of divine hiddenness and it puzzles many believers as well as non-believers."

Two of the greatest counter-apologetics are The Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness. This post focuses on the latter with two videos:

Divine Hiddenness (InspiringPhilosophy Response)

“If God exists, he wouldn’t be hidden” 

What If Jesus Mentioned Germ Theory

One of the strongest arguments against a good god is The Problem of Evil. The link below presents the 5 worst plagues in human history. Imagine how much difference there would be in human history if only Jesus had talked about the Germ Theory. If he truly was the Omni God, human history would be much different.

Frankly, it looks like the true "Saviors" of humanity are the scientists who discovered the source of disease and developed cures against it (including even developing genetically-modified mosquitoes (link)). Oh, if you still accept the myth of "Original Sin", this is for you. Supposedly, humanity lived in Paradise prior to The Fall. There was no death or suffering there. This claim has no evidence behind it, in spite of weak attempts to defend it.

The 5 Worst Plagues In Human History

An Example Of A Christian Apologist's Arguments Deconstructed

The Childish Faith of John Lennox, part 1

The Childish Faith of John Lennox, part 2

The Evil God Challenge

"Is it reasonable, or at least not unreasonable, to believe in god? Just how reasonable or unreasonable depends, of course, on the god in question."

A New Problem of Evil

The Weakest Defense Of The Problem Of Evil Ever

Behold, the weakest defense you will ever read of the "Problem of Evil", my comments in BOLD. This is a prime example of why one cannot use logic to "prove" a point if your premises are not justified:
- - - -