WELCOME TO THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

                                                                                              

                                           Skepticism and Christianity: Part One

    In recent decades, the teachings, claims and scriptures of the extant religious systems of the world have come under intense scholarly scrutiny. This has resulted in the identification of theological and doctrinal problems which has led to a number of people leaving religion and, in many cases, becoming agnostic or atheistic as to belief in the existence of God. 

      In recent years a number of books have been authored by Christian theologians and Christian church pastors telling of why they have left Christianity and have become an agnostic or atheist. In this and the following essays in this series, I will discuss the reasons Christians become agnostic or atheistic. I will discuss these reasons from the perspective of an outsider looking in on the arguments presented by both Christians and skeptics. I will not make any value judgments one way or the other but let the reader decide what is most probable.

       I begin this series with an essay dealing with the issue of evil, pain and suffering in the world raising questions about there being a loving God.  In Part Two of this series, I deal with the question of whether morality can be established without there being a God. In the third essay in this series, I will deal with why the behavior of the Judeo/Christian God as seen in the Biblical Scriptures has led some to reject the reality of this God. Lastly, I will deal with the issue of doctrinal disillusionment that has led some Christians to abandon Christianity. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to agnostics and atheists simply as skeptics.

The problem of evil:

       Many have become a skeptic because of the inability to reconcile the presence of the massive amount of evil in the world with belief in a good and loving, merciful and compassionate God. The study of this issue is called Theodicy. The question that is asked is simply this: If God is a good God and has absolute power, authority, control and rule over all things, why is there so much evil?  How can a good God allow for the great amount of evil that exists in the world?  How can a good God allow for so much evil caused pain and suffering that has been extant throughout human history. 

       Some have come to question the existence of the Judeo/Christian God upon contemplation of the problem of evil.  One example is Rabbi Richard L Rubenstein (01-08-1924 to 05-16-2021), author of the book After Auschwitz.  Rabbi Rubenstein concluded that the evil in the Nazi concentration camps of World War 2 is simply incompatible with the God defined in Judaism and Christianity as a God of love and compassion. Rabbi Rubenstein concluded that since the reality of evil cannot be denied, mankind should abandon any notion of a personal God of love.  Rabbi Rubenstein did not become an atheist but had to reject the Biblical view that God is a God of love and compassion. He went on to develop a view of God quite different from the Biblical view.

       Skeptics often reject the existence of the Christian God or conclude the Biblical God is an evil God because of the extreme prevalence of pain and suffering in the world.  It is believed a good God would not allow this to be the case.  Furthermore, events such as the Noachian Flood and the God ordered destruction of entire nations as seen in the OT, is viewed as evil perpetrated by a God that is purported to be loving, compassionate and kind. 

       Skeptics argue that if the Biblical God is a good God and has absolute power and authority over His creation, He would not allow for the massive amount of evil and its associated pain and suffering that is extant in the world.  Why would a good God allow war and widespread criminality?  Why would a good God allow cholera, malaria, typhoid, smallpox and other such diseases to afflict multiple millions of people throughout history causing untold suffering and death?  Why would a good God allow so-called natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and tsunamis to disrupt human lives and create tremendous pain, suffering, misery and death?

       Skeptics ask how natural disasters (sometimes called “acts of God”) are congruent with a God who is supposedly in control of the weather and yet allows events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, droughts and floods to create devastation, suffering and death for millions due to no fault of their own.   

       It is asked why a good God would create carnivorous animals that attack, kill and eat each other causing great pain and distress for such creatures?    

       Skeptics ask how an omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (everywhere present), immutable and eternal God whose very essence is defined as love could be ok with allowing for and at times directly facilitating the massive amount of suffering extant in this world. How can this God be ok with events like the Holocaust where, because of the evil intent of some, multiple millions of others are made to suffer. How can a good God be ok with allowing the many despotic rulers throughout human history to cause intense suffering for multiple millions of people who simply had the misfortune of having to live under their control.   

       The skeptic asks how a good God can allow millions of innocent people to suffer under the rulership of evil rulers? Why would not a good God intervene to stop/punish the behavior of evil rulers before their evil behavior leads to the suffering of millions of innocent people?  How can a good God turn His head away from the suffering of millions of people under evil rulers when he could easily intervene to prevent such rulers from carrying out their evil intent. Why would not a good and loving God prevent a Hitler or a Stalin from causing untold pain and suffering for millions of people by simply creating a deterrent to their evil designs?           

       Skeptics ask how you can justify the presence of multiple pathogenic organisms that can infect the human body and cause untold suffering. Pathogenic organisms have wiped out entire populations of people such as the bubonic plague pandemic in the 1300’s that caused the death of nearly 50 million people. There have been many such plagues throughout history that have caused indescribable suffering and death. Why, asks the skeptic, would a loving, merciful God allow for pathogenic parasites, viruses and bacteria to ravish the human body and cause the massive amount of suffering and death that such organisms have historically caused.

       Skeptics consider all these things as evils a good God would not allow to occur.  Because they do occur, it is believed the Christian postulated good God does not exist or if the Christian God does exist, he is an evil God. 

The nature of evil:     

       Skeptics tend to view evil as any behavior, activity or event that results in pain or suffering.  Christians point out that by such definition, most sports could be defined as evil as pain and distress is common to many sporting activities. Under this definition, many forms of human labor could be considered evil as various types of human labor produces pain and distress, both physically and mentally.  According to this definition, all physical pain associated with injury would be considered evil even though such pain is instrumental in identifying an injury and doing what is necessary to treat the injury. 

       Christians say it should be evident that not every behavior, activity or event that results in pain or suffering is to be considered an evil as that word is generally understood.  If you choose to define all pain and suffering as evil, you will have to recognize that some evil is good evil and serves a good purpose. You could say that some evil is necessary evil.

       Skeptics respond that when they talk about evil causing pain and suffering, they are not talking about the pain and suffering caused by stubbing your toe, cutting your finger or breaking a leg due to an accident. They are not talking about pain resulting from participation in sports or hard work.  Pain experienced by athletes and a hard-working person is chosen pain. It is expected pain connected with a chosen activity.  This kind of pain should not be characterized as being caused by evil or as being evil. This is a kind of pain that can be prevented by simply choosing not to engage in the activity causing the pain. 

       Skeptics say that when they talk about pain and suffering being caused by evil, they are talking about the pain and suffering caused by activities and events humans have no control over and are unable to prevent such as weather disasters and pathogenic organisms invading the body. They are talking about the collateral damage experienced when the leadership of a country chooses to go to war and such war causes massive destruction, pain, suffering and death for millions of innocent people. While in the case of war, humans do have control of their actions, it usually is a few humans that make the decision to go to war while the vast number of people affected by such decision have no control over the decision and end up suffering the horrific consequences of such decision.

       Christians will respond by pointing out that war is sometimes necessary to protect and defend a nation from the intent of despotic leaders to conquer and destroy. While war may be an evil, it becomes a necessary evil at times to thwart a greater evil. It becomes a force for good to defend against the designs of an evil ruler. War seen as a defense against an aggressor is seen as a necessary war, a war that is needed to protect the sovereignty of a nation and its  peoples.    

       Skeptics will agree with Christians that at times war is a necessary evil to thwart the evil designs of human leaders who fail to consider the human suffering engendered by the evil decisions they make. However, as already suggested, skeptics believe a good God who truly loves the human race as Christians claim He does, would not allow such leaders to make and carry out evil designs in the first place. Skeptics believe the horrors of war are totally incompatible with belief in the existence of a loving God who has the power to prevent such activity.

       Skeptics will argue that while war at times may be a necessary evil within the present construct of God's failure to prevent the conditions that lead to such evil, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes are unnecessary evils as these events cause unnecessary destruction, pain, suffering and death that has no necessary purpose.  All such events do is cause untold suffering that wouldn’t have to be if a good and loving God would simply prevent such events from occurring.

       Birth defects and genetic diseases are seen as unnecessary evils which cause much suffering that wouldn’t have to be if a good God would simply prevent them from happening. The skeptic will say that a good and all powerful, sovereign God would not allow such things as cited above.  Since all of the above evils have been in abundance throughout human history, skeptics maintain that the good and loving God of Christianity does not exist. To believe he does exist is seen as a failure to recognize and/or totally ignore the incompatibility of such belief with the realities of life. 

Behavioral evil:

       Behavioral evil is what usually comes to mind when the subject of evil comes up.  Failure to treat others justly, with respect and according to moral law is usually considered evil and those who consistently behave this way are considered evil doers and are often looked upon as evil persons.  Criminals are often seen as evil.  Almost everyone would consider murdering another human an evil.  

       Behavioral evil generally results from behavioral choices we humans make and not from circumstances beyond human control such as natural disasters.  For skeptics, the existence of behavioral evil, even though it results from human choices, still raises the question why a good God would allow such evil to pervade human civilization which in turn causes the tremendous amount of pain and suffering that it does. Why would a good God create humans with the capacity to generate the massive amount of evil that has been extant throughout human history? 

       The Book of Genesis records that when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God said they had become like God in that they now knew good and evil.  What kind of good and evil did they come to know as a result of eating of the tree?  It is believed that Adam and Eve came to know behavioral good and evil.  They came to understand evil verses good through their act of disobedience.  We find throughout Scripture that any behavior contrary to God’s will is to commit behavioral evil. For example, idol worship is contrary to God’s will and is considered evil.  Christians see all behavior contrary to the will of God as evil behavior.

       Deuteronomy 4:25: After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time--if you then become corrupt and make any kind of idol, doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God and provoking him to anger…

       Deuteronomy 28:20: The Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me. 

       It is clear from a reading of the book of 1st Samuel that God did not want Israel to have a human king.  That was not His will for Israel.  God was their king and choose to rule them through judges.  Israel wanted to be like the nations around them and clamored to have a human king.  God granted them their desire but their desire was contrary to God’s will for them and considered an evil.

       1 Samuel 12:19: The people all said to Samuel, "Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king."

       Throughout Scripture we see sinful behavior as evil behavior.  Behavior contrary to the will of God is evil behavior.  It is the will of God that we live the law of love.  The law of love involves behaving according to the Golden rule.  It involves doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. It involves loving your neighbor as yourself.  Behavior contrary to this rule is evil behavior and someone who consistently behaves contrary to this rule is considered an evil person.  In this respect, evil is seen as deliberate behavior that negatively affects the lives of others, behavior that often causes pain and suffering.

      Skeptics believe God violates His own law of love by allowing for the massive amount of evil that causes human suffering. Skeptics see love for others as facilitating their maximum wellbeing. Skeptics see us humans feeling obligated to do what we can to alleviate human suffering and we do all we can to accomplish that goal.  On the other hand, the purported God of love is seemly not so obligated as skeptics see Him as doing nothing to alleviate human suffering. Therefore, skeptics conclude we humans are more righteous than the Judeo/Christian God. 

       This being said, skeptics believe that if the Judeo/Christian God of love existed, he could not permit the amount of evil and suffering that permeates the creation as this would be contrary to His being a God of love. Therefore, since the reality of massive evil and suffering is undeniable, belief that the Judeo/Christian God of love exists is seen as illusionary. Under this perspective, a loving God could only exist if He would prevent or at least minimize the amount of war, murder, theft, injustice and all other behaviors that cause pain and suffering. 

       A God of love who is purported to be ruler over all thing and having supreme power could not allow weather disasters to occur causing untold suffering for multiple millions of people and still be considered a God of love. A God of loved could not allow disease epidemics to ravish humanity and still be called a God of love. Anything less than this is seen as contradictory to the very meaning of what it is to be a God of love.

       Christians counter by showing that in dealing with this issue of evil, we need to be careful as to how we view evil as to certain behaviors, activities and events.  While punishment for sin may be considered evil because pain and suffering are involved, such punishment can also be viewed as justifiable evil. A necessary evil. Committing murder is usually considered an evil act.  Is it also evil to put someone in prison for committing murder?  Is this a violation of the law of love?  After all, prison life is not exactly a rosy existence.  Imprisonment produces both physical and psychological pain.  When we punish our children, are we committing evil and if so, should it be considered a necessary evil to accomplish a necessary purpose?

       We find in the Scriptures that God initiates evil.  Let’s look at several of these Scriptures in the KJV.

       Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

       Amos 3:6: Shall a trumpet be blown in the city and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?

       Skeptics have used these passages to say that since God creates evil, He is an evil God.  God is seen as responsible for all evil.  It is believed that if He is the all-powerful sovereign Being He is purported to be and if He is a God of love, He would not allow the massive amount of evil that has historically existed with its associated pain and suffering.  Therefore, God is seen not to exist or if He does exist, He is seen as either being unable or unwilling to control evil or as purposefully facilitating evil which makes Him an evil God.  We will take a further look at the passages from Isaiah and Amos below.

The Freewill Argument: 

       Christians respond to the above skeptic perspective by pointing out that in the Scriptures, sin is considered evil.  Who commits sin?  We humans commit sin.  God allows us the freedom to commit sin.  Sin produces physical and spiritual pain and suffering both for us and for those affected by our sin.  Now God could have made us without the freedom to choose between good and evil.  God could have made us automatons without any choice of behavior.  God could have made us to always behave in a manner He defines as good.  God did not make us that way.  He did not make us robots.  

       Christians see God wanting His human creation to freely choose to do His will. By giving us the ability to make choices between good and evil, God has created the potential for evil brhavior. It is our exercise of freewill that often creates evil behavior and therefore we can’t blame God for the evil behavior we commit through the exercise of the freewill He has given us. It is believed we should be thankful we have freewill and that God choose not to make us mindless automatons.       

       Christians see that God, by providing His human creation with freewill, allows for evil to occur.  It is not God’s will we behave in an evil manner.  It is not God’s will that we choose evil. It is God’s will we avoid evil.  It was not God’s will that Adam and Eve behave in an evil manner.  It was not God’s will they eat of the tree and learn evil.  God plainly told them not to eat of the tree.  It was God’s will that they have the choice of whether to eat or not eat of the tree. They choose to eat of the tree which was behavior contrary to God’s will and in so doing they came to know evil. 

       Psalm 5:4: Certainly, you are not a God who approves of evil; evil people cannot dwell with you (NET).

       Christians see this Scripture clearly teaching that God does not approve of evil.  Does He allow evil?  Of course He does.  Does He approve of it or like it?  Absolutely not.  God tolerates it because He has made freewill the primary attribute of our humanity and by and large God does not interfere with the choices we make.  However, the history of human behavior clearly demonstrates that there are negative consequences associated with choosing behavior contrary to the will of God.  Sometimes those negative consequences include direct intervention by God to bring judgement upon the perpetrators of evil. While God does not by and large predetermine our choices, He does predetermine the consequences of our choices. This brings us back to Isaiah 45:7.

Does God create evil?

      Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things (KJV).

       The Hebrew word rah, translated “evil” in the KJV rendering of this passage, has a wide range of meaning.  Since we know from Scripture that God does not create sin but only the potential for sin through providing us the freedom of choice, God is not saying through Isaiah that He creates the evil of sin.  Let’s look at other translations of this passage

       I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity (Hebrew rah) (NET).

       I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; (Hebrew rah) I, the LORD, do all these things (NIV).

       I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, (Hebrew rah) I am the Lord, who do all these things (RSV). 

       The various renderings of the Hebrew rah in these translations show the range of meaning of this Hebrew word.  Furthermore, if you read this passage in the context of Isaiah 45, you will see God is speaking of providing Cyrus with the wherewithal to defeat nations in battle and prepare the way for the return of Judah from captivity.  There is nothing here to suggest God creates evil in a sinful sense. The context shows God creating calamity as a method of judging nations and accomplishing His overall purpose which God has every right to do as creator and sovereign over His creation.  What about Amos 3:6?

       If an alarm sounds in a city, do people not fear? If disaster (Hebrew rah) overtakes a city, is the Lord not responsible (NET).

      When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster (Hebrew rah) comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it (NIV).

       If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity (Hebrew rah) occurs in a city has not the Lord done it (NAS).

       Skeptics will use this Scripture to say God is responsible for all the calamity that is experienced in the world. Is that what this passage is saying?  Christians say no. The entire chapter of Amos 3 is about God bringing judgement upon Israel for their sin. 

       Amos 3:1-2: Hear this word the LORD has spoken against you, O people of Israel--against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt: "You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins."

       When God speaks of bringing disaster to their city, He is speaking about punishing Israel for their sin.  This is not some universal principle that applies to all cities for all time that experience calamity.  God is addressing a specific nation with a specific message that He will bring about a specific calamity because of their sin.  To yank this passage out of its context and give it some universal application in concluding God brings about all calamities and therefore is this evil God who is directly responsible for all human suffering is seen by Christians as sheer nonsense.

       Christians freely admit that God has and does bring calamity, destruction and disaster at times.  To those on the receiving end of such calamity, destruction and disaster, it certainly is seen as an evil.  God brought about the Noachian Flood. He brought destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah. God would have destroyed Nineveh if they hadn’t repented.  God was going to destroy Israel after the golden calf incident and Moses virtually talked Him out of it.  God is seen as using evil to bring judgement. 

       Joshua 23:14-16: Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed. But just as every good promise of the LORD your God has come true, so the LORD will bring on you all the evil (Hebrew “rah”) he has threatened, until he has destroyed you from this good land he has given you. If you violate the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, the LORD's anger will burn against you, and you will quickly perish from the good land he has given you."

       Christians readily admit that God does bring evil upon His human creation. But this evil is often in response to a failure to repent of sin.  The OT record shows that God literally pleaded with Israel to repent and turn from sin.  He gave them every opportunity to turn things around.  He did the same with the human race before the flood.  God apparently  gave man 120 years to change and possibly additional time while the ark was being built (See Genesis 6).  But God’s patience is not without end.  There does come a time of reckoning. 

       This is seen as no different from how we relate to our children.  When our children misbehave, we may warn them, we may give them some time to turn things around.  But, if things don’t turn around and misbehavior continues, we have to take disciplinary action.  Does this make us evil?  Not at all.  It makes us responsible parents who want to ensure that our children are protected from the consequences that will befall them if allowed to continue their misbehavior.

      Now granted, we don’t destroy our children as God has done in some of the recorded judgements in the OT.  We don’t have that prerogative. The Christian perspective is that only God has that prerogative.  God is sovereign.  He created us and He can destroy us. The Scriptures teach that God can do anything He wants as seen in the Psalms.  

       Psalm 115:3: Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.

       Psalm 135:6: The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.

       But God is not out to destroy us.  God is out to have us live within the context of the law of love and reap the benefits of such living. When we don’t do so and consistently don’t do so, God has and will at times bring judgement upon us.  However, most of the evil we experience in life is not a direct judgement from God but results from the negative effects of sinful behavior, either ours or others we interact with.      

       If you go to atheist websites, you will often find complaints that the God of the Bible arbitrarily ordered the destruction of entire cities such as Jericho.  God is accused of committing atrocities and practicing virtual genocide.  God is charged with being a moral monster for ordering the total destruction of the Amalekites where He ordered King Saul to destroy men, women, children and even the animals (1st Samuel 15:3). 

       Christians say that in reading about these events, we must be careful not to characterize God based on standards we have developed or even according to the standards God has established for us humans such as seen in the moral law revealed in Scripture.  The moral law applies to us humans not to God.  God can’t steal or covet.  He owns everything.  The Scriptures say God cannot lie.  Laws prohibiting idolatry and sexual misconduct don’t apply to God.  God didn’t establish law for Himself.  He established it for the physical creation and the human race. 

       Christians point out that we sometimes criticize our fellow humans who behave in ways that suggests they think they are above the law and act as though they are a law unto themselves.  In the case of God, He is a law unto Himself.  God is above law He has established for mankind.  We can’t judge God based on human standards or even the standards God has established for humans. 

       Skeptics respond to this by pointing out that the Scriptures say we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). To skeptics, this suggests the standards God lives by equate with the standards we live by. Our sense of morality and ethics reflect that of God’s. Since we made in the image of God humans produce a lot of evil, skeptics see this as a reflection of what God must be like, a God that causes evil. 

       While humans do cause a lot of evil, humans also do a lot to reduce and prevent evil, at least as much as it is in their power to do so. Skeptics point out that the power of humans to prevent evil and its consequences is infinitesimal compared to the supposed infinite power of God, a power that He should be using to prevent or greatly reduce evil if He is indeed the good God pictured in Scripture. Yet humans are seen as doing more to prevent evil than God is doing to prevent evil. Some skeptics see this as humans being a lot more righteous than the Christian God.  

       Because the Biblical God is seen as a good and loving all-powerful God, skeptics ask should He not be exercising that power to reduce and prevent human evil? Yet skeptics see the Biblical God doing nothing to deal with the problem of evil. They see God allowing it to be pervasive and running rampant throughout the world.  Therefore, it is concluded that the good and loving and all-powerful God of Christianity does not exist.  

       Because of excessive sin and a failure to repent, God chose to destroy His human creation by a flood except for Noah and His family.  Skeptics consider this destruction highly immoral on the part of God.  It is asked how God could justify killing young children and babies.  What sin did they commit?  What sin did the animals commit?  These same charges are made relative to the God ordered killing of the Amalekites and the Canaanites in general where God ordered the elimination of men, women, children and animals.  It is asked how a good and loving God could order and require such brutality upon the very lives He is believed to have created?

       Skeptics are angered by the implications of the Psalms cited above.  The Hebrew word rendered “pleases” is ḥā·p̄êṣ. Hebrew Lexicons define this word as “to delight in, have pleasure in.”  Skeptics ask if this means the Judeo/Christian God, in doing what He pleases, is delighted by and takes pleasure in seeing children and babies die as seen in the Noachian flood, the destroying of the Amalekites and other destructions ordered by God?  

       The stock Christian response is that God’s ways are higher than our ways and we can’t judge God according to our ways. Skeptics bristle at this response and see it as a copout. They see it as nothing more than an attempt to justify evil acts of an evil God. To conclude that the immense pain and suffering in the world is ok because God is sovereign and His ways are higher than our ways is seen as an untenable conclusion.  It is a conclusion and a position that cannot be morally/ethically defended.  Skeptics conclude that belief in such a God is completely unjustified and such a God simply could not exist if He is to be defined as a good and loving God. Therefore, if there is a God that is responsible for and in control of this world, He is a malevolent God, not a benevolent God.     

        As covered above, God does at times directly create evil to accomplish His will.  Does this make God evil?  The Christian will argue that God has every sovereign right to generate evil.  Generating evil does not in and of itself make one intrinsically evil. Christians point out that God does not take please in seeing the wicked destroyed but desires they repent and avoid destruction.

       Ezekiel 18:23,32: Do I take any pleasure (Hebrew ḥā·p̄êṣ) in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased (ḥā·p̄êṣ) when they turn from their ways and live?

       For I take no pleasure (ḥā·p̄êṣ) in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

       Ezekiel 33:11: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure (ḥā·p̄êṣ) in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’

       Christians point out that some parents use corporal punishment on a child.  By some reckonings this is evil and the perpetrators of such punishment are considered evil.  Is this an unjust or immoral evil?  Does this make the parent who administers such corporal punishment evil?  Christians point out that we humans use evil to punish wrong doing when we execute a murderer or send someone to prison for theft.  We inflict psychological pain by denying certain rights to someone convicted of a crime.  If such behavior is perceived as evil, it is evil used to produce a good or righteous result.  It is evil used to hold others accountable.  It is a necessary evil. When God brought evil upon Israel and other nations, He did so within the context of holding people accountable for their behavior.  We do the same thing at the human level all the time.    

       Christians argue that if evil is to be defined as that which brings about pain, suffering and even death, then at times evil serves a useful and justifiable purpose.  In other words, all evil isn’t synonymous with bad.  Christians argue that sin is bad evil and causes much additional bad evil.  On the other hand, punishment in response to the evil of sin is justifiable at both the human level and the Divine level.  Facilitators of such evil are not evil because they use evil to attain a righteous end. 

       Christians argue that pain and suffering are not evil in and of themselves.  Pain and suffering result from the occurrence of an evil. When you’re using a knife and cut your finger you may consider the accidental misuse of the knife an evil. The pain you suffer is a result of the slip of the knife.  This is good pain. This is necessary pain. If pain is to be considered an evil, then this pain is a good evil. If you didn’t experience such pain, you may virtually ignore the cut, do nothing about it and end up with an infection or even bleed to death.  

       Skeptics would agree that when pain occurs in conjunction with an injury caused by an accident or the general activities of life such as work and play, such pain is not evil or should its cause be considered evil. As stated earlier in this essay, when skeptics talk about the evil of pain and suffering, they are talking about the pain caused by preventable events such as weather disasters, pathogenic organisms, war, criminal activity and so forth. They believe a good and loving God would prevent or greatly limit such things from devastating the lives of his created humans.  

       In reference to the passages in Ezekiel; God is seen as not taking pleasure in having to put to death the wicked who don’t repent. The skeptic asks what wickedness small children and babies have committed to justify their being put to death along with the unrepentant wicked (The Noachian flood, The destruction of the Canaanite cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.)? Are they simply collateral damage?  

The necessity of evil:      

       Some Christians postulate that evil must be present in order for good to be realized. They point to how people come to the aid of other people at times of natural disasters and are there to help when people in general are experiencing pain and suffering. The argument here is that evil must exist in order for good to exist and prevail. Evil is seen as a necessary presence in order for good to be manifested.  It is further argued that in order for human attributes of love, mercy and compassion to developed and be experienced, conditions must exist where such attributes can be developed and manifested.  

       Skeptics respond by pointing out that this may be true, but it cannot justify the immense amount of conditions historically present in the world that result in human suffering. Skeptics believe the great amount of historical and presently extant suffering circumstances and conditions is not at all necessary to facilitate the development of good, including human love, mercy and compassion. The skeptic sees the massive among of extant suffering in the world as greatly in excess of what is necessary to produce the reality of good and the ability to love. The massive amount of suffering in the world is seen as greatly exceeding what is required to develop human love, mercy and compassion.

       In 2004 an Indonesian tsunami killed a quarter of a million people and left millions homeless. While some of the survivors received help (good) from loving people, this did not make a dent in the overall pain and suffering experienced by the vast majority of those who were affected by this tsunami. These kinds of natural disasters have occurred thousands of times over the course of history. Skeptics contend that the resulting pain and suffering from these disasters cannot begin to be justified and said to be offset by good that may have occurred including the development of love, mercy and compassion.

       While Christian apologists will argue that you can’t build the character traits of courage, perseverance, fortitude, resilience, compassion, love and mercy without their being the challenge of adversity to stimulate the development and expression of such traits, skeptics argue that adversity, especially adversity caused by evil, also stimulates hatred, revenge, animosity, bitterness, malice, hostility and abandonment of belief in God. Skeptics argue that you can develop the character traits listed above through a loving and positive response to normal human suffering such as pain caused by an accident, a sickness, infirmities of aging or rescuing someone from a burning building. You don’t need the massive amount of extant suffering to build virtuous character traits.         

      The skeptic points to the Christian belief of an afterlife in heaven where there will be no evil or pain or suffering and everything will be good. If this should actually be the case, then evil is not necessary for good to be present.  The skeptic asks why if in heaven good can exist without evil, why then can’t this be the case on planet earth?  Skeptics ask what is the point of the massive amount of pain and suffering extant on planet earth when God, if indeed He is all-powerful, could have easily created man with a disposition that primarily leads to good behavior? If God really loves and wants the best for his human creation, He would have created humans with a predisposition to love and do good and not the kind of disposition that has led to the massive amount of evil behavior historical extant in the world.       

       Christians sometimes argue that the experience of pain and suffering has value in that it can bring people to God. It is argued that when people are under distress, they seek a higher power for comfort and support and thus connect or reconnect with God. 

       Skeptics see this as a bogus argument. While pain and suffering may bring some people to connect or reconnect with God, it brings others to disconnect from God and virtually hate God for allowing what they are having to suffer. The vast majority of the multiple millions who suffered and died in the concentration and labor camps of Hitler and Stalin would not have seen their experience as necessary or being of value in facilitating a relationship with God.

       During the nearly 30-year totalitarian reign of Mao Tse-Tung over China, it is estimated that between 40 to 80 million Chinese died of starvation, executions and being worked to death in labor camps. Idi Amin brutally ruled Uganda from 1971 to 1979 where he facilitated the torture and murder of an estimated 300.000 of his own people.  Skeptics ask how this level of suffering could be allowed by a good and loving merciful God who has the power to disallow it?

       The multiple millions of people who have suffered and died under the regimes of the many despotic tyrants throughout history were not brought closer to God by what they experienced.  Research shows that human suffering has created more defections from theism than any other cause and has caused millions of people to commit suicide because of reaching a breaking point in their having to deal with physical/psychological pain and suffering. 

       Furthermore, skeptics ask why God would need to use pain and suffering as the method of bringing people to acknowledge Him?  Could He not have created man with an inward knowledge of God's existence and a propensity to love Him and honor Him with righteous living.  What we instead have are multiple hundreds of theological/doctrinal religious systems that have created conflict between peoples throughout history.  It is asked why a God that was truly interested in having His created humans acknowledge Him and relate to him with valid knowledge and understanding would allow for such diversity of belief about Him and such conflict over this diversity?  It is asked why a loving God has not ensured that His created humans have an undeniable awareness of who He is and what His purpose is for the creation. Skeptics point out that more wars have been fought over religious differences than any other issue.

       For nearly two centuries (1095-1291 AD) the Catholic Papacy directed religious war (The Crusades) against the Muslims. During the middles ages and into the 19th century we had the Catholic initiated Inquisition (1203-1808) which was a judicial procedure to weed out those who were in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrinal teaching. Multiple thousands were tortured, imprisoned or put to death.  Some were tortured by being subjected to instruments specifically created to produce pain and suffering.  The "rack" was used to stretch a body until all the joints were dislocated. The thumb-screw was used to crush a person's fingers and thumbs. Something called the "skull crusher" was used to crush a person's skull. All this brutality was carried out by religious leaders who professed allegiance to Jesus Christ.

       The Catholic monarchy of Spain, with the approval of the Catholic Pope, established the Spanish inquisition in 1478. This inquisition lasted until 1834 and was established to combat belief contrary to official Catholic theological dogma.  Those found to believe contrary to Catholic dogma faced confiscation of property, imprisonment, public flogging and being burned at the stake. Renowned Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) argued that heresy was a leavening influence upon the minds of the weak and therefore heretics should be killed.          

       The Thirty years War (1618-1648) was largely created over religious differences between Catholics and Protestants in central Europe. It is estimated that up to 8 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of this war. The German population was decreased by over fifty percent.   

       Skeptics point out how the history of Christianity is a history of Christian groups claiming their particular interpretation of Scripture is correct while the teachings of other Christian groups are wrong. This has led to much conflict between Christians including much persecution, violence and bloodshed over the past 2000 years. Skeptics point out that the Christian Scriptures teach that God promised to send his followers a Spirit of truth (John 15:26) and that Spirit would guide His followers into all the truth (John 15:26). Yet for 2000 years, Christians claiming to be led by the Spirit of God (The Holy Spirit), have differed widely over what the truth is and, in many cases, have literally fought each other over such differences.  Skeptics see this as a blatant example of a Scriptural promise not matching reality and therefore a bogus teaching.     

       In view of the above, skeptics conclude that the Biblical God does not exist. It is argued that if He does exist and is the loving, compassionate and caring God Christians claim Him to be, He would not have allowed and continue to allow the kind of theological/doctrinal mayhem that has been extant throughout Christian history. He would not allow His followers to claim they were/are doing His will and yet have considerable disagreement over what His will is and what His truth is and fight each other over such disagreements.

       Skeptics ask why a supposed loving God who wants His created humans to acknowledge and obey Him would allow the massive diversity of religious belief extant throughout human history.  It is asked why this God would not have made it a priority to prevent this diversity of religious belief by instilling a clear awareness within the human consciousness of exactly who He is (the one and only God) and what He expects of us. It is believed this would have eliminated or greatly reduced the religious mayhem extant throughout human history. While freewill could still be exercised with humans not acknowledging this God if they choose not to do so, one would think that diversity of religious belief would have been extremely low and we could have avoided events such as the Crusades, inquisitions, human sacrifice and religious terrorism.  

       The creation account in the Book of Genesis says we are made in the image of God.  Skeptics point out that if being made in the image of God is at all having to do with being made in the image of His character, and if His character is a loving, merciful and compassionate character as claimed by Christians, then we humans should be loving, merciful and compassionate.  While we humans often are loving, merciful and compassionate in our behavior, we also are often evil in our behavior as seen by the massive amount of evil, pain and suffering facilitated by humans throughout history including evil facilitated by Christians who claim to represent God.  

       Christians point out that the God of the Bible is also seen as a God of judgement, wrath and retribution, especially in the OT. Therefore, if indeed we are made in the image of God who is both loving and wrathful, it would explain why we humans do both good and evil. Skeptics find this as a reasonable explanation for how humans behave the way they do but find it incomprehensible that a good and loving God would allow so much evil, pain and suffering in the world including pain and suffering committed in His name by religious leaders and their followers.

Natural Disasters:

       What about natural disasters we humans have little or no control over.  A lot of pain, suffering and death result from natural disasters.  The Scriptures indicate God is in charge of the weather.  He has the power to allow or prevent hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, droughts and floods.  Why doesn’t He prevent them and thus prevent the untold heartache, misery, pain and suffering that accompany them.  Skeptics insist that because these things occur and a supposed all-powerful good God does nothing to prevent them, He either doesn’t exist or He doesn’t care about the suffering these events cause and therefore He is not a good God but an evil God if He exists at all. 

       Christians respond to the skeptic by saying we must understand that God has created the universe and the laws that govern it. These laws interact with each other leading to cause-and-effect events that occur on a continuous basis at all levels of the creation. It is very apparent that God does not micro manage the universe in the sense that he interferes with the normal dynamics of cause and effect.  God created certain causes which produce certain effects.  He does not generally interfere with this process.

       For example, if God were to prevent earthquakes, He would have to interfere with the working of a number of dynamics that He created as part of the way the universe and earth are structured and work. 

       Skeptics tend to believe that if God exists, earthquakes are capricious acts of an evil God that serves no purpose other than to make life on earth miserable.  The implication is that earthquakes are a flaw in the design of the earth and that if a good God had really designed the earth, He would have had a much better design for the earth that wouldn’t allow for earthquakes and other types of natural occurrences that result in pain and suffering.  This same argument is used in regard to disease.  Skeptics argue that a good God would have better designed the human body and not have it succumb to pathogenic parasites, viruses and bacteria.        

       This argument is used by evolutionists to support their contention that human life is the culmination of millions of years of fortuitous evolutionary development devoid of supernatural involvement. There are millions of life forms competing with each other for survival and in the process experiencing much pain, suffering, distress and death. This being the case, life is seen as too flawed to have been created by a loving and super intelligent designer God.

       Skeptics contend that a loving God would not create life that is subject to the level of pain, suffering and evil extant throughout human history. Therefore, if a supernatural entity called God is the source of physical life, this God is not the loving God depicted in Scripture but a malevolent God who is not concerned with the welfare of the living entities he has created.

       Skeptics see the Christian God defined as love in 1^st John 4:8 and 16. If this is indeed the case, skeptics say such a God should be providing for the maximum welfare of his created Beings. The Greek word rendered love in 1^st John is ἀγάπη (agapē). Greek lexicons define this word as affection, good-will, love and benevolence. Skeptics believe the realities of life clearly show a God fitting this description cannot be the source of life on planet earth. To believe that He is, is seen as illusionary. It is seen as contradictory to the reality of the human experience. To believe a loving/benevolent God is responsible for a creation as flawed as skeptics believe it to be, is seen as antithetical to reality. Therefore, godless evolution or the actions of a malevolent Being of some kind, are seen as a much more realistic explanation of how life forms came to be.   

       Christians counter the perspective that life is too flawed to be the creation of a loving creator God by advocating for the human body being a superb example of intelligent design which demands an intelligent creator God as life’s source. It is maintained by many Christians that the intricacy and complexity of the human body could not have come to be through fortuitous evolutionary processes. It is pointed out that the body has a well-designed immune system to protect it from disease caused by pathogenic organisms. Christians believe that humans have limited the effectiveness of the immune system through a failure to properly nourish the body and maintain wholesome living standards.

       Skeptics see this as a bogus argument by pointing out that humans have been suffering and dying from being infected by pathogenic organisms throughout recorded history. It is questioned why a good God would create or allow such organisms to exist in the first place if He is truly a good and loving God who is concerned about the welfare of his created humans. It is believed a good and loving God would be looking to provide for the maximum well-being for his created humans as opposed to all the suffering extant in the world because of the existence of organisms that can easily harm us and cause intense affliction.  

       Back to earthquakes: Are earthquakes an evil that God should eliminate if He really cares about us.  Science has determined that the reason for the existence of earthquakes is that the earth's continental crusts are floating on the earth's molten mantel.  Since the continents are floating, the plates that make up the continents tend to run into one another from time to time.  When these plates slip past one another, the grinding of these plates produces the release of large amounts of energy.  This causes the plates to shake.  So how could God eliminate this? 

       He could eliminate the mantel and make all the continents fixed in position.  On the surface, it sounds like a good idea.  After all, all other rocky planets in our Solar System have no molten core, and, therefore, no seismic activity.  However, a molten interior of the earth is absolutely essential to the existence of life.  The independent rotation of the molten interior of the earth results in a magnetic dynamo that produces a charged field around the earth.  This magnetic field produces the Van-Allen radiation shield, which protects the earth from radiation bombardment.  If this shield were not present, life would not be possible on the Earth.

       Christians point out that science has determined that electromagnetic radiation has been shown to be absolutely necessary to the ordinary functioning of the universe. It is necessary to the process by which stars produce light and heat. The skeptic will ask why God designed the universe with deadly radiation necessitating the Van-Allen radiation shield. Could He not have designed and created the earth and universe some other way and avoided the suffering caused by earthquakes. 

       Christians point out that God has designed the universe to operate in a synergistic balanced way and has designed our planet in such manner as to support life as God has designed life.  Could God have designed things differently?  Could God have designed the earth where no natural disasters occur?  Of course He could have.  Could God have designed life in such a way that no pain would occur?  Of course He could have.  Could God have designed us humans with limited freewill where we could only choose between good alternatives and not evil alternatives?  Yes, He could have created us in this way.  But He didn't. He created the universe and life forms the way He did and who are we puny humans to argue with Him about it?

       Christians insist that skeptic criticisms about the design of the universe and life forms are superfluous. God designed things the way He did because in his wisdom He determined that this was the best way to design things.  What is, is. While we humans have the freedom to place value judgements on God’s creation, we really have no business questioning, let alone criticizing, God in these matters because God’s ways are truly so much higher than our ways as the Scriptures teach. 

       Christians believe that natural disasters occur because of the natural operation of natural law.  If we humans happen to get in the way of the operation of natural law, we probably will experience pain and suffering.  It is sometimes questioned why people will build a house over a known fault line or in a known flood plain where there is great potential for a calamity to occur.  Sometimes pain and suffering, even when caused by natural disasters, are the result of the choices we humans make. 

       Christians point out that the Scriptures show that God has at times used nature to bring about judgement.  The Noachian Flood is a prime example of such usage.  The humans who faced the flood saw this as a great evil that had come upon them.  In reality, it was a great evil.  It is pointed out that God does create evil at times to facilitate His will.  As already stated, Christians believe God has every sovereign right to do this.  God only does this, however, as a response to sin that is not repented of.  God does not act in capricious ways to inflect pain and suffering on mankind.  God does not deliberately create human suffering so He can sit back and watch people squirm.  God does not get some kind of thrill out of seeing his human creation experience grief and agony. Christians point to the following Scripture as evidence for this.  

       Lamentations 3:32-33: Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men.  

       Verse 33: For he is not predisposed to afflict or to grieve people (NET).

       The Hebrew in verse 33 most often describes one’s initiative or motivation. This passage of Scripture shows it is not God’s internal motivation to bring calamity and trouble upon people.  

       Skeptics see this as bogus teaching. It is believed that the reality of the human experience gives lie to the proposition that God is not predisposed to afflict and grieve His human creation. Billions of people have had to endure evil produced pain, suffering and hardship of all kinds. Billions of people have suffered the effects of "natural disasters" it is believed an all-powerful loving God would not allow to occur. The fact that He does allow these things to occur is seen as proof that either He doesn't exist or He is in fact predisposed to afflict and grieve His human creation. 

       Skeptics see Lamentations 3:32 as nonsense. This passage shows God bringing grief and at the same time showing compassion. It is asked why God would not show compassion to begin with and not bring grief in the first place. Skeptics see this passage as suggesting God brings grief so He can show compassion. This is seen as disconcerting to say the least.  

The afterlife:

       The Christian doctrinal teaching is that the only way to eternal life in the heavenly realm is to acknowledge and accept what Jesus accomplished on the cross to provide salvation from the eternal death penalty of sin. Most Christians believe that the opportunity to accept the sacrifice of Jesus for human sin is limited to this physical life. It is believed that those who die not having had this opportunity, or who reject this opportunity when it is presented, will either be annihilated or suffer eternal conscious punishment in a place called hell.  

       Skeptics are quick to point out that the vast majority of the multiple billions of people who have lived and died have not been given the opportunity to accept Christ as savior. Therefore, the very idea that a loving and merciful good God would consign these billions to annihilation or worse yet, eternal conscious punishment in a place called hell, is seen as absolutely ludicrous. It is seen as being a total absurdity to postulate that a loving and merciful good God, who is seen as creator of the human race (In His image), would allow billions of his created humans to not only have to experience the sufferings of this world but then consign them to eternal conscious suffering because of their failure to respond to the Christian formula for salvation, often through no fault of their own. The skeptic sees this as an absolute contradiction to the concept of a good, loving, merciful and compassionate God.

       Skeptics point out that in the great majority of cases, the religion that one professes depends on where you were born.  A person born to Buddhist parents will likely be a Buddhist. A person born to Islamic parents will be Islamic. A person born in India will be Hindu.  This is true across all religious systems and sects within religious systems. For example, if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Sunni Muslim. If you were born in Iran, you would be a Shite Muslim. This sort of sectarian belief is rampant throughout all religious systems including Christianity.

       Therefore, religious belief is most often not based on rational examination of the beliefs and practices extant in a particular religious system but is based on blind acceptance of what is the cultural norm into which one is born.

       Skeptics believe that if the God of Christianity is truly the one and only true God as is believed and this God is loving, kind, compassionate and merciful as Christians believe, He would not allow such diversity of belief and then ultimately annihilate or eternally punish those (billions of people) who by accident of birth had not become Christian during their life time on planet earth. 

       (For an alternative to this scenario, please read my essay entitled “The case for universal salvation”). 

The Christian Position:

       The Christian position is that God is sovereign. The word sovereign, as it relates to God, means to have absolute power, authority, control and rule over all reality.  In this respect, God is ultimately responsible for all that occurs.  However, as part of God’s rule, He has given mankind freewill to make righteous or unrighteous choices.  In so doing, God has given us power to facilitate good results or bad results and experience the consequences of our actions.  In this respect, God has transferred responsibility to us for our actions.  Therefore, to hold God directly responsible for our evil behavior, which is what skeptics want to do, is seen to be without merit.  

       Evil comes in many forms.  Most evil in the world is caused by human behavior that runs contrary to the law of love.  Some evil is caused by God to punish humans for their evil acts.   Some evil occurs as a result of the forces of nature acting according to established laws.  God, in His sovereignty, has purposed that evil exist.  God has also purposed that we avoid evil by making righteous choices. 

       If evil is to be defined as pain and suffering, then there is good evil such as when we injure ourselves and the pain we experience causes us to treat the injury.  It is good evil when criminals are punished. It is good evil when war is waged against an aggressor who seeks to conquer and destroy. It is good evil when God brings judgement and punishment upon His human creation and holds humans accountable for their behavior.  This does not make God evil any more than we are evil when punishing our children or punishing a criminal.  

      Christian apologists argue that we must understand that God is sovereign and His ways are truly above our ways.  We are not in a position to judge God. We are not in a position to define God in terms of being good or evil as defined by human standards of good and evil. We are not in a position to see things as God sees them and therefore, we are not in a position to define what happens on planet earth in terms of our human concepts of good and evil.

       We can't judge or characterize God using the tenets of our human value systems. If God is defined as good, compassionate and merciful in the Christian Scriptures and we see God doing things that from our human perspective appears to deny such characterization of God, we must realize that these same Scriptures also characterize God as wrathful at times and producing evil. We can't conclude from this that God is an evil God as opposed to a good God.  Our job is to learn as much as we can about God’s ways and live in harmony with those ways.  

The Skeptic Position:

       For the skeptic, the extreme amount of evil causing pain and suffering in the world and the belief that a good God who is defined as loving, kind, compassionate and merciful is ultimately responsible for the existence of such evil causing pain and suffering, is seen as an absolute contradiction. It’s seen as an oxymoron. It’s seen as a non-sequitur argument where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise.

       The premise is that God is a good and all-powerful, all-knowing God of great love, compassion and mercy who has created a good world and its life forms. Upon finishing the creation as recorded in Genesis, it is recorded that God said that everything was good. The skeptic maintains that the reality is that everything is not good. The reality is that the creation is filled with immense pain, suffering and evil which this “good” God is apparently ok with seeing that He allows it, at times directly facilitates it and does nothing to prevent it.

       The Skeptic maintains that the reality is that a world filled with evil, pain and suffering is not ok. A world filled with many natural disasters that cause massive suffering and death is not ok. A world were numerous pathogens cause indescribable pain and suffering and death is not ok. A world where a great amount of criminality, war and violence exists causing untold pain and suffering, often by the innocent, is not ok. A world filled with a great deal of man’s inhumanity toward man is not ok. 

       Skeptics point to the suffering of children and how millions of children, past and present, live in poverty and suffer from malnutrition and starvation. Statistics show that worldwide,10,000 children die daily from hunger and its related effects. The United Nations Children's Fund recently reported that worldwide, an average of 20,000 children are displaced daily by floods and other adverse weather events.  Skeptics point to a Sunday School song that Christians sing that says “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world.  Red and yellow, Black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little Children of the world.”  Skeptics bristle at the hypocrisy of this song.

       The skeptic asks how can a good God (orthodox Christianity postulates that Jesus is God) love the little children of the world but tolerates 10,000 a day dying from hunger and experiencing the pain and suffering of that process? The skeptic sees this as an absolute contradiction to the existence of a good God. The skeptic sees this as undeniable evidence that such a God does not exist. 

       The Christian apologist says that if we see God behaving in ways contrary to His Scriptural characterization as a good, compassionate and merciful God, we must remember He is also characterized as wrathful at times and at times produces evil.  The Skeptic asks how this justifies the tremendous amount of evil extant in the world?  How does acknowledging that God at times is wrathful and at times produces evil make the vast amount of pain and suffering caused by evil somehow acceptable? How does this justify the pain and suffering of 10,000 children dying daily from hunger and its related effects and 20,000 being daily displaced because of adverse weather events?

        Even if it is to be recognized that the good Biblical God is also a God of wrath and at times produces evil against sinners in righteous judgement, how does that justify the massive amount of evil caused pain and suffering not directly caused by God but still allowed by God to exist?  How can the massive amount of pain and suffering resulting from weather events and pathogens attacking the body be justified? These are all evils that occur in addition to the evils caused directly by God as punishment for sin or evils produced by the exercise of human freewill. These are all evils that could easily be prevented be a God who really loved His human creation.  

       The presence of the vast amount of pain and suffering caused by evil would suggest that the supposed good God of Christianity is not producing evil some of the time but all of the time. If not directly producing it, He is allowing it. Since this God supposedly has the power to prevent the evil that causes such wide-spread pain and suffering and yet doesn't do so, it should be clear that if He exists, He is an evil God in that He is perfectly content in seeing His human creation experience the pain and suffering caused by evil which He could largely reduce or prevent altogether if He wanted to.       

Skeptic response to the freewill argument:         

       As to the Christian freewill argument, the skeptic believes it is a bogus argument. The Christian argument is that God gave us a nature that can exercise freewill so we don’t robotically love and obey Him but do so out of choice. The skeptic asks how that justifies a nature that has historically shown a tendency to be self-centered resulting in choices that has created much evil in the world?

       Skeptics ask why God could not have created humans with a nature that has a propensity for making righteous choices. While we could still have freewill and choose not to live righteously, we would have a greater tendency to make righteous choices and thus the amount of evil causing pain and suffering would be greatly reduced.  While humans could still choose behavior that leads to harming others, such choice of behavior would tend to be tempered with a genuine concern as to how such behavior will affect the welfare of others. Having a nature skewed toward practicing the Golden Rule would go a long way toward minimizing warfare, criminality and the many other evils that plague society.  

       Skeptics believe if there truly was a God of love in charge of our world, He would have made humans with a propensity to love their neighbor and thus make choices that would avoid hurting their neighbor. With a propensity to love one's neighbor, humans would gravitate toward resolving conflicts without going to war or engaging in criminal activity.  This would have greatly limited the kind of pain and suffering we see in the world without taking away the freedom to make choices contrary to righteousness.          

       Skeptics ask why a loving God doesn’t prevent us humans from abusing the freewill we were created with.  Since it is believed the Judeo/Christian God is omniscient and knows everything that is going to happen, skeptics ask why would this God not have created circumstances that would have prevented a Hitler, a Stalin or the many other despotic rulers of history from carrying out their evil deeds that caused misery and death for multiple millions of people.   

       Skeptics ask why were humans not created with a much stronger propensity to behave righteously than unrighteously?  While this would still allow for the expression of freewill and freedom of choice, it would greatly limit the making of choices that result in a negative outcome. 

         However, it is apparent to skeptics that if indeed God created us, He felt it necessary to make us humans with a nature that has a propensity to be self-centered and therefore we humans often do not recognize or simply do not care about the harm our choices inflict on others. Because of the nature we have, choices are often made that have grave consequences for others. This can and often does lead to much unnecessary suffering, suffering that could have been prevented if we were made having a nature that maximized righteousness and minimized unrighteousness.

       While it is recognized that many, if not most humans, practice the Golden Rule to the extent that they don’t habitually try to harm others, the history of human behavior shows a distinct tendency for humans to easily behave adversarially toward one another with the result being the generation of much conflict and consequentially much pain and suffering.   

       The skeptic sees this as evidence that the loving God of Christendom doesn’t exist because skeptics believe a loving God would not have created us this way. He would have created us to make choices that would not hurt our neighbor, choices that would greatly limit the massive amount of suffering in the world. He would have created us with the propensity to recognize the negative effects of bad choices and make the necessary corrections because we would not want to hurt our neighbor.  Because this is often not the case, if it should be true that the Christian God created us, He is seen not as a benevolent (good) God but as a malevolent (evil) God for having made us in the manner that He has.

       The skeptic points to the Biblical Scriptures teaching a lot about what is righteous behavior and exhorting humans to live by these teachings. The Scriptures are seen as teaching us the pathway to a life free of war and the inhumanity of man toward man. Yet the Scriptures also show a general inability of man to live by the teachings found in the Scriptures. The OT Scriptures show God repeatedly exhorting Israel to obey the laws He gave them and Israel repeatedly failing to do so with the implication they were unable to do so. This inability is shown to result from the nature we are born with. 

       On the one hand God is seen as giving mankind laws that if obeyed bring happiness, peace and tranquility. At the same time, God is seen as giving man a nature that makes it very difficult if not impossible to live by these laws. To the skeptic, this is an absurdity. The skeptic compares this to a friend loaning his car to someone and telling him not to smash it up and then rigging it so that an accident occurs and the car is smashed up. 

        Furthermore, an evil Being called Satan/Devil, along with evil Beings called demons, are believed by many to be behind the scenes negatively influencing human behavior and causing a great deal of evil causing pain and suffering. It is asked why an all powerful loving  God would allow for this to be?   Why would a loving God allow such evil Beings to influence humans to behave contrary to righteousness and then hold humans responsible for such behavior that was prompted by such Beings?  This too is seen by skeptics as an absurdity. More on this issue in Part Four of this series under the caption "Salvation Theology."   

Skeptic response to the sovereignty argument:

       As to the Christian position that "God is sovereign and His ways are truly above our ways," skeptics point out that this argument is based on the belief that the God of the Christian Scriptures exists. Skeptics maintain that this God doesn't exist. He doesn't exist based on the proposition that a God identified as good, loving, merciful and compassionate would not allow the massive amount of evil historically and presently extant in the world. Since a massive amount of evil does exist, this Christian defined God doesn't exist.  To believe that He does exist is considered illusionary.  It is a massive disconnect with reality.

       Skeptics argue that to believe in such a God is against reason. It is irrational. It is against common sense. It is believed the evidence overwhelmingly shows this Christian defined God does not exist and therefore it should become intuitive that this God does not exist. To believe this Christian defined God exists is seen as incompatible with the human experience of massive suffering caused by evils that could and should be prevented by a supposed good, loving, merciful and compassionate God. 

       As mentioned above, skeptics point out that it is recorded in 1^st John 4:8 and 16 that God is love. As covered above, the Greek word rendered love is ἀγάπη (agapē) which Greek Lexicons define as “affection, good-will, love, benevolence.”  This kind of love is often defined as outgoing concern for the welfare of others.

       The idea of a God having outgoing concern for his human creation is seen as totally incompatible with the reality of the massive amount of evil, pain and suffering extant in the world.  It is maintained by skeptics that God, if He really exists and is love, would not have created a world with so much pain and suffering as is in evidence. He would not have created a world that is filled with the level of evil that is present on planet earth.

       Psalm 148:8-9 says, “The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.”  Skeptics scoff at the contention of this writer that God is kind, loving and compassionate and good to all. Skeptics see this as illusionary on the part of the writer. It is asked how one can describe God in this manner when all the evidence points to this description being false. It is asked how you can say God is gracious and compassionate, rich in love and good to all when the human experience/condition screams out against such a conclusion.    

       It is concluded that the loving, merciful and compassionate God postulated by Christians does not exist based on the evidence. Given the massive quantity of evil and its accompanying pain and suffering extant throughout human history, it is believed it to be ludicrous to believe that a loving all-powerful God is in charge and yet does nothing to prevent the evil, pain and suffering that is extant and that somehow this is ok.

      As noted at the beginning of this essay, Rabbi Richard L Rubenstein, author of the book After Auschwitz, concluded that the evil in the concentration camps is simply incompatible with the God defined in Judaism and Christianity as a God of love and compassion. Rabbi Rubenstein concluded that since the reality of evil cannot be denied, mankind should abandon any notion of a personal God of love.  The skeptic wholeheartedly agrees with this assessment.

       The skeptic would also wholeheartedly agree with the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC) who is reported to have said “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot; he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?” 

Deist Alternative: 

       It must be pointed out that not all skeptics are atheists or agnostics. Those convinced there is no God can be rightly called atheist. Those ambivalent about such existence can be rightly called agnostic. However, there are other skeptics who can be called deist or theist. Deists/theists believe in a higher power being responsible for the existence of the universe and life forms but this power is not seen as being directly involved in the creation or maintenance of the universe or life forms.

       Deists believe a higher power has set in motion various processes (such as evolution) which has resulted in the creation of the universe and life forms. Under this perspective, God has simply allowed things to develop as they have according to processes He has established and continues to sustain. Under this perspective, God is off the hook, so to speak, as being directly responsible for the evil here on planet earth.  The Deist God is not characterized as good or evil, loving or unloving. He is simply seen as a supernatural agent that is the ultimate source (cause) for the existence of the universe and life forms. 

       Deists do not believe in divine revelation through books such as the Bible, the Koran or the many other religious documents produced throughout history.  Deists believe in human reason as the pathway to understanding the reality of the creation and life. Under this perspective, God, as defined in the Bible and in other such documents, is nothing more than a man-made deity. In essence, man is seen in such documents as making God in his (man's) image rather than man being made in the image of God.

       It is interesting that some of America's founding fathers were Deists (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and others). George Washington, John Adams and James Madison were considered Christian Deists in that they embraced some Christian doctrinal teaching but strongly believed in the Deist teaching that reason was the pathway to truth. 

       Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) believed in a supreme creator God but saw much of the Biblical narrative as man-made ideas. He saw Jesus as a great moral teacher but rejected the supernatural events recorded in the Bible including the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and the recorded miracles of Jesus. Jefferson created his own Bible by cut and pasting from the Bible only the moral teaching of Jesus.  

       Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) stated in his autobiography that he became a "thorough deist" as a teenager after reading books intended to refute deism and finding the deist arguments more compelling than the religious defenses. Franklin rejected orthodox Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Like Jefferson, he expressed great respect for the moral teachings of Jesus but also, as was true of Jefferson, did not believe Jesus to be the Son of a God.  Franklin did believe the God of the universe was active in the world. This was somewhat of a departure from classical deists who believe God is in control but does not generally become involved in the affairs of the world. 

       Thomas Paine (1737-1809) is seen as the Father of the American Revolution. His two pamphlets called "Common Sense" and "The American Crisis," published in 1776, played an important role in the development of the American Revolution. While believing in a supreme Being, in his document entitled “The Age of Reason,” Paine called Christianity a fable.

       In commenting on the atrocities recorded in the OT, Paine wrote, "To believe the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God.  To read the Bible without horror, we must undo everything that is tender, sympathizing and benevolent in the heart of man."

       For more perspective on reason alone being used to argue for the existence of God go to “Arguments for the existence of God.”    

       As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, I will look at the issues discussed in this ongoing series from the perspective of an outsider looking in on the arguments presented by both Christians and skeptics. I will not make any value judgments one way or the other but let the reader decide what is most probable. In Part Two of this series, I will address the issue of morality and the existence of God  

PART TWO

                                         SKEPTICISM

          AND

    CHRISTIANITY

    NAVIGATION

     PART ONE

The problem of evil and the existence of God

The nature of evil

Behavioral evil

The freewill argument

Does God create evil?

The necessity of evil

Natural disasters 

The after life

The Christian position

The skeptic position

Skeptic response to the freewill argument

Skeptic response to the sovereignty argument

      The deist               alternative                                PART TWO

Morality and the existence of God

Moral relativity/situation ethics

Moral behavioral consistency

Objective right and wrong

Moral Law and Divine Purpose

Summary

PART THREE

Behavior of the Biblical God

The Noachian flood

Sodom and Gomorrah

Killing of the first born of Egypt

The killing of the Levite Uzzah

David takes a census

A lion kills the prophet

The mauling of forty-two boys

Samson and his wife

Judges 19-21

God wanting to kill Moses

The angry God of Mt. Sinai

The Numbers 11 incident 

The Midianite destruction

  Instructional    contradiction 

Supernatural involvement

PART FOUR

Doctrinal Disillusionment

Overview of Christian belief

The skeptic     perspective   

 Diverse Christian Beliefs

The nature of God

After death theology

The return of Christ

  Kingdom of God

 Miscellaneous doctrinal differences

 Celebration of Christ's birth

Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition

 Saturday or Sunday?

 Water baptism

 Scriptural integrity

Salvation theology

 The “unsaved” dead

Strange sayings of Jesus

Unanswered Prayer

A Christian  response 

 The skeptics last word

Conclusion