The Problem of Pointless Evil
Atheistic philosopher Michael Martin believes that the existence of abundant, seemingly pointless evil, without full moral explanation from God for such atrocities, is proof that God probably does not exist.[1]
This classic argument from evil to the non-existence of God is full of miscalculations and errors of judgment about the possible nature of God, the possible purposes of God, and the possible blind spots of humanity in understanding a divine plan.
In this post, I will point out a number of Martin’s errors in dealing with the problem of evil. This will set up a context of misunderstanding upon which to discuss the noseeum arguments that Martin espouses. I will then show how proper perspectives, if given the benefit of the doubt to see if they work in a system, will show that God (as described by the Bible) is of such a nature, has such a purpose, and has such power as to bring about His plan, including many evil acts, many of which seem pointless.
MARTIN’S ERRORS
1. If God is all good, He wants to prevent evil
Martin begins his discussion by setting out the problem of evil this way. “God is by definition all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. If God is all-powerful, He can prevent evil. If God is all knowing and can prevent evil, He knows how to prevent it. If God is all-good, He wants to prevent evil. But since there is evil, God cannot exist.”[2]
Most of this argument seems sound and strong[3] with the major exception of one word – “wants.” God is certainly all-good, but does it necessarily follow that an all-good God would want to prevent evil?
Martin must concede, and does, that God might have a greater good and purpose in mind by allowing evil to occur. In which case the evil actually leads to the good and is thus a necessary part of it. This means the basic problem of evil as stated on page 335 crumbles and must be revamped in order to prove useful to the atheist.
Revamping has occurred. Martin shows us that if God exists He might allow some evil to occur for the greater good, but now the question becomes, Why so much evil? Furthermore, Why pointless evil?
Atheists must travel this avenue with the problem of evil if they truly wish to use this argument against the existence of God. Let me restate this point, just because God is all-good does not necessarily imply that He wants to prevent all evil.
2. God having Purposes in All Pointless Suffering is Just too Incredible
A second error Martin commits is not being able to image a God with a purpose big enough to allow all the seemingly pointless evil that exists. Martin quotes and apparently agrees with William Rowe, “It is incredible that ‘all instances of suffering that served no greater good we know or can think of should nevertheless be such that none could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without loss of greater good.’”[4]
This quote reveals that it is against Martin’s philosophical rules that God might be too big for Him to understand. Martin seems to demand of God, given His existence, that He explain His actions and allowances in the universe – especially as they pertain to apparently pointless evil. Rowe and Martin agree that God would never do anything that the two of them could not fully comprehend and be able to put into philosophical jargon. Forgive my hyperbole and slight, but serious sarcasm.
If I lived in a cave in northern Alaska all of my life, with no television, no newspaper, no radio, no modern conveniences, no cars, and no contact with the outside world, then I would probably be like Martin is toward God, when it comes to things in the world. For example, if a city-slicker found me one day in my cave and told me that there was a place with towers made of steel and glass that stretched up to the clouds, I would probably say, “That is just too incredible to believe.” What if he told me that I could get into a box that rolled around on wheels to get from one place to another? Why, that would seem ridiculous! Nonetheless, we know these things exist (skyscrapers and cars). Just because a person does not have the ability to believe something is true does not make it untrue.
God might have a purpose for allowing abundance of seemingly pointless evil that Michael Martin cannot even imagine. Just because he cannot imagine it, or that it seems incredible, does not make the claim false.
3. Expanded Theism is Restricted
I take issue with Martin’s attempt to push expanded theism aside in this argument. He argues that since expanded theism (including orthodox Christianity) entails restricted theism, then expanded theism can be no more probable than restricted theism.[5]
This argument might have some theoretical validity, but not when it comes to philosophical examination – for the purpose of finding truth. When attempting to see if a whole system is probable, one should give benefit of doubt on certain points in order to place in other points to see if they work together. Rowe (and Martin) will not allow this. In order to keep the argument in their favor, they discount the possibility of looking at orthodox Christianity as a whole by grasping to this probability argument. This is a willing blind spot that leads to acceptance of many errors.
4. There is no Positive Evidence for God’s Existence
A fourth error in Martin’s chapter deals with his perception that there is no “positive evidence for the existence of God.” In one place, he calls arguments for the existence of God “bankrupt.”
This is clearly an unfair assessment of the arguments for God’s existence. There are many arguments for God’s existence, such as the Kalaam Cosmological argument, that have kept philosophers up at night trying to find answers. Martin might believe that he has successfully countered all of these arguments, but to postulate that they are bankrupt is absurd.
Martin is stuck maintaining this ridiculous position because he attempts to uphold Rowe’s Direct Inductive Argument from Evil, which says that if we had positive evidence that God existed and had a morally sufficient reason for allowing seemingly pointless evil then it would be more likely that God does indeed have a morally sufficient reason for allowing seemingly pointless evil.
Martin stubbornly repeats his notion that such evidence is absent. This is kind of like looking directly at a house and holding to the belief that the house is not there or either that it is merely an illusion. The arguments for the existence of God may not be airtight, they might have many weak spots, but certainly no more than atheistic arguments against God’s existence and certainly not enough to call them “bankrupt.”
5. Acceptance of Noseeum Argumentation
Finally, we see Martin accepting the Noseeum argument, a terrible logical and practical error. Basically stated, “Because I cannot see the reason why something might happen, then obviously there is no reason why it happens.” To make this argument is to claim divinity for oneself. As stated under 2 above, this error puts God in your pocket and refuses to accept that God might do something that you cannot understand or see.
My wife was searching for the mixed nuts the other day. She searched, looked, examined here and there. To her knowledge they were gone, either all eaten or thrown away. She could not see them, even though they were right there on the counter just in front of her. I could see them all the way across the room. She assumed they were gone because she could not see them. They were there all the time.
Just because Martin cannot see or understand the reasons why God would allow lots of seemingly pointless evil does not mean automatically that there is no reason for it. His reasoning is filled with error.
PROPER PERSPECTIVES
There are times when the Atheist uses a big picture perspective to make a case against theism, and it seems to work. For example, the Teliological argument for the existence of God states simply that because the universe is orderly and has design, then there must be a Designer. An atheist might reply that the universe only seems to have design. If we could take a big picture look at it all, from beginning to end, we would see the true nature of the universe – chaos and randomness.
Of course, we could make many counter arguments against this perspective, but my point is that atheists sometimes take a big picture view in order to make an argument. In the case of Michael Martin and the problem of evil, however, Martin refuses to take a big picture view. He cannot imagine God doing something beyond the empirical senses of humanity.
I believe that the problem of evil, in all its phases, melts when placed in the proper big picture perspective.[6] God has revealed that He is doing something large – bigger than the scale of humanity’s wildest imagination. Part of this plan involves suffering – lots of it. Much of which humans cannot even begin to understand, but it is all part of an eternal tapestry that God Himself is weaving. If it were possible to see His view on this, given that He exists, then all the seemingly pointless evil would make sense.
If the Bible is true, then God has an overriding purpose that all things fulfill – that of His own glory. Given the truth of this axiom, God does all things for His own Glory, then evil of all kinds makes sense.
What of the helpless fawn in the wilderness, shocked by lightening? Why did this creature suffer so? Perhaps his suffering is part of a bigger suffering that is inflicted upon all of creation. The bible tells us this is true. All of creation is subject to sin. If this incident is taken in isolation, then sure, we might be hard pressed to find some morally sufficient reason for God to allow it to exist, but if the whole plan of God to glorify Himself is taken as a backdrop, then this little creature’s suffering is part of the tapestry that God is weaving to that end.
But how does suffering glorify God? Briefly, suffering refines. God is refining humanity, thus they must suffer. God is refining creation, thus creation suffers. The refined result profoundly honors God, glorifying His name. Thus, all suffering tends to the glory of God in some way. The Bible teaches this as true. I love this cliché, “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” This is true of the universe and humanity.
Consider this passage from the book of James. “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (James 1:2-4).[7]
According to this scripture passage, and many others like it, the process of suffering itself is the agent that produces character qualities that ultimately glorify God.[8]
If Martin will not give benefit of doubt enough to place this entire system together (and apart from the Spirit’s illumination), then he will never understand why God allows evil of all kinds. If Martin maintains that he must personally be able to see the purpose behind the suffering, then again, he will never understand how God allows evil of all kinds.
For another article on the fallacies in the problem of evil, read Dr. Steve Cowan.
NOTES
[1] Martin, Michael, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 335.
[2] ibid, p. 335.
[3] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, “God, Evil, and Suffering,” Reason for the Hope Within, p. 83-84. Here Howard-Snyder examines the strengths and weaknesses of the basic argument from evil.
[4] Martin, p. 337.
[5] Referencing Rowe, Martin uses a complicated technical argument to show this, p. 338-339.
[6] Geisler, Norman, Christian Apologetics, p. 227. “It is possible that all suffering is deserved and that it is God’s mercy which saves men from more suffering which they do deserve.” This is an example of looking at this issue from God’s point of view instead of humanity’s.
[7] Consider also the following passage. “For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps” (I Peter 2:20-21).
[8] In regard to the rest of creation, including animals, consider this passage. “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now” (Romans 8:20-22).