Have you ever heard anyone claim something to the effect:
- A loving god would not allow so much evil in the world.
- I cannot believe in god because of all the evil in the world.
- If god were love, why is there so much evil in the world?
From these statements, it seems that the problem of evil is evolutionist’s and materialist’s biggest alley. So much so that one could conclude that evil proves evolution by eliminating God, the moral law giver.
While the existence of evil is a psychologically daunting challenge for theism, it is not the rational problem most people think.
There are two self-evident facts about the way the world is.
First, Global – Each person on the planet knows that something is morally wrong with the world. We know it and say or at least think, “that ain’t right” quite often. This complaint crosses our minds often and on a multitude of issues. We know that things are not just broken, they are bad. And these things should not be this way. This statement is the complaint about evil and God and the people who demonstrate evil and cruelty; Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Chairman Mao, Colonel Gaddafi , etc.
Second, Personal – When we say, “that ain’t right”, we are not saying we do not like what is happening as a personal preference. We mean we don’t like it because we actually think and have been convinced it is wrong. This is the struggle between moral objectivity and moral relativism; embezzling company retirement funds (Enron), abortion, child support, racism, etc.
Here is a question to help us hash this out: Is it wrong to beat a child for fun?
Now, is this act really evil to all people or is this act evil to most but not all? In other words, is this act objectively evil or relatively evil? Are you convinced that the action is objective evil or merely a subjective preference? Which is it for you?
Would you agree that the problem of evil is only a problem if there is real evil in the world? I hope you agree that there is real evil in the world. If you don’t agree after hearing the news about mass killings that our country has experience, then get some help.
Now in your examination of evil, where does the standard of evil come from ? The standard you use to say, “than ain’t right”? What standard allows you to make a legitimate judgement that some things are really, truly, terribly bad?
Do you get it from your mind-dependent-personal-preference morality – relativism? If evil is merely a matter of subjective opinion, there is no objective problem of evil. What has the skeptic been complaining about if there is no objective evil? More personal, what have you been complaining about?
It makes no sense to say things are not the way they are supposed to be unless there is a way they are supposed to be. There can’t be a way a “supposed to be way” unless there is a standard for judging what is and is not supposed to be. It is impossible to make moral law statements without a moral law giver who sets the standard of what is suppose to be.
Why can I say this? Because we could not have gotten our moral laws from nature where there is stealing shelter, food, and mates. Evolution law of Survival of the Fittest cannot produce our society that protects the weak, non-productive, and innocent – the unfit.
It actually gets worse. How can we have objective values, duties, or obligations in a world consisting only of matter? You cannot even make sense of the problem of evil?
Formally: If there is no God, there is no objective morality. But there is objective morality (as evidenced by the problem of evil). Therefore, some type of moral law giver exist.
A naturalist has two choices at this point if he wants to be intellectually honest.
- Cling to relativism and drop his objection about evil in the world. Surrender his complaint about evil.
- Make the smart choice by salvaging his common sense complaint about evil at the expense of atheism. No materialistic scheme can account for immaterial moral obligations.
Rather than evil being good evidence against God, evil in the world is one of the best arguments against the theory of evolution and for God.
When tragedy falls, we ask, where is God? Why didn’t God intervene? The impulse is to reject the idea of God because he did not show up but what do you get in the trade? You get blind indifference of evolution.
If you have denied a moral law giver, you live in a materialistic world. In the materialist world, whatever drove you away from God (the tragedy, accident) you cannot call wicked or evil. You can only call it stuff you do not like.
Isn’t it interesting that after a school shootings, the city does not call the atheist club or skeptic magazine. They call the pastors to give us rest in these tragic events. The pastors have an explanation and a solution.
The world view with a moral law giver fits reality because it is about the problem of evil. That evil person will face justice. Materialist cannot say this. There is no next life to satisfy justice. There is not even the moral thing called justice in a world of materialism and survival of the fittest.
Do you desire or hope in the day when evil will be no more?
Summary: The problem of evil is only a problem if evil is real. To say something is evil, is to make a moral judgment. Moral judgments require a moral standard, or a moral law. A moral law requires a moral law author. Therefore, since there is a problem of evil then God exists. He is the best explanation for the way things are.
Is Evolution A Theory? No, because it does not fit reality and account for evil.