I wrote the article on “Atheism” for Creation Ministries International (CMI).
Occasionally, I am made aware of comments made to the article and I mostly ignore them since well, you can imagine. Just read my series Atheism and Creation Ministries International to get an idea…various ideas.
Yet, I recently responded to one and thought that it may be useful to post here.
The comment stated:
Heavily researched but typically weak Christianity-based attack on atheism.
How on earth can I, or any other thinking adult, accept a dismissal of Epicurus’ lethal refutation of the existence of god on the grounds that, well, god really wants to eliminate evil, and he can do it, but he will do it in his own time?
You can use this insane argument to justify the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Use Occam’s Razor rather than convoluted arguments to analyze godly inaction.
There is no god.
I doubt you will publish this, since your selection of published comments is limited to expressions of adulation (from Christians) and expressions of anger (from non-Christians), which strongly suggests bias.
This is what I sent in as a response:
I suppose that “Heavily researched” means something to the likes of: so backed with facts that I will not respond to the substance of it.
The fact is that it is logically airtight to note that Epicurus’ attempted refutation of the existence of God via the problem of evil is answered by appealing to God having His own time table and reasons.
This is part of atheism’s theology and it is dogmatic: according to the commentator’s atheistic theology, God must do away with evil instantly, or never have allowed it in the first place, etc. This is so dogmatic that if another theology does not agree that theology is excommunicated and anathematized after being compared to the atheist’s theology.
It seems to me that the atheist is presupposing an absolute standard of what is “evil” and that, moreover, via this unstated presupposition they are condemning God for not eliminating evil. Yet, the condemnation is just another absolute moral judgment. Atheists tend to end up piling assertion upon assertion upon assertion which creates an infinite regress of unfounded assertions.
You see, this is the difficulty for the atheist: while it is possible that God has a reason for allowing evil—temporarily—the atheist knows that atheism has no reason for evil, evil just is (just as the universe, life, etc.). Moreover, according to atheism—generally speaking—“evil,” in various forms, is actually beneficial to our evolution. In this case “evil” is not “evil” but “evil” is “good”—at least until we humans decide to call “good” “evil” and “evil” “good.” This is why, for example, atheists have stated that rape played a beneficial role in our evolution and, in fact, all of evolution is based on suffering and death: suffering and death are beneficial. Bottom line is that atheism makes evil even worse by guaranteeing that it has no greater meaning (it only has the purpose of benefiting evolution). Also, since on atheism there is absolute autonomy and lack of ultimate accountability, in essence, the evildoer gets to enjoy themselves and then…then nothing, they simply get away with it.
Therefore, since atheism offers no (transcendent) justice it is itself unjust and that is why, at bottom, there are no atheist ethics or morals of which to speak but only atheists picking and choosing in-group benefiting behaviors (until they decide to change their minds).
Now, as for the Flying Spaghetti Monster; I am afraid that this denotes great lack of knowledge as to natural theology aka general revelation which is what we can infer about the cause of that which exists. The very best in philosophy and science is employed in order to infer that which creation implies: that there is a creator and that even some of the creator’s characteristic may be discerned. Since I wrote about this subject I will direct you to the following essay in which I consider this issue and put the YHVH, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and even the Invisible Pink Unicorn’s to the test of natural theology/general revelation:
On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al., part 1 of 4
As for Occam’s Razor; I find that those who appeal to Occam’s Razor the most understand it the least. Apparently, the Christian man, Occam, did not realize that he disproved God’s existence :o)
Lastly, the commentator is a positive/strong atheist in that they are positively affirming God’s non-existence, “There is no god.” Note that the only “evidence” of this, the only argument is that since the God of the Bible does not adhere to the atheist’s particular theology—dogma—then the God of the Bible does not exist. Yet, why should we, why should God, adhere to the atheist’s theology?
Lastly, I did not bother dealing with the last statement in my response but what is biased? CMI’s selection of published comments or the comments themselves? When they publish an article that criticizes atheism (found at creation.com/atheism) it is pretty standard that Christians will express adulation and non-Christians will express anger. The fact that CMI published both suggests fairness.
The atheist’s syllogism is, in essence: 1) Evil exists and is bad. 2) If God is then God could and would be willing and able to abolish evil now (or not allow it in the first place).
3) Therefore, since evil is not abolished now (and does exist) God does not exist.
Yet, 1) God does not have to adhere to the atheist’s theology, logic or morals and 2) since there is an airtight defeater, in the form of God having a reason for what He does, the syllogism does not hold.
Yet, in any regard this one amounted to an emotional appeal backed only by dogmatheism.
