I wish I could say that Justin at Consider Atheism has posted some more of his thoughts on the Problem of Evil and how to refute my defeater of it, but unfortunately they are the embarrassingly weak responses of Dawson Bethrick. I suppose that is at once both good and bad. On the one hand, it is good that such a train wreck didn’t come from his own brain. But it is bad, on the other hand, that he didn’t approach the problem with critical thinking of his own, despite my hope that he would, choosing instead to publish Bethrick’s response (but mostly in Justin’s own words).

Originally Bethrick tried to save Justin’s argument by using Isaiah 45:7 to prove that evil is indeed something God creates. Justin was rather enlivened by this passage and brought it to my attention in the comments area of my first article. And I proceeded to show him why he should probably not get too excited about arguments that Bethrick uses by showing him what the passage is actually talking about. And as to be expected, Bethrick responded (at Justin’s site). I was going to send Justin a private email about this and tell him that he would score critical thinking points if he could identify what was wrong with Bethrick’s response. But it seems I didn’t get off work soon enough, for by the time I got home Justin had uncritically regurgitated the train wreck in a new blog post, so now this gets to be done in public instead. Readers of the Aristophrenium know that I don’t mind dismantling logically bankrupt arguments from atheists who pretend to esteem reason—to put it kindly—but I was really hoping to save Justin the embarrassment because I like him. “Before you invest yourself in Bethrick’s response,” I was going to write him, “evaluate it critically for logical flaws.” Anybody can teach people what to think, but I want to teach people how to think, and few things achieve that goal quite like learning how to critically evaluate an argument.

But if he wishes to do this publically, I’m willing to oblige him. Let’s have a look.

Justin begins by restating what his Problem of Evil argument is, and then indicates (somewhat inaccurately) the nature of my rebuttal against it. But the remainder of his post amounts to paraphrasing Bethrick’s response, that although Isaiah 45:7 does not describe God creating evil per se, it can still be inferred since calamities are evil. Therefore, his argument still stands. But does it?

No, because it is probably invalid.

Before I get into how it is invalid, let me answer one of his initial questions (which isn’t actually his question, but rather Bethrick’s). He does not understand what relevant difference there is between ‘calamity’ and ‘evil’. Although Justin does not consider himself a philosopher, he does study philosophy as a hobby. But he readily admits that there are topics he may not even be aware of so I don’t think anyone can fault him for not recognizing the clear and obvious difference; this may fall into one of those areas about which he is not aware.

What is the difference between ‘calamity’ and ‘evil’? This question invokes important philosophical categories; i.e., it’s the difference between descriptive and normative. On the one hand, ‘calamity’ is descriptive, involving matters of fact which describe the world of ‘is’. For instance, the proposition “An earthquake hit San Diego” is a factual statement which does not assert whether it is good or bad. On the other hand, ‘evil’ is normative, involving matters of ideals or values which prescribe the world of ‘ought’. The proposition “Rape is wrong” is a moral statement which does not assert whether a rape has occurred or not.

That is the relevant difference between ‘calamity’ (factual statement) and ‘evil’ (moral statement). But Justin implies that calamities are regarded as evil, invoking examples such as a terrorist bombing. And I doubt anyone would disagree with him. But what he does not seem to realize is that this assumes a particular moral view because a calamity in and of itself is not evil, for ‘evil’ is a moral term that is meaningless without a moral theory to fill it with meaning. So on what basis is Justin claiming that such calamities are moral evils? This question directly affects the integrity of his argument because he is raising a Problem of Evil argument! His argument must contend with the Christian view under its own terms; if he imports a definition of ‘evil’ that is foreign to Christian theology (which I provided in my first response), then he ends up addressing a view that is either different from or weaker than what Christianity actually affirms, which renders his argument an invalid straw man, leaving Christianity unchallenged (as I had already pointed out to him once before).

To review his argument for atheism, it can be seen that he is trying to set up either a contradiction or an internal inconsistency in the Christian view in order to conclude with the reasonable non-existence of God. But to do this he must confront Christianity under its own terms, which includes the Christian moral theory (that moral order is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands). So if he wants to show that God creates evil using this sort of reasoning—

(P1) God creates calamities. (From Isaiah 45:7)

(P2) Calamities are evil. (From where?)

(C1) Therefore, God creates evil. (From P1 and P2)

—then he must prove (P2) under the Christian moral theory, i.e., that calamities are contrary to the nature or will of God. Again, if he proves (P2) under a moral theory that is foreign to Christian theology, then his argument would be rendered invalid by the straw man fallacy, for it would address a view different from or weaker than what Christianity itself affirms.

I would encourage Justin to interact with me in a critical evaluation before deciding that Bethrick (or anyone else) has raised an excellent point; through applying critical thinking skills to real world examples, which I would be happy to join him on, he could go far in learning and cultivating how to think like a rational skeptic. We can do this publically, of course, but my email address is on the Contact Us page too.

Other related Aristophrenium articles: